What if Constantine had turned Hindu ?

Sir Les Patterson · #**111** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

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.

Christinsanity: "Something borrowed, something blue, something old, but NOTHING new"

smart makes a comeback · #**112** (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

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.

Methinks if he did, he would have said so, or at least created a clever metaphoric blurb to throw the world a hint (Some say he did, and they need a lesson in reading comprehension and or need to recognize their own wishful thinking)

Just as if he had really risen from the dead, ALL his decuples would have gotten around to mentioning it.

Dom1 · #**113** (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Absent that, I stick to my statement, and we will have to agree to disagree

Which is you conceding that you lost. You would never admit you are wrong, but at least this ir yoru way of recognizing that your argument is lost. You are trying to gracefully back out of it but it is too late, the proof that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about is already out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

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

You look at my posts anyway, you have been caught doing it in the past when you respond to what I say in one of my posts without it ever being quoted by anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

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

You didn't expect that to be produced, ini fact, you didn't even know who St. Justin was before this link.

Consensus? Where was the consensus after Nicea????? You said that Christians did not believe this until the time of Constantine and I showed where they did 200 years BEFORE Constantine.

I never said that there is a direct line between Jesus and the modern church, but I also don't believe there is a direct line between Jesus and the church of the second century.

Your argument is already lost. It is tough to win this type of argument when you don't know history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

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.

Nobody argued for linear descent, she is making it up to attempt to change the argument. She tried to say that the virgin birth was an invention of Nicea and she failed. Then she tries to back out of it and claim it wasn't a consensus . . . . but fails to recognize that there wasn't a consensus in Christianity for quite a while after Nicea.

She is just attempting to save face, but since she can't admit she is ever wrong she keeps digging a deeper hole.

I still want to see these historians that she says support her view.

I still want to see where Constantine mandates Christianity at the point of a sword.

She was silent on both of those for a reason . . . . she was making them up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

"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

Jesus would probably look at the Church in the second century and wonder the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Methinks if he did, he would have said so, or at least created a clever metaphoric blurb to throw the world a hint (Some say he did, and they need a lesson in reading comprehension and or need to recognize their own wishful thinking)

Just as if he had really risen from the dead, ALL his decuples would have gotten around to mentioning it.

What are "decuples"? Do you mean disciples? Which ones didn't mention it?

In the Didache (written no later than 100 AD), Jesus is referred to as divine, so obviously it was not a made up concept at Nicea. Not only that, Justin the Martyr (who proved you wrong above) also said this - and as stated, he was a strong influence on what early Christians believed.

Want a secular source? Pliny the Younger (circa 110AD) was writing that Christians worshipped Jesus as a God.

Archaelogical evidence has also been found in a third century church which has inscriptions calling Jesus the Son of God.

You are once again impressively wrong.

Not to mention, the Bible does indicate that Jesus is the Son of God - and we already talked about the virgin birth, and that this was not some made up notion of Nicea.

smart makes a comeback · #**114** (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

View Post Today, 09:14 AM
Remove user from ignore listDom1
This message is hidden because Dom1 is on your ignore list

.

One can only imagine what stupidity ole lard ass here is spewing now .

Fortunatly, a lot of us have his slobbering fat ass on ignore....always good to weed out off the Riff Raff

Go eat another box or Bon Bons and wash your panty hose in the sink lard ass...let the smart folks talk

LOL

WHAT a putz

TakuanSoho · #**115** (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Methinks if he did, he would have said so, or at least created a clever metaphoric blurb to throw the world a hint (Some say he did, and they need a lesson in reading comprehension and or need to recognize their own wishful thinking)

Just as if he had really risen from the dead, ALL his decuples would have gotten around to mentioning it.

Well, if you knew your bible it is pretty clear that Jesus did say he was the son of god, this is why in Matthew 27:39-50, he is mocked as such when he was hanging on the Cross.

Acts of the Apostles make it clear that all his disciples (except Judas of course) said they saw Jesus after he was dead. What more do you want.

Seriously Smart, just admit you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. You have already moved so far off your original position that you have all but conceded it, you might as well be honest and admit to it. Prove Dom wrong.

smart makes a comeback · #**116** (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Well, if you knew your bible it is pretty clear that Jesus did say he was the son of god, this is why in Matthew 27:39-50, he is mocked as such when he was hanging on the Cross.

Acts of the Apostles make it clear that all his disciples (except Judas of course) said they saw Jesus after he was dead. What more do you want.

Seriously Smart, just admit you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with that. You have already moved so far off your original position that you have all but conceded it, you might as well be honest and admit to it. Prove Dom wrong.

LOL....Quote for me the vesrs where jesus said he was the son of God...and refuring to god as "father" doesnt mean any such thing, so dont even try it...LOL

If ALL his Apostles said they saw Jesus after he was dead, why did they not ALL write about it ?

I have not moved an inch off my original position...You have just yet to grasp it

and as for Dum..hahahhahah.....he is a blithering idiot.....and has been wrong since his mother spit him out

TakuanSoho · #**117** (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

LOL....Quote for me the vesrs where jesus said he was the son of God...and refuring to god as "father" doesnt mean any such thing, so dont even try it...LOL

If ALL his Apostles said they saw Jesus after he was dead, why did they not ALL write about it ?

I have not moved an inch off my original position...You have just yet to grasp it

and as for Dum..hahahhahah.....he is a blithering idiot.....and has been wrong since his mother spit him out

Why would the romans mock him saying "you say you are the son of god, well lets see him help you now" in the passage I provided, if he did not say it?

Well, outside of the fact that his apostles were probably illiterate for the most part (not sure how many fishermen in the 1st century could read and write), and that 2,000 years separates them from us and very few works survived from that period, why no reasons at all.

Besides this has NOTHING to do with your original post, that we have moved the line all the way back from the 4th to the 1st century to here pretty much shows you have abandoned your original point.

smart makes a comeback · #**118** (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Why would the romans mock him saying "you say you are the son of god, well lets see him help you now" in the passage I provided, if he did not say it?

And I take it you believ alol the accounts in the bible are accurate and true ?
LOL
Sorrry...I dont
Not saying they disnt say it...just not sure they did...and neither are you
Do you have a vese in which he made the claim or not ?

Well, outside of the fact that his apostles were probably illiterate for the most part (not sure how many fishermen in the 1st century could read and write), and that 2,000 years separates them from us and very few works survived from that period, why no reasons at all.

But some DID write, and not all the ones who wrote, spoke of the reserection...how come ?..nevermind, it's rhetorical

Besides this has NOTHING to do with your original post, that we have moved the line all the way back from the 4th to the 1st century to here pretty much shows you have abandoned your original point.

Not at all. MY point was, and is, that Christainity as we know it, and as a relion unto itself... began in the 4th century...pretty simple

smart makes a comeback · #**119** (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Do you have a verse in which he made the claim or not ?

I'll answer fior him...NO...he does not...becuse no such verse exists

Skinny Fatts · #**120** (**permalink**) 05-17-2008, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

...I never said "created" Christianity. What I did say, is that by proxy, much of what IS modern Christianity became so due to his mandates. That is as basic a historical face on this topic as one can name, and it is without dispute anywhere that matters.

Mine is not "pro or con" contention, it is one based on an OBJECTIVE view of history, and not that conscious is always a indication of what is correct, it is a contention shared by most historians and many theists as well...

Just a couple of questions:

1. Without dispute anywhere that matters? Where are you saying it "matters"?
2. Which "historians and many theists" share this contention? I think many would like to be able to read their viewpoint and become "educated". Hopefully it's more than Spong, Borg, Crossan, et al.