Mazty said:
Are either of you religious? Because currently you are both trying to fight generally accepted historical theories: - The Bible was not written by eye witnesses |
Yes, I'm a Christian. I've simply pointed out how you are wrong in your claims. generally accepted by who? liberal scholarship? who are these great scholars/historians that you are referring to? People make up theories all the time, it doesn't make them true. I don't know of a reputable Christian scholar who claims Constantine edited the bible. In fact, due to haveing over 5,000 manuscripts, we know it didn't happen. There were numerous manuscripts already in existence in all parts of the world before Nicaea even took place. Evidence of an established canon wasn't even until 367 AD in Athanasius easter letter.
What are the key ideas that your referring to? Do you know the historical setting the church was in leading up to Nicaea? You do realize that Nicaea was used to ratify what the majority of the church already believed. We know for a fact that Constantine didn't have anything to do with altering Christian doctrine. There is not a shred of evidence to prove otherwise. If Constantine had anything to do with the Nicene Creed then the christian faith would be Arian not trinitarian. He died an Arian and his closest bishop eusubius was an ardent propent of Arianism. But it didn't triumph because the church rejected it from the beginnning, before Nicaea even started. The Arians were in the minority by a longshot. The dilema, as I referred to earlier was over the nature of Christ, was he ομοουσιος or ομοιουσιος? In overwhelming support they voted for ομοουσιος, the already understood belief. Constantine called the ecumincal council due to the controversy surrounding the issue. He wanted the church to be unified. All theories stating other wise are made up theories/stories and can't be proven.
