Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't rely on him about anything, however if he wanted to totally invent the ideology of the Nicene Creed to strengthen Christianity, he would have incorporated some ideas of the NT texts into the Nicene Creed, which shows really nothing from the NT texts, unlike the 381 Creed.
So it would seem that the creed in 325 reflected something going on about some kind of Christianity prior to that, but how much before? The excuse for so few "bishops" in Nicea was due to disagreements, but who knows if that was the real reason? The Creed of 381 shows some awareness of NT texts, but 325 doesn't. At least as far as it goes.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, if you have no reliable sources then you won't be able to resolve anything about the Nicean Creed and the state of affairs of the 4th century.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, that's true, but you can speculate based on the totality of the information and inferences. Perhaps of even more importance than Constantine and Nicea is what emerged between Theodosius and Justinian, who put his foot down on anything other than the official Roman religion. As I mentioned before, I wanted to draw a comparison with the US revolution when a new system was established that used ideas from Locke, Rousseau, etc. and came up with something very new as well...

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have NO time to waste with speculation. Once you have no source of antiquity for your claims about Nicea and the state of Christianity then I will not get involved with your imagination.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I don't know why. You admitted yourself that we have to rely on inference and speculation, and this has to be the case when one cannot rely on writings of people such as Eusebius as the "gospel truth" when you have doubts that he even existed, and consider it possible that other writers were involved in authoring texts under his name.

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are imagining things.

I have said numerous times that I deal with Sources, Sources, Sources........Evidence, Evidence from antiquity.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "Evidence" and "Truth".

Originally Posted by Duvduv

However, in one thread you did refer to inferences without evidence. There is nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please Identify the post where I referred to inferences without evidence. If you want to make accusations then you are OBLIGATED to show the evidence.

One of my Sources that there was a Jesus story and Jesus cult of Christians is Justin Martyr.

Now, please name your source that there were Christians in the 4th century and that bishop, including Eusebius, attended the Council of Nicea?

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I think this was the posting: #7045252

On your point about Eusebius I am not sure I understand what you mean.....