Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

The Council of Nicaea

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 9:37:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Topic: In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin.

The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and bigotry.

At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a book of sacred writings ( the bible), Constantine thought that the book would give authority to the new church.

Also, it is mentioned that reincarnation was stripped from the Christian teachings during this time.

http://www.tertullian.org...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2011 11:00:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The first case of politicizing the Cross... it's where it all went wrong.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2011 11:29:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
OP: Did you read your link?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2011 3:20:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 11:29:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
OP: Did you read your link?

Reply: Yes, most of it. I want to hear people's thoughts on "The Council of Nicaea as a subject in general though. The specific link was just one that I found interesting. Use whatever links you want, and I suggest posting them in here if you like a different one as a better reference.

Question: Why do you ask?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2011 3:27:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The most important aspects of christianity were decided upon by majority vote and raising hands. A fitting beginning to a book that is full of falsehoods, contradictions, and mistakes.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2011 3:43:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 3:20:28 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/16/2011 11:29:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
OP: Did you read your link?

Reply: Yes, most of it. I want to hear people's thoughts on "The Council of Nicaea as a subject in general though.:

From what we know it was created in response to many contradictory writings (gnostic gospels and such) being introduced and confusing the laymen. So a group of theologians got together at the Councils of Trent and Nicea to examine the different books, both textually and spiritually, to determine which books came from man-inspired and which were God-inspired. Then they simply voted on what should or shouldn't become canonized as part of the bible.

Some books were deemed outright fallacies (gospel of Thomas, Judas, etc), others were respected (Book of Enoch, Maccabbeans), but not canonized.

The bible came down to people voting on what should be in it. If that strikes you as being authentic, I'd have to question why that is.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2011 6:10:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 3:43:57 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/16/2011 3:20:28 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/16/2011 11:29:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
OP: Did you read your link?

Reply: Yes, most of it. I want to hear people's thoughts on "The Council of Nicaea as a subject in general though.:

From what we know it was created in response to many contradictory writings (gnostic gospels and such) being introduced and confusing the laymen. So a group of theologians got together at the Councils of Trent and Nicea to examine the different books, both textually and spiritually, to determine which books came from man-inspired and which were God-inspired. Then they simply voted on what should or shouldn't become canonized as part of the bible.

Some books were deemed outright fallacies (gospel of Thomas, Judas, etc), others were respected (Book of Enoch, Maccabbeans), but not canonized.

The bible came down to people voting on what should be in it. If that strikes you as being authentic, I'd have to question why that is.

Reply: So you have a minority of men who decided what is god worthy for all? They decided what texts are acceptable based on their own personal bias and elitist perspective?

Sounds pretty corrupt.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 9:56:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 6:10:29 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/16/2011 3:43:57 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/16/2011 3:20:28 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/16/2011 11:29:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
OP: Did you read your link?

Reply: Yes, most of it. I want to hear people's thoughts on "The Council of Nicaea as a subject in general though.:

From what we know it was created in response to many contradictory writings (gnostic gospels and such) being introduced and confusing the laymen. So a group of theologians got together at the Councils of Trent and Nicea to examine the different books, both textually and spiritually, to determine which books came from man-inspired and which were God-inspired. Then they simply voted on what should or shouldn't become canonized as part of the bible.

Some books were deemed outright fallacies (gospel of Thomas, Judas, etc), others were respected (Book of Enoch, Maccabbeans), but not canonized.

The bible came down to people voting on what should be in it. If that strikes you as being authentic, I'd have to question why that is.

Reply: So you have a minority of men who decided what is god worthy for all? They decided what texts are acceptable based on their own personal bias and elitist perspective?

Sounds pretty corrupt.

They looked at if the author had any connection to Jesus/was an eyewitness, had a secondhand account (like Luke), etc. Sure, there are probably some great epistles and extra books we are missing out on, but the Gospels depict a good picture of Jesus.

Besides, the council just kinda finalized it. People were already using the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John hundreds of years before the Council of Nicea. The first person to try to canonize the Bible was Marcion (I could be wrong. I'll find a link later), and he used a gospel that was basically similar to Luke.

It's not like they pick out random things and say, "This in. That out." These texts were already in use long before the First Council of Nicea.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 9:59:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Reply: So you have a minority of men who decided what is god worthy for all? They decided what texts are acceptable based on their own personal bias and elitist perspective?

Sounds pretty corrupt.:

Yes, exactly!!!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:06:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 9:59:21 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Reply: So you have a minority of men who decided what is god worthy for all? They decided what texts are acceptable based on their own personal bias and elitist perspective?

Sounds pretty corrupt.:

Yes, exactly!!!

Did you read my last post? These guys weren't idiots. They had devoted their entire lives to the Gospel of Christ, and basically, the agreement was almost unanimous. Besides, the First Council of Nicea wasn't even primarily about Biblical Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It was mostly about a date for easter, the whole trinity, and a SINGLE word in the Creed. Creating the actual Biblical Canon took hundreds of years.

People started finding texts and putting them together over hundreds of years. These early Christians started agreeing on which texts were true, and eventually, that's how we have the Bible we know of today. No, it wasn't 300 men in a Council. It was the will of millions of Christians over a span of several hundred years.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:06:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
They looked at if the author had any connection to Jesus/was an eyewitness, had a secondhand account (like Luke), etc. Sure, there are probably some great epistles and extra books we are missing out on, but the Gospels depict a good picture of Jesus.:

What are you basing this good depiction of Jesus on? EVERYTHING you know about Jesus, or think you know, is in direct relation to the gospels they chose. That's a confirmation bias. For all we know, the gospels of Thomas or Judas are the actual accurate depictions of Jesus.

It's conjecture either way.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:07:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 10:06:32 AM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 7/17/2011 9:59:21 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Reply: So you have a minority of men who decided what is god worthy for all? They decided what texts are acceptable based on their own personal bias and elitist perspective?

Sounds pretty corrupt.:

Yes, exactly!!!

Did you read my last post? These guys weren't idiots. They had devoted their entire lives to the Gospel of Christ, and basically, the agreement was almost unanimous. Besides, the First Council of Nicea wasn't even primarily about Biblical Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It was mostly about a date for easter, the holy trinity, and a SINGLE word in the Creed. Creating the actual Biblical Canon took hundreds of years.

People started finding texts and putting them together over hundreds of years. These early Christians started agreeing on which texts were true, and eventually, that's how we have the Bible we know of today. No, it wasn't 300 men in a Council. It was the will of millions of Christians over a span of several hundred years.

Fixed
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:09:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 10:06:36 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
They looked at if the author had any connection to Jesus/was an eyewitness, had a secondhand account (like Luke), etc. Sure, there are probably some great epistles and extra books we are missing out on, but the Gospels depict a good picture of Jesus.:

What are you basing this good depiction of Jesus on? EVERYTHING you know about Jesus, or think you know, is in direct relation to the gospels they chose. That's a confirmation bias. For all we know, the gospels of Thomas or Judas are the actual accurate depictions of Jesus.

It's conjecture either way.

Read my previous post. If Thomas or Judas was the accurate picture, then we would have the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary, etc. instead of the four we have today. Society was totally different then. These men had absolutely nothing to gain by converting to Christianity. Luke himself was a Greek doctor who wanted to know the truth. The council of nicea didn't edit a single word out of the Bible. Read my link.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:23:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Read my previous post. If Thomas or Judas was the accurate picture, then we would have the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary, etc. instead of the four we have today.:

No, not necessarily. You're assuming that the Council made the right choice. How do you know the Council chose the right books? How do you know any of them are accurate, for that matter?

Society was totally different then. These men had absolutely nothing to gain by converting to Christianity. Luke himself was a Greek doctor who wanted to know the truth.:

So do cult members. Does their quest for truth define the measure of their accuracy in finding the truth they're looking for?

The council of nicea didn't edit a single word out of the Bible. Read my link.:

I never stated, or even alluded, that they did. It's not relevant to the current discussion.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:34:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Did you read my last post? These guys weren't idiots.:

You have no way of estimating their intelligence level. Even supposing you did, intelligent people aren't impervious to making wrong choices. I'm not saying they got it all wrong, I'm just saying we have no real way of knowing.

They had devoted their entire lives to the Gospel of Christ, and basically, the agreement was almost unanimous.:

So? Is consensus a necessary indicator of accuracy? Is Casey Anthony necessarily innocent of murder simply because all the jurors found her not guilty? Or did they do the best they could with the amount of evidence available to them?

Besides, the First Council of Nicea wasn't even primarily about Biblical Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It was mostly about a date for easter, the whole trinity, and a SINGLE word in the Creed. Creating the actual Biblical Canon took hundreds of years.:

I don't see the relevance, but okay.

People started finding texts and putting them together over hundreds of years. These early Christians started agreeing on which texts were true, and eventually, that's how we have the Bible we know of today. No, it wasn't 300 men in a Council. It was the will of millions of Christians over a span of several hundred years.:

It's the product of the game 'telephone.' You have to rely on the accuracy of each subsequent person who gave you the information, and the person that preceded them, and the person that preceded them, and so on. If even one person is inaccurate, the entire message is compromised.

Everything you think you know about Jesus is directly related to the (in)accuracy of those who have relayed it over 2,000 years.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:24:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 10:34:40 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Did you read my last post? These guys weren't idiots.:

You have no way of estimating their intelligence level. Even supposing you did, intelligent people aren't impervious to making wrong choices. I'm not saying they got it all wrong, I'm just saying we have no real way of knowing.

They had devoted their entire lives to the Gospel of Christ, and basically, the agreement was almost unanimous.:

So? Is consensus a necessary indicator of accuracy? Is Casey Anthony necessarily innocent of murder simply because all the jurors found her not guilty? Or did they do the best they could with the amount of evidence available to them?

Besides, the First Council of Nicea wasn't even primarily about Biblical Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It was mostly about a date for easter, the whole trinity, and a SINGLE word in the Creed. Creating the actual Biblical Canon took hundreds of years.:

I don't see the relevance, but okay.

People started finding texts and putting them together over hundreds of years. These early Christians started agreeing on which texts were true, and eventually, that's how we have the Bible we know of today. No, it wasn't 300 men in a Council. It was the will of millions of Christians over a span of several hundred years.:

It's the product of the game 'telephone.' You have to rely on the accuracy of each subsequent person who gave you the information, and the person that preceded them, and the person that preceded them, and so on. If even one person is inaccurate, the entire message is compromised.

Everything you think you know about Jesus is directly related to the (in)accuracy of those who have relayed it over 2,000 years.

I had a long rant typed out, but my darned computer froze up. So, I guess I'll just do a summary.

The Council of Nicea didn't discuss Biblical Canon (read the link). All that was discussed was a date for easter and whether a single word in the creed should be changed or not.

It's not a game of telephone at all. People all over the world started finding books, and over time, the New Testament we know of today emereged by more and more people agreeing that the New Testament was a clear picture of Christianity and an accurate account of Jesus's life.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:39:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 11:00:01 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The first case of politicizing the Cross... it's where it all went wrong.

A 300 year run before hitting that issue, not bad, I must say.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 5:02:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 9:37:56 PM, Tiel wrote:
Topic: In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led to AD 325, when Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin.

The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and bigotry.

At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions. Constantine offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a book of sacred writings ( the bible), Constantine thought that the book would give authority to the new church.

Also, it is mentioned that reincarnation was stripped from the Christian teachings during this time.

http://www.tertullian.org...

God not only inspired the Bible, He also oversaw it's compiling and editing; YOU begin with 'I do not wish there to be a God' and then you accept all evidence in agreement with your wish and reject all evidence to the contrary.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 3:33:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charles I would avoid this discussion.
The postsclearly indicate that the non-Christian posters have no knowledge of:
Early Church History
Roman Society and its influence on cultures and the church.
Early Church patriarichal governement
Who the voters were

I could go on.

You will just get replies like "how do you know" and "that is presumption!"

You would have to educate several of these people with so many facts it would cause your head to swell.

I would just link for them an overview then source for them primary source documentation around the council.

Avoid modern historians "looking back" that are really quite clueless to the events and even the early historians interpretations.

Michael John Witt would get them "up to speed" for an overview of timing and such with brief forays into detail.

Once they have reviewed the early church fathers writings surrounding the council and the endless facts governing life and church then a discussion of overview could be had with them.

I do not believe any of them have ever done this and their bias precludes them from ever doing so. They will only draw a flawed conclusion without facts, data and understanding.

http://michaeljohnwitt.com...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 3:39:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tiel,
I want to point out that Tertullian was not a member of the Christian Church.
He believed many things that were errant.

He even believed and started a cult that thought Jesus was coming back on a specific date.
They did the same thing as Camping's May 21st followers did. They sold everything, did not sow their fields etc...

He was factually wrong on that point as well.

You may want to study up on these people before making decisions on motivations and such. I would avoid modern scholars and read the works of those involved in the history itself.

They are available and extant.

Your source discusses these things I am sure.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 3:12:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 3:39:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Tiel,
I want to point out that Tertullian was not a member of the Christian Church.
He believed many things that were errant.

He even believed and started a cult that thought Jesus was coming back on a specific date.
They did the same thing as Camping's May 21st followers did. They sold everything, did not sow their fields etc...

He was factually wrong on that point as well.

You may want to study up on these people before making decisions on motivations and such. I would avoid modern scholars and read the works of those involved in the history itself.

They are available and extant.

Your source discusses these things I am sure.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestions. My source was just one of many that I have researched over the years. I believe that the council completely changed the accepted form of Christian religion and any of those manipulations have lasted over centuries. Rome has done a great misjustice in many regards towards many religions and sources of information and Christianity would be no different. I believe that Gnosticism was what Jesus was actually teaching and I believe he was an enlightened spiritual teacher, a man. Not God.

Jesus had many great spiritual lessons to teach mankind, and it is my belief that many of these teaching were lot after the Council tightened it's noose on Christianity.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 5:15:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/16/2011 3:27:43 PM, tkubok wrote:
The most important aspects of christianity were decided upon by majority vote and raising hands. A fitting beginning to a book that is full of falsehoods, contradictions, and mistakes.

Care (dare) to name some?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 10:02:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 3:12:41 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/19/2011 3:39:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Tiel,
I want to point out that Tertullian was not a member of the Christian Church.
He believed many things that were errant.

He even believed and started a cult that thought Jesus was coming back on a specific date.
They did the same thing as Camping's May 21st followers did. They sold everything, did not sow their fields etc...

He was factually wrong on that point as well.

You may want to study up on these people before making decisions on motivations and such. I would avoid modern scholars and read the works of those involved in the history itself.

They are available and extant.

Your source discusses these things I am sure.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestions. My source was just one of many that I have researched over the years. I believe that the council completely changed the accepted form of Christian religion and any of those manipulations have lasted over centuries. Rome has done a great misjustice in many regards towards many religions and sources of information and Christianity would be no different. I believe that Gnosticism was what Jesus was actually teaching and I believe he was an enlightened spiritual teacher, a man. Not God.

Jesus had many great spiritual lessons to teach mankind, and it is my belief that many of these teaching were lot after the Council tightened it's noose on Christianity.

The vast majority of scholars who have undertaken such studies have drawn quite the opposite conclusion that you have.

Around 1%, and I am being gracious, of scholars have ever even held to key points of gnosticism, and certainly not the whole. That is of proclaimed scholars who study it.

You seem quite confident with so few scholars supporting your view.

Additionally, most of the factual data simply does not exist to support that view and it generally comes from presuppositions as to Diestic form.

What makes you so confident?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 4:59:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 10:02:22 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/20/2011 3:12:41 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/19/2011 3:39:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Tiel,
I want to point out that Tertullian was not a member of the Christian Church.
He believed many things that were errant.

He even believed and started a cult that thought Jesus was coming back on a specific date.
They did the same thing as Camping's May 21st followers did. They sold everything, did not sow their fields etc...

He was factually wrong on that point as well.

You may want to study up on these people before making decisions on motivations and such. I would avoid modern scholars and read the works of those involved in the history itself.

They are available and extant.

Your source discusses these things I am sure.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestions. My source was just one of many that I have researched over the years. I believe that the council completely changed the accepted form of Christian religion and any of those manipulations have lasted over centuries. Rome has done a great misjustice in many regards towards many religions and sources of information and Christianity would be no different. I believe that Gnosticism was what Jesus was actually teaching and I believe he was an enlightened spiritual teacher, a man. Not God.

Jesus had many great spiritual lessons to teach mankind, and it is my belief that many of these teaching were lot after the Council tightened it's noose on Christianity.

The vast majority of scholars who have undertaken such studies have drawn quite the opposite conclusion that you have.

Around 1%, and I am being gracious, of scholars have ever even held to key points of gnosticism, and certainly not the whole. That is of proclaimed scholars who study it.

You seem quite confident with so few scholars supporting your view.

Additionally, most of the factual data simply does not exist to support that view and it generally comes from presuppositions as to Diestic form.

What makes you so confident?

Reply: I am confident from cross referencing any knowledge I have of Gnostic teachings with any knowledge I have of Jesus that in my opinion wasn't manipulated by Rome. It is a hard puzzle to piece together, but in the end nobody will ever truly know. It all comes down to what you believe.

Also, you say less than 1%? Show me some form of proof of that, or supporting evidence from a credible unbiased source, so I can take your words as genuine and not just a biased opinion.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 7:21:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 4:59:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/20/2011 10:02:22 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/20/2011 3:12:41 AM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/19/2011 3:39:48 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Tiel,
I want to point out that Tertullian was not a member of the Christian Church.
He believed many things that were errant.

He even believed and started a cult that thought Jesus was coming back on a specific date.
They did the same thing as Camping's May 21st followers did. They sold everything, did not sow their fields etc...

He was factually wrong on that point as well.

You may want to study up on these people before making decisions on motivations and such. I would avoid modern scholars and read the works of those involved in the history itself.

They are available and extant.

Your source discusses these things I am sure.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestions. My source was just one of many that I have researched over the years. I believe that the council completely changed the accepted form of Christian religion and any of those manipulations have lasted over centuries. Rome has done a great misjustice in many regards towards many religions and sources of information and Christianity would be no different. I believe that Gnosticism was what Jesus was actually teaching and I believe he was an enlightened spiritual teacher, a man. Not God.

Jesus had many great spiritual lessons to teach mankind, and it is my belief that many of these teaching were lot after the Council tightened it's noose on Christianity.

The vast majority of scholars who have undertaken such studies have drawn quite the opposite conclusion that you have.

Around 1%, and I am being gracious, of scholars have ever even held to key points of gnosticism, and certainly not the whole. That is of proclaimed scholars who study it.

You seem quite confident with so few scholars supporting your view.

Additionally, most of the factual data simply does not exist to support that view and it generally comes from presuppositions as to Diestic form.

What makes you so confident?

Reply: I am confident from cross referencing any knowledge I have of Gnostic teachings with any knowledge I have of Jesus that in my opinion wasn't manipulated by Rome. It is a hard puzzle to piece together, but in the end nobody will ever truly know. It all comes down to what you believe.

Also, you say less than 1%? Show me some form of proof of that, or supporting evidence from a credible unbiased source, so I can take your words as genuine and not just a biased opinion.

I am suggesting/asking what is your good grounds for your opinion. Of the countless scholars who have peered into the things of which you have looked and in fact found the opposite why would you hold to your opinion/belief?

It is my business to know numbers and percentages of belief systems as a I am a theologian and scholar myself.

Take the number of those that assert themselves as Orthodox Christians and divide by the number that call themselves agnostics.

There are around 7 million Gnostics around today. I know of few to any that are in academia, perhaps you could point out a few.

There are 3 billion orthodox (excluding non orthodox, like JW's and Mormons etc---)

That is .0023%. Far less than one percent. Unless you have a source that claims a higher number of Gnostics I would like to be aware of that.
http://myfundi.co.za...

Seven million is a generous estimation on my part. I concede that there are far fewer than seven million but I was again being generous.