If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!
Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.
In the Council of Nicaea, “the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.” The writings and teachings of early church fathers presented even greater challenges for the Church in defining exactly what was considered the heretical theology prior to the First Council of Nicaea. Early Christian apologist Justin Martyr clearly presented his earlier teachings on the logos (Jesus relationship to Father) in the Dialogue with Trypho (Dialogue with Trypho, 56). The resolutions in the council, being ecumenical, were intended for the whole Church.
The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third group (now known as Homoiousians) later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.
Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as the same; followers of Alexander did not. Indeed, the exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264–268 Synods of Antioch.
Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one", John 10:30). Arians, on the other hand, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians likewise appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him.
The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.
basically the Christian Church and belief structure was developed after Jesus was long dead (If he ever existed to begin with), its structure was made to strengthen the Christian movement and organize it, it had nothing to do with what Jesus supposedly preached.
THE GREATEST FREEDOM IS THE FREEDOM TO OPPRESS OTHERS
It's just confusing to me how people can be Biblical literalists, and then decide that God must have stopped handing out prophecies and miracles two thousand years ago without so much as an explanation.
Oxymoron, you started off asserting that Jesus never said he was the Son of God, the Christ. Presumably this was an argument within the context of the Biblical record.
Now you want to change the argument to whether the Bible is authentic or can be relyed on.
We could argue about Textus Receptus vs Textus Sinaiaticus, Roman vs Protestant bible, etc etc for 50 pages until everyone is bored to tears.
Instead I'll cut to the heart of the matter.
If one begins from theism, from a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent eternal God, who can bend Time like a rubber band and play billiards with black holes just for kicks...
...and we further postulate that this all-knowing, all-powerful God cares about Man, and is involved in Man's existence (since otherwise he'd be irrelevent to us)...
...then it follows that He would have a message for His creation, and that He would be able to preserve that message down through history, and that any machinations of men would be fruitless and any evil intentions turned to work for good, to preserve that message for future generations.
Child's play for an Omnipotent Omniscient.
But if you don't believe the Bible is worthy of consideration, just say you don't believe: if that's the case there's little point in arguing scripture with you is there?
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
^^Is anybody going to call this belief irrational? That was very well argued.
Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero