Agree to disagree? Nope. I will only agree that you are an idiot who knows nothing of this topic. Don't know what Tak will say.

As far as a secular source, why couldn't it be words written by Church Fathers during that time? That would show what they believed. In fact, that would be the best source of all because it would be a primary source, but you really are too fucking stupid to get that, huh?

The virgin birth is easy, the Gospels were written well before Nicea.

St. Justin is writing about this in the beginning of the second century - and St. Justin was very instrumental not only converting many others to Christianity, but in creating the early doctrine.

Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)


Besides, it doesn't matter what you "pull" back on. You said that if Constantine was Hindu then Christianity would have failed, which is false. Christianity was actually growing despite Roman leaders persecuting them.

You also said that Constantine mandated Christianity, but you are dead ass wrong there also. He didn't outlaw any religion and he didn't even convert until his death bed.

Do us all a favor and try to actually look into some of this stuff before you come in and make so many false statements and totally screw up basic history. We both know you won't back down so when you keep screwing up history then w both know you will just compound your error even further (or in the case above, try to back pedal and pretend you didn't make certain claims).

I think your link is good enough refutation, I would also suggest she read Origen's respones to Celsus (which date to mid third century). Celsus wrote an attack on Christianity and Origen responded, often citing long passages of Celsus' work (the rest of which is now lost to us unfortunately). In one of the passages Celsus attacks the concept of the virgin mary and accuses her of having an affair with a Roman soldier. Origen defends it.

So again, another strong piece of evidence that the belief in the Virgin Mary and in Jesus' godhead existed LONG before Constantine.

Now of course both concepts expanded over time, becoming richer and fuller as the centuries passed, but the root goes all the way back to the beginning of Christianity, and by the time of Nicene were pretty much already standardized.

i have DUM1 (AKA the resident lard ass Tranny) on ignore, but if he posted a link, let me take a look and see if he actually produced something worthwhile, which is doubtful. (Maybe his female alter ego has something....LOL)

Or if you have somethning, by all means send it off. I have some info of my own to share, but I will wait to review yours first

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

This is from his post,

The virgin birth is easy, the Gospels were written well before Nicea.

St. Justin is writing about this in the beginning of the second century - and St. Justin was very instrumental not only converting many others to Christianity, but in creating the early doctrine.

Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)

This is one of a few things I expected some would produce, and I never denied that the concept existed

What I said was, ( If I made myself unclear, my bad, but I dont think I did) is that was no consensus that existed prior to Nicea, and that Nicea was the point when these teachings became docterine.

Like I said, i thnk a lot of what we disagreed on was simply a matter of semantics. I know for sure however, that for others, (Nathan, Dum1) any suggestion of anything other then a direct liniar connection between Jesus and the modern church, is unthinkable, and I admit i thought this was your contention at first as well.
If I am really to be honest, since we disagreed, I hoped it was...LOL
That makes making my arguement SO much easier

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

There wasn't consensus after Constantine, since the next emperor was an Arian, hell there isn't even consensus today. The argument that you were talking about consensus is pretty weak and totally flies against the arguments you made here. No one has denied that standardization occurred at Nicene, it did, I said as much at the beginning. You were arguing that something totally radical happened. It didn't. As for the direct linear, on this thread I have not seen anyone argue that. The only time I have seen it is when YOU accused ME of it. And I denied it.

As historical consensus stands now. Jesus, if he existed, is thought to have died in 33 (I would argue almost a decade earlier, corresponds with something in Josephus). Paul wrote in the 50-70's. Mark was first published in the 70-80s. Luke and Mathew in the 80-90s and John around 110-120. Fragments of the bible confirm this. We have our first massive copy of Luke and Matthew (1/2 of each) from around 180-190 and it pretty much corresponds with the bible today (of which the oldest complete copy dates to the 4-5th century).

What happened was that from this time on through Nicene, there was an explosion of new gospels. The gnostic gospels date from the late 2nd century onwards. There were other gospels and religious tracts as well. Based on fragments Nicene appears to have gotten it right. The books they preserved were the oldest texts, they got rid of newer texts. Far from being a radical change, Nicene appears to have been reactionary. It stripped down to the basics, it did not create new texts or doctrines.

No one has denied that standardization occurred at Nicene ?
Are you kidding me ?
That may not have been your contention, but that nis the CORE arguement of the hard core theists and non seculars. Same with the direct liniar legacy...this a non secular mainstay

What I meant by a consensus was one between Christians, there were romans praying to Lares till the final days of the empire

I am slightly mre skeptical of those 2nd century text fragmants then you seem to be, both in terms of translation, dating and translation.

As for "jesus" we may or may not even know who he was, or he may be a composite of several evangilists from the time who were ripe to dispose of portions of hebrew tradition, but whoever he was, and this goes to my point about what indeed were the "radical" changes at Nacia, for right of for wrong, his "identity" was agreed upon then and there

The sytex and verbage of The Nicene Creed confirms that without a doubt

Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
per quem ómnia facta sunt.

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

I didn't, and 80% of this argument (based on posts) has been between you and I. NBF and Dom were supporting me on this thread. I don't know what history you all have off of this thread. If they were arguing for linear descent, I would be arguing against them (though hate to tell you the truth is closer to them than to you, not in that it proof Jesus is the son of god, but in the sense that tracking can get back to within 30 years of Jesus (based on Paul - much closer to linear than your contention that Nicene was the deciding date)).

As for you being skeptical of the dating, so be it. I take the historians at their word until proven otherwise. I am not one for conspiracy theories.

Again, Nicene standardized belief. However, as I have always said, Orthodoxy was already pretty darn entrenched before Nicene. It was a confirmation of an evolutionary process, not a revolution.

"Jesus" would look at the modern churchs, or even the churches around the time of the reformation and wonder who this other "Jesus" it talked about was.
The idea of a linear connection is, sorry to say, rediculous

__________________
Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

Yeah it hurts, you have been fucked by an Elephant !

"Happamia, sanoi kettu pihlajanmarjoista kun ei niihin yltänyt" ("Sour, said the fox about rowan berries, being unable to reach them"

Probably, though who knows. Maybe he DID believe he was the son of god, maybe his initial followers thought so as well. If so, then we pretty much do have linear connection (Jesus to James the Just (Brother) to Paul to Luke/Matthew/Mark) and onwards.

I think the issue people have is that they confuse historical tracking with confirmation. That "christians" have believed in Jesus from the beginning (not saying that they did mind you) would not mean that Jesus was divine. It is two different things, requiring two different proofs.