[arista]

Originally Posted by InOne

I still don't know if you're even really Christian or not lol

No he is a Bible Freak.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by InOne

I know what it is about, I just don't need a 'god'

For God saved us and called us to live a holy life. He did this, not because we deserved it, but because that was his plan from before the beginning of time--to show us his grace through Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 1:9

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by arista

No he is a Bible Freak.

Friday night and the lights are low
Looking out for the place to go
Where they play the right music, getting in the swing
You come in to look for a king
Anybody could be that guy
Night is young and the music's high
With a bit of rock music, everything is fine
You're in the mood for a dance
And when you get the chance

You are the Bible freak, young and sweet, only seventeen
Bible freak, feel the beat from the tambourine oh yeah
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life
Ooo see that girl, watch that scene, diggin the old LT

[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Friday night and the lights are low
Looking out for the place to go
Where they play the right music, getting in the swing
You come in to look for a king
Anybody could be that guy
Night is young and the music's high
With a bit of rock music, everything is fine
You're in the mood for a dance
And when you get the chance

You are the Bible freak, young and sweet, only seventeen
Bible freak, feel the beat from the tambourine oh yeah
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life
Ooo see that girl, watch that scene, diggin the old LT

Are you a dancing queen!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

Are you a dancing queen!

I love that song and it is not a homosexual anthem. They cannot steal a classic like they did with "he's the greatest dancer"

[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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Shasown

Why don't you either give up or say succinctly what the point is that you are badly trying to make.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

It is bizarre that an opinion like this even exists!

But then I presume that you do not "believe" in Pliny, Plato, Caesar, King Henry the 8th

There is no proof that Jesus was real other than the bible. The only written accounts of him are in the bible.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn

There is no proof that Jesus was real other than the bible. The only written accounts of him are in the bible.

is incorrect.

and what do you know of Biblical manuscript evidence and indeed 1-5 century manuscript evidence for any historical figure?

(I will go and make some tea meantime)

[Glenn.]

Im not going to sit here and try and prove Jesus was real. If there was any way of knowing, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn

Im not going to sit here and try and prove Jesus was real. If there was any way of knowing, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

i love it when a poster owns himself in 2 posts

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Glenn

Im not going to sit here and try and prove Jesus was real. If there was any way of knowing, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

He was a real historical figure and his name isn't just mentioned in the Bible.

[Glenn.]

It is my opinion that Jesus did not exist. My opinion.
How can someone be born without conception? How someone can feed 5000 people with a bit bread.
If you can explain to me how this was possible without saying that it was a miracle then you have me converted.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn

It is my opinion that Jesus did not exist. My opinion.
How can someone be born without conception? How someone can feed 5000 people with a bit bread.
If you can explain to me how this was possible without saying that it was a miracle then you have me converted.

read the Bible and make your own mind up


no one will persuade you. it is up to you. it is your responsibility.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Glenn

It is my opinion that Jesus did not exist. My opinion.
How can someone be born without conception? How someone can feed 5000 people with a bit bread.
If you can explain to me how this was possible without saying that it was a miracle then you have me converted.

That's irrelevent really to the debate you've decided to open up which questions whether or not Christ lived at all. There's alot of evidence to support the fact that a prophet known as Jesus did exist at that time and had many followers, during his life and after his death - forget about the wine and bread stuff for a second. You don't have to believe in that stuff and it's not a question of faith; it's just commonly accepted that Jesus was a real flesh and blood human being.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by setanta

That's irrelevent really to the debate you've decided to open up which questions whether or not Christ lived at all. There's alot of evidence to support the fact that a prophet known as Jesus did exist at that time and had many followers, during his life and after his death - forget about the wine and bread stuff for a second. You don't have to believe in that stuff and it's not a question of faith; it's just commonly accepted that Jesus was a real flesh and blood human being.

thank you Setanta

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Glenn

In a thousand years they will be talking about Harry Potter, and how he defeated the Dark Lord as fact.
.

PMSL

The funnier thing is...this could be true

[Glenn.]

In answer to this thread. How can Jesus had been gay when the Christian community were so against homosexuality?
If he WERE real, I do not think he would of been gay.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

PMSL

The funnier thing is...this could be true

to suggest that is to lay forth your ignorance to the forum

you are what is known as a Chronological snob

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn

In answer to this thread. How can Jesus had been gay when the Christian community were so against homosexuality?
If he WERE real, I do not think he would of been gay.

can you explain "the Christian community were so against homosexuality"?

[Glenn.]

Various websites on this matter with one site quoted homosexuals to be, 'an evil abomination in the eyes of God'

Was'nt Jesus God's son?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Glenn

It is my opinion that Jesus did not exist. My opinion.
How can someone be born without conception? How someone can feed 5000 people with a bit bread.
If you can explain to me how this was possible without saying that it was a miracle then you have me converted.

Whether or not the person is reputed to have been born without conception doesnt negate the fact that a person called Jesus, lived and preached in the Middle East and had an effect on enough people to start a religion in his name.

The last thing leaders of a new religion are going to do is make claims about a ficticious person especially as the religion remained and grew in the area, after the time of Jesus' death. Wouldnt people just turn and say, "Jesus? Crucifiction? what the hell are you on about?"

If he was God incarnate then being born without conception and feeding a few thousand people with next to nothing would have been childs play.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn

Various websites on this matter with one site quoted homosexuals to be, 'an evil abomination in the eyes of God'

what websites?