TomboyMom

Half-Life: Your overall batting average on beng correct in your OP is now 0%. Is this having any affect on your belief system at all? That is, all the arguments in favor of it are wrong. What does that tell you?

Harry Bosch

Wow, what a snob! Well, just for the record, I'm not as educated in the bible as SC: i did get my information regarding the Council of Nicea from a two hour show on the history channel and a single non-fiction book. I also have a close friend who has a degree in religion and was studying to be a pasteur. But he's now deconverted. I do admit to listening to Dan Brown's book via audio book, but I honestly don't remember it being discussed.

Chris Weimer

Well, it's a start

Is he now? I didn't realize you could study your way into a family.

Actually, the gospels are either late first or early second century fictionalized accounts of the life of Jesus. The Trinity, though not explicit in the NT, has, at least, some support, and both the virgin birth and Christ's divinity predates the council of Nicea by over a century. The virgin birth was taken from a misreading of Isaiah (a translation error) and was very most likely original to Matthew, which would make it at the very latest 100 CE. John, not undisputed, gives Christ as GodMan, though his was most likely no earlier than 100 CE.

And it was the making illegal the "heresies", especially under Justinius, that wiped out differing versions of Christianity. Note that heterodox groups still existed well after the fall of Rome, most notably the Arians.

lao tzu

<nitpick>

Not the bible, just the gospels.

</nitpick>

And I agree, admitting a mistake really is rare in this forum. Well done, half-life! You've earned some brownie points.

The object of the (first) Council of Nicaea was to directly address the Arian Heresy. While it also served to canonize the four gospels most in use today, perhaps it's most famous byproduct is the Nicene creed, the actual answer to the question the council was called to resolve.

See also

The First Council of Nicaea
FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA - 325 AD
First Council of Nicaea

__________

Now, as to your follow-up question, half-life, unlike some others, I think it's honest to ask yourself whether there might be other reasons to believe the accounts even if they were written after the fact.

So imagine yourself as part of a group founded, led, and uniquely inspired by some other charismatic leader (not Jesus). The leader has died. Now imagine the likely outcome were this to be generally accepted. Can you not imagine that there might be great pressure to deny this? Even to make up stories in order to support the story that he is not only resurrected, but actualy knew he was going to be resurrected all along?

This is why we find the latter accounts of Jesus resurrection less than adequate. Those telling us he knew all along that he would die and be resurrected have a vested interest in saying so, even if it is not true.

As ever, Jesse

ETA: links

TomboyMom

Actually, Half-Life is getting pretty good at admitting his mistakes. I think he's admitted them now in E & C and GRD. What never happens is the next step, allowing the logical conclusion from the fact that he was mistaken.

CX

Not to nitpick, but it is a common misunderstanding that the Council of Nicaea in 325 had something to do with the canon. It didn't. The CON was concerned with the nature and substance of Jesus and combatting the heresy of Arianism. The canon was not officially recognized by the church until much later and in a rather organic and piece-meal way. In fact the canon is still somewhat in dispute with sectarian differences being most pronounced between the Catholics/Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox.

CX

Actually I've seen that happen several times here over the last 5 years and many more times outside II. In fact I myself deconverted in part because of insurmountable logical contradictions (among a great number of other things).

CX

Damn. I really should read the whole thread before butting in. I'm getting sloppy. Carry on.

lao tzu

<ahem>

The Two Laws of Infidel Dynamics

1. If you make a mistake, an infidel will spot it.
2. If you spot a mistake, an infidel will beat you to posting it.

</ahem>

__________

I'm a bit wary of saying that atheism is a "logical conclusion" rather than merely a more consistent worldview. I've had a long-standing offer to the Jesus god modeled after the proof of Thomas.

If at any time the Jesus god wishes for me to believe in his resurrection, he need do no more than walk through any of the walls in this room and allow me to record on videotape as I place fingers into his wrists and hands into his side, meanwhile answering some of my long-standing questions regarding the real meaning, if any, behind his resurrection.

I think this is reasonable, as it is well within the abilities of the Jesus god described in the bible and no more than he is recorded as granting a close companion. It's been nearly two decades since I first put this offer on the table, but it's just possible the Jesus god is still thinking it over.

If he takes me up on it, I promise I'll make the videotape widely available. Of course, if he decides to delay acceptance until after my death, I'm afraid I'll have to renege of the offer. Sorry, but I'm only human. But I do promise to press for acceptance even after I'm dead, even if distribution would then require some form of divine intervention.

As ever, Jesse

Half-Life

You have the Bible. Jeus does not have to prove himself again. He's done it once. If you can't accept this, that is your fault.