will he spend one minute behind bars.........?

as an outsider (of sorts) all Christian religions (actually all religions) are just variations on a theme. All modern religions are based on post ice-age modernity. True spirituality accepts evolution and the fact that humans are just another level of our long lineage of life on this planet. IMO if you think that humans are the be all-end all and animals were created for our use/abuse/amusement then I guess we wil have to agree to disagree.

Open any fact based history book you want, dumb ass.

Seriously, you are a teacher and are so ignorant you don't know the chronological history of the Church? How can a self declared Christian be this ignorant of the history of his own faith? You might as well ask someone to "prove" the American revolution happened. It is just a well know and extremely well documented historical fact.

Something a "history teacher" sure as hell should know already.

Not every history book agrees with what you claim.

Though remember that religious history is not my specialty.

In case you didn't know history is a very broad and deep subject and not all history teachers are a like.

What about Mormons?

Am I allowed to answer this one?

Uh...sure, but I was hoping Dayton would.

Them either.

Is Dayton still no-true-Scotsman-ing over flavors of Christian?

*Looks*

Yep!

Isn't rooting for the home team perfectly natural?

If you're an un-critical meathead.

I've compared it before to blind brand loyalty to Harley Davidson in 70's.

Now that I think of it, blind brand loyalty to Nintendo in the 90's would have gotten you similar results.

And blind brand loyalty to "The Cosby Show", versus "The Simpsons", in the late 80's would have put you on the side of both bad television, and a rapist.

Can you post a link? I don't recall Bill Cosby being convicted of rape?

Paul was an actual Roman. 10% of the Roman population was actually Jewish. In those days, Jerusalem always deferred to Rome for safety.

Dayton stop pretending there is any controversy because there is not. Yes, the Catholic church predates just about all other Christian sects and virtually all of those other sects are break away groups from the Catholic church (or break aways from the break aways). That is just historical fact.

And Dayton gives historical accuracy a dumb rep. How fucking historically illiterate can one man be? You'd think he would have at least some interest in the history of the religion he claims to follow but, nope, just a meathead.

I mock the Pope at every convenience.

The Catholic Church is a blight on the Earth.

This is false. The concept of the modern Roman Catholic Church as we know it didn't really take form until about the 10th through 12th centuries. By that time the Eastern Churches had already split off. I am sure the Archbishop of Constantinople would be highly amused by this comment.

1. False because: The concept of the Roman Catholic Church that we speak of today didn't exist in the late spring of 325 A.D. when the 1st Council of Nicaea was convened.
2. False because: The issue of what books belong in the Bible was NOT, I repeat was NOT even so much as discussed at the 1st Council of Nicaea. That's historically ignorant.

On the upside Pope John Paul II did play a substantial role in bringing down the Soviet Union.

He was big enough threat that the Soviets tried to assassinate him.

Bullshit. Christianity has been doing overtime in the last thirty years rewriting history. There's plenty of documentation supporting these facts. No matter how much American Christianity wishes it weren't true.

Please show me some documentation that shows that the issue of the Canon of Scripture was discussed and settled at the 1st Countil of Nicaea.

I'd say that I'll wait, but I don't have the forever that it would take for you to find something.

PS: "The canon of Scripture was decided at Nicaea" is a standard statement from people who know absolutely nothing about church history. You literally took your existing credibility (sparse as it was) and cut it in at least half.

A Good Article

Wikipedia

The Catholic church with the Pope was around before slightly before Justinian. We are talking mid 4th century. By the 7th century it was mostly in its modern form. The Byzantine schizism didn't hapoen until the early 11th century.

There were some relatively minor doctrinal disputes but the main issue is the Patriarch (appointed and controlled by the Byzantine Emperor) wanted to be equal to the Roman Pontiff instead of subordinate to him.

It certainly wasn't settled there (that didn't happen until the 16th century), but it was definitely discussed there. Evidence is the creation of the Constantinean Bibles as well as the introduction of the Greek word kanonizesthai in this use.

Let's just skip over Wikipedia ...

And go to a site from the UK

https://www.pfander.uk/debate-topics/theological/council_nicaea/

If you want to attempt to change accepted history just because the records don't exist, then you have to accept that your own religion is invalid because the records do not exist.

You realize that the quote you give doesn't say what you think it says, not even close.

Um. That quote doesn't say anything about the topic.

:rollseyes:

Shaka, his eyes closed ....

It's talking about which prophet is real and "divinely-inspired". Which writings were true and which were not.

1. If it was discussed there (it wasn't), how come not a single record of that exists?
2. The creation of the Constantinian Bibles does not even remotely suggest that the Council of Nicaea addressed the issue of the canon of scripture. That's a very weird logical leap.
3. I'd like to see your sources for the usage of kanonizesthai having something to do with the First Council of Nicaea that it did not mean before.

It doesn't say anything of the sort!

If it said something like "For the gospels (those of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, and of John), the apostolic writings (list all NT epistles here), and the oracles of the ancient prophets (list all canonical Old Testament books here), clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature", then you'd have a case.

But the fact that there were Gospels, the fact that there were Apostolic Writings, and the fact that there were "Oracles of the Ancient Prophets" in existence at the time, and everyone knew what was being talking about had nothing whatsoever to do with whether that matter was even discussed, let alone settled, at the Council of Nicaea.

Here @Jenee, from your EXACT SAME article.