[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

I really could have some fun ripping this apart, its a translation fron Ancient Greek consequently the answer "I am" can also be read as The I am is here.

I suppose you are using one of the newer dumbed down version of the Bible, I use the older and more reliable Catholic Bible, upbringing sorry to say

and sitting at gods right hand should be read as sitting at the right hand of the power,

they are both quotes from scriptures namely Exod 3:14 and Ps 110:1 see also Dan 7:13.

It wasnt an affirmation of being the Christ, it was an answer to question the high priests right to question him. throughout his ministry he challenged the Pharisees and priests, this was a direct challenge against the authority of the Sanhedrin.


As in the case of the John references as well:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”

Bear i mind though John was again wrote in Anciet Greek so the translation we have do not draw on the full context of the original Aramaic words the man himself used .

While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I really could have some fun ripping this apart,
snip

You really could have some fun ripping apart basic Christian doctrine that has survived and flourished for 2000 odd years?

That is probably the most arrogant and self-righteous statement that Tibb will get in 2010.

Others far, far greater than you have tried and failed.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

snip

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

this whole paragraph is nonsensical and just plain incorrect,

Mark was written mid to late 50s AD to mid to late 60s AD

John was written 70-100 AD

Mark was eyewitness dictation from Peter

John was an apostle, one of the 12 disciples ("the disciple whom Jesus loved"), John the son of Zebedee.


This is not my own personal opinion it is historical accepted fact which can be fully checked online or in any modern study Bible.

and the Bible translation I use is the ESV if you can prove to me that the Catholic Bible (which uses the vulgate) uses better sources and more up to date manuscript and sources than the ESV that would be just grand.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

You really could have some fun ripping apart basic Christian doctrine that has survived and flourished for 2000 odd years?

That is probably the most arrogant and self-righteous statement that Tibb will get in 2010.

Others far, far greater than you have tried and failed.

Thats why everyone believes in Jesusand the Gospels isnt it, because it cant be ripped apart. Incidentally it was your interpretation of the passages you quoted that i referred to.

Basic Christian tenets are mulled over argued over and ripped apart in churches, schools and seminaries everyday and have been since shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven, so no its not arrogant and self righteous, Get over it.

Believing the words that are put in front of you are the words of God, who had them wrote specially for you is And that your interpretation or beliefs in them is the only correct belief or interpretation is.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

This is not my own personal opinion it is historical accepted fact which can be fully checked online or in any modern study Bible.

and the Bible translation I use is the ESV if you can prove to me that the Catholic Bible (which uses the vulgate) uses better sources and more up to date manuscript and sources than the ESV that would be just grand.

As for their actual date of origin, no one can say, the dates you quote are the earliest best guess, however when the author called Mark wrote his gospel he was aware of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing, this happened in 70 AD/CE.

As for being a dictation from Peter. Peter knew the area where he had been born and lived, Mark obviously hadnt been there, this is evidenced by some of the accounts of the travels of Jesus.

Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Glasgow and Dublin. See also Mark 11:1. Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. this could also rule out a direct dictation, couldnt it?

The earliest accurate historical reference to the Gospels as belonging to any particular writer wasn't until the 2nd century AD.

As for John the apostle being the actual author of the gospel bearing his name thats is extremely unlikely, its possible a student of his started it, however studies of it has shown it being penned by at least two people. A fact born out by the Gospel itself, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',

It is more than likely the three synoptic gospels were drawn from one historical source whether this was Mark itself or the Gospel of the Hebrews or even the mythical Q document, who knows.

But if you want to believe that the apostles who's names they bear wrote them, feel free, thats what Faith is about.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Thats why everyone believes in Jesusand the Gospels isnt it, because it cant be ripped apart. Incidentally it was your interpretation of the passages you quoted that i referred to.

Your claim was that it was not Biblical to claim that Jesus did proclaim that he was God and that it incorrect. It may be worth asking what you think Jesus was?



Basic Christian tenets are mulled over argued over and ripped apart in churches, schools and seminaries everyday and have been since shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven, so no its not arrogant and self righteous, Get over it.

Christians believe that Jesus is God. The Bible teaches that God is one in essence, three in Person: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is fully God. God is not three gods but three in one. This is not a mathematical contradiction. Although humans cannot completely grasp the paradox of the tri-unity of God, we trust His revelation is true. Christians do not believe in three gods. Our one God manifests Himself in three Persons. If you do not believe that then you are not a Christian

Believing the words that are put in front of you are the words of God, who had them wrote specially for you is And that your interpretation or beliefs in them is the only correct belief or interpretation is.

Sorry that does not make sense!


As for their actual date of origin, no one can say, the dates you quote are the earliest best guess, however when the author called Mark wrote his gospel he was aware of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing, this happened in 70 AD/CE.

These dates are commonly held by our best Biblical historians and the Christian Church.

As for being a dictation from Peter. Peter knew the area where he had been born and lived, Mark obviously hadnt been there, this is evidenced by some of the accounts of the travels of Jesus.

Is a minority view and not commonly held by the Christian Church

Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Glasgow and Dublin. See also Mark 11:1. Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. this could also rule out a direct dictation, couldnt it?

as above

The earliest accurate historical reference to the Gospels as belonging to any particular writer wasn't until the 2nd century AD.

Not sure what you are driving at but i can see how far down the Wikipedia page for the Gospel of Mark you are!

As for John the apostle being the actual author of the gospel bearing his name thats is extremely unlikely, its possible a student of his started it, however studies of it has shown it being penned by at least two people. A fact born out by the Gospel itself, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',

Biblical evidence and external evidence from church fathers suggest that you are wrong as does the Christian Church and 2000 yeas of Christianity

It is more than likely the three synoptic gospels were drawn from one historical source whether this was Mark itself or the Gospel of the Hebrews or even the mythical Q document, who knows.

But if you want to believe that the apostles who's names they bear wrote them, feel free, thats what Faith is about.

all of what you say seems to have been gleaned from Wikipedia. I would suggest that rather than relying on that you rely on Biblical and historical weight of evidence.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

all of what you say seems to have been gleaned from Wikipedia. I would suggest that rather than relying on that you rely on Biblical and historical weight of evidence.

So the bible is 100% factually true?

God made the first man, Adam and the first women, Eve and everyone else is descended from them?

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

Yes but all you are doing is proving out what I told you.
First off - part of the reason YOU EVEN KNOW about early Christian sects (and gnostics definitely make up a lot of them) is because this is not only referred to in the New Testament itself,
but,
also because early church leaders (before Nicea) wrote about them, wrote about where they went wrong and wrote about how they were NOT squaring with the church at large or the leadership,
and
if you ever want confirmation on that then you get Nicea where it starts with almost every representative from every region ALREADY understanding.. as a 'given'... that Jesus is God incarnate.
In fact the 'big debate' is over Arius and a couple of his friends who DONT actually deny anything,
but,
have some nearly 'definition games' over just what exactly 'essence' might mean.

And a reminder that listing exceptions to the rule - proves the rule.
You can list me Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and keep going with handfuls of little cults
(if you list names it makes it sound more over-whelming),
but,
65 wacky fringe denominations don't change the fact that some 1 billion people from Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Presbys, Lutherans, Methodists... really any and all massive main denominations all agree on the Divinity of Christ.
It might even be a rare thing we all DO entirely agree on.

To say "every christian has a different idea of this" is about as wrong as wrong can get.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

also because early church leaders (before Nicea) wrote about them, wrote about where they went wrong and wrote about how they were NOT squaring with the church at large or the leadership,
and
if you ever want confirmation on that then you get Nicea where it starts with almost every representative from every region ALREADY understanding.. as a 'given'... that Jesus is God incarnate.
In fact the 'big debate' is over Arius and a couple of his friends who DONT actually deny anything,
but,
have some nearly 'definition games' over just what exactly 'essence' might mean.

To say "every christian has a different idea of this" is about as wrong as wrong can get.

Get your facts right, the winners decide history in wars and religion, thats why so called heretical gospels were suppressed and the followers were in some cases annihilated.

"Before 325 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches. After 325 AD, some opinion was formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the councils. Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion and closes the books on the argument, with the weight of the agreement of the over 300 bishops in attendance. [Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west). The number of participating bishops cannot be accurately stated; Socrates Scholasticus and Epiphanius of Salamis counted 318; Eusebius of Caesarea, only 250.]"


So out of 1800 bishops, you have 318 or thereabouts who actually attended Nicaea. Hardly every belief represented. And if you didnt follow the Church of Rome's line, you were a heretic.

The following were supressed christian sects which didnt all believe that Jesus was the Son of God, in some cases they believed that God had sent him, spoke through him or simply he was a very good man whose example should be followed Other heresies believed in the non humanity of Jesus. Others had still differing views about the created of the holy trinity etc.

Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism, Agnosticism Marcionites, Tritheism, Modalism, Basidilians, Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians, Montanism,

Cerintus, , Carpocratians They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ;

Nestorianism (named for Netstorius) Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was filled with the logos, that only the human part of Jesus suffered and died, and that man simply needs an infilling of logos for salvation.

Ebionitism. Belief that Jesus was nothing more that a prophet: a man, but not divine. Named after the Ebionites, a first-century Jewish-Christian sect who emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul’s teachings

Dynamic Monarchianism claimed Jesus Christ was simply a man, whom God filled with an impersonal power, either at his conception, baptism, or resurrection. This denies Christ taking any personality from God,

Docetism is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die

The Nazareans, or "Jewish-Christians" as some of them were eventually called by the Romanized Christians, did not appreciate this distortion of their Teachers of Righteousness. These Nazareans did not accept the writings and doctrines of Paul, nor did they take much account of the Gospels which found their way into the New Testament bible. Instead, they used the Gospel of Hebrews which denied, among other things, the Roman version of the virgin birth.

Pelagianism - In their view every child was born absolutely innocent, free of what the traditional church called 'the original sin'. In effect this meant that to Pelagius Christ was not a saviour who took Adam's original sin upon himself, but merely a teacher who gave mankind an example of what man should be

All of them were christian all had one thing in common they were declared heretic, their teachings suppressed and they were given the chance to move back into what became the Roman Catholic Church, if not they were surpressed. A few hundred years ago denying the pope would have got you declared heretic and ex-communicated from the church at best.

Incidentally Arius was deemed heretic, welcomed back into the church and then after his death declared heretic again.

To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Shasown

snip
To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

that is why we have The Bible and we judge Christianity on Jesus and his earthly ministry and not on man.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Get your facts right, the winners decide history in wars and religion, thats why so called heretical gospels were suppressed and the followers were in some cases annihilated.

But you just made that up.
Based on nothing.
You actually just wrote some baseless fantasy and said it like it was 'fact'.

There is every reason to believe gnosticism was a big problem in the early church and so too was 'legalism' (or we say 'Galatianism' too),
but,
No.
No, there is no story of gnostics getting defeated in some war with the orthodox christians,
and,
further more there is no reason to believe the 'winners' then erased the history of the other.

Here let me remind you again - THE REASON YOU EVEN KNOW ABOUT SOME GNOSTICS AND OPPOSING GROUPS IS BECAUSE THE CHRISTIANS RECORDED THIS FOR US.
So in your fake story you made-up it asks us to believe they first suppressed their history but then all the early church fathers RECORDED AND PRESERVED THEIR ACCOUNTS, CRITICISMS AND DOCTRINES.
Stupid.

I mean if you are going to make up fake stories out of thin air then at least try and make them non-stupid like that one.

"Before 325 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches. After 325 AD, some opinion was formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the councils.

But that is NOT what happens at Nicea.
In fact - the most 'telling' thing about Nicea is that Bishops begin the discussion like everyone ALREADY well understood all the basics and even most everything else.
The whole thing starts out in SO MUCH AGREEMENT that there is VERY LITTLE discussion about ANY of the Christian doctrines.

This is THE 'smoking gun' evidence that Christianity and its doctrines are ALREADY well established.
That they did not even feel the need to bring them up and carried on discussions as if already understood.

Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion and closes the books on the argument,

No, that is not true at all.
There was no passionate discussions about 'each line' and what is the most telling is that there WAS NOT any passionate debates about these things.

The only 'passionate debate' was over a couple of dudes who were NOT debating whether or not Christ was Divine but over just what exactly 'essence of God' should mean.

So out of 1800 bishops, you have 318 or thereabouts who actually attended Nicaea. Hardly every belief represented. And if you didnt follow the Church of Rome's line, you were a heretic.

Uhh... well they were not representatives of 'different beliefs' but were bishops and leaders of Christian churches,
and,
again.. what is MOST TELLING is that the ones who made it came from often far-flung and entirely separate regions where many may well have never even know of the others.
IF there were 'many different beliefs' then you sure bet we would have seen it exposed when they all got to meet and compare,
but,
No... instead it is very obvious they all understood Christian doctrines and in near perfect agreement (certainly on all the basics which were a 'given' in this meet-up).

The following were supressed christian sects which didnt all believe that Jesus was the Son of God,............
Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism, Agnosticism Marcionites, Tritheism, Modalism, Basidilians, Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians, Montanism,

Even after 'pre-mocking' this you still went for that weak 'overwhelming list',
but,
What you do is (as I said already) give me a list of exceptions PROVING THE RULE.
and,
Here again you screw your own made-up story about 'suppression' because YOU KNOW ABOUT MOST OF THESE FROM THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS WHO ARE YOUR TEACHERS AND PRESERVED THIS KNOWLEDGE YOU JUST RECEIVED.

Orthodox Christians recorded and preserved knowledge of the critics. In fact early Church fathers did a superb job documenting these groups.
Woops!

Incidentally Arius was deemed heretic, welcomed back into the church and then after his death declared heretic again.

Yes, I am already aware you have been on Wiki for over an hour and finding ways to 'retell' this but in a way that makes it sound like its arguing against Christianity and for your fake story and 'as if' you were educating.
Good job!

To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

What I would tell you is that a billion Christians crossing the planet and crossing just about every mainline denomination (certainly all the largest ones) go to their church that accepts Jesus as God incarnate as Nicene described it and as is the 'orthodox' view.

Again, you can go ahead and list the 200+ 'Christian' orgs with some other views but that is just making my point for me.

What about this is confusing to you anyways?
You thought Roman Catholics, Presbys, Lutherans, Anglicans all had 'different interpretations' and all had different opinions about whether Jesus was God or not?
Well wrong.
Get real.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

But you just made that up.

Get real.

PMSL I didnt make any of it up, there is no need to. Its a matter of historical fact. Regardless of how much you try to ridicule the truth, you know it is true and you cant disprove it.

The early christians recorded it so that everyone would know what was the true faith(in their eyes).

If you cant handle the truth you best not look at subjects like the Cathars, the burning of Priscillian and his followers?

Constantine converted to christianity in the 310's after that time christianity became a persecuting religion. Following the decline of the Roman Empire things settled, however business resumed as normal in the heretic persecution industry in the 11th century.

What was the Inquisition all about then?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

But that is NOT what happens at Nicea.
In fact - the most 'telling' thing about Nicea is that Bishops begin the discussion like everyone ALREADY well understood all the basics and even most everything else.
The whole thing starts out in SO MUCH AGREEMENT that there is VERY LITTLE discussion about ANY of the Christian doctrines.

Is that why it was only composed in part and adopted at the First Council of Nicea (325) and revised with additions by the First Council of Constantinople (381)?

And less than 300 out of the 320 odd attendees out of the 1800 invitees actually agreed to it?



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/nicene.htm

http://www.crcna.org/pages/nicene_creed.cfm

And just for you proxi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Is that why it was only composed in part and adopted at the First Council of Nicea (325) and revised with additions by the First Council of Constantinople (381)?

Here again you can't just 'say it' but need to ask some open-ended question 'as if' that alone is sufficient to cast all doubts,
but,
here is what I am going to do for you.. just snip out the section in wikipedia you deliberately ignored:

*Keep in mind, typically wikipedia is NO FRIEND to Christianity and if there was a way for them to make the most critical and suspicious picture they would, yet they clearly state (as is well known)...

the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ as is sometimes claimed. This idea had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. It had also long been widely endorsed by the Christian community of the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[3] Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is the one true God in Deity with the Father.

You might as well embolden and underline every sentence in that.

And less than 300 out of the 320 odd attendees out of the 1800 invitees actually agreed to it?

This has to be the dumbest complaint ever. Especially considering the tremendous distances and I can just imagine the eye-brows raised getting special invitation by Constantine of all people (even though he had very little to do with it but be a 'master or ceremonies for the opening),
but,
Yeah, actually 300 different bishops from all over is extremely good and that they ALREADY had such such unity is about all the mathematical probability you could ever ask for in just about any historical investigation of that time.
but hey,
If you need to make-up fake 'what we don't know' conspiracy theories about the rest then enjoy your fantasies.
You'd like the Koran too.

As for your other 'backfire' about the diabolical 'clarifying' I really wonder what you are trying to do here - prove yourself wrong?
Clarifying.. adding more specific details (mainly to eliminate any doubts over little word and definition games),
we have described in Wiki:

For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.

1. Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God's son, not a creation of God. This is considered one of the mysteries of the catholic church.
3. Finally, he is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.



OH NOES!
So we know for certain by 325 Christian leaders from around the empire already knew Jesus was God incarnate,
but,
at this point - because of a couple of quibbles - they had to clarify it down to the most finite details.
Oh no!
All of which just goes to show you HOW ESTABLISHED this central Christian doctrine already was.

To this day the vast majority of all Christians on earth crossing nearly every denomination stand in church and recite that Nicene Creed.
Those make up the vast almost entirety of Christianity today.

Oh yes.. they may disagree on many other things too. 'in house debates' over just what exactly is meant by 'transubstantiation' or arguments over whether someone was a virgin or not,
but,
Without a doubt the Divinity of Christ is one thing so unifying across the board it must be a testimony to everyone of the power of that cross.
To think over 1 Billion people crossing the globe from any culture and wide-spread and differing denominations over 2000 years of history and yet that is something they rock-solid stand firm in unity.
Amazing really.

[Shasown]

There are none so blind as those that wont see.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

here is what I am going to do for you.. just snip out the section in wikipedia you deliberately ignored:

Unlike yourself I read and digest all of an article. You missed the bit

"The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines. "

So much for a unified belief.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ as is sometimes claimed. This idea had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. It had also long been widely endorsed by the Christian community of the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[3] Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is the one true God in Deity with the Father.

Why do the early church leaders need to define unity of beliefs if they were so united? The council didnt invent Christ's divinity, thats true, that may have been invented earlier in church history. Whether you believe Jesus is divine is down to you. Thats what faith is about.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

Yeah, actually 300 different bishops from all over is extremely good and that they ALREADY had such such unity is about all the mathematical probability you could ever ask for in just about any historical investigation of that time.

Its fantastic isnt it, given that means nearly 1500 invitees didnt attend. As for unity, you stated earlier there was no debate, it was in your eyes pretty much a done deal agreeing to the articles, how do you know? Please share this wonderful knowledge you have of the Council of Nicaea.

Originally Posted by ElProximo

OH NOES!
So we know for certain by 325 Christian leaders from around the empire already knew Jesus was God incarnate,
but,
at this point - because of a couple of quibbles - they had to clarify it down to the most finite details.
Oh no!
All of which just goes to show you HOW ESTABLISHED this central Christian doctrine already was.

Yes very established and all believing the same thing, so why were so many early christian sects declared heretic? We know there were many beliefs declared heresies because council decisions had to be made public and recorded.

Prior to the first Ecumenical Council, decisions within the church were taken by the church Council in Jerusalem. (apostolic council). They had a good say in how things should be within the early church. Including altering Gospels to prove the Messiahship of Christ. Authorising and rejecting gospels to be included within the churches belief.

Just because, as you say, 1 Billion Christians stand up every sunday and recite a creed doesnt mean they believe it or even understand it.