Originally posted by David C I have, on several occasions. Nicaea was a farce, and Constantine worshipped Deus Sol Invictus. His 'conversion' was purely cosmetic, or worse: a total fabrication.
According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967, article on Constantine the Great: Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Church of Rome as evidenced by Christ as Apollo-Helios in a ...[text shortened]... ginning of the third century "Sun of Justice" was used as a title of Christ.
Happy?
So do you think that the Bible is mumbo-jumbo but the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 is the absolute truth?
Originally posted by dj2becker So do you think that the Bible is mumbo-jumbo but the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 is the absolute truth?
Edit: 😉 (I forgot)
Not at all, on either count. Just because I unequivocally reject the bible as any sort of "WORD OF GOD", or Jesus as any sort of historical reality, does not mean I think it's useless as a tool for spiritual enlightenment.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage I don't have the time to summarise the story of David Barton, a revisionist Christian who fabricated the quotes you used above, but the link I posted (http://www.ntskeptics.org/1997/1997june/june1997.htm) gives the story.
Here's a snippet:
Church & State editor Rob Boston, who also authored books such as Why The Religious Right is Wrong about ...[text shortened]... minent figures, that are now considered to be suspect or outright false.9
OK, Hal? Satisfied?
Here's a link you might be interested in, probably still biased towards the right, but more objective IMO:
Originally posted by David C I have, on several occasions. Nicaea was a farce, and Constantine worshipped Deus Sol Invictus. His 'conversion' was purely cosmetic, or worse: a total fabrication.
According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967, article on Constantine the Great: Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Church of Rome as evidenced by Christ as Apollo-Helios in a ...[text shortened]... ginning of the third century "Sun of Justice" was used as a title of Christ.
Happy?
How does this show that the Church Fathers rewrote history? Or that Nicaea was a farce?
Originally posted by David C You're a bright fellow, Hammy...figure it out.
That's just being lazy.
Alright, let me help you out: For the claim that the Church Fathers "rewrote" history to be true, you need to show that:
1. Event A happened (or did not happen)
2. The Church Fathers taught that Event A did not happen (or did happen).
3. The Church Fathers' teaching was widely accepted.
Originally posted by lucifershammer That's just being lazy.
Go ahead.
Been through this already with you, Ham.
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
Originally posted by David C Been through this already with you, Ham.
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
QED.
(Yeah, I'm lazy. So what?)
I thought you were going to pick something much harder - like the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection.
We've been over this before - your arguments for Christ being entirely fictional are so tenuous you can't even get fellow-atheists to agree with you.
Originally posted by David C Been through this already with you, Ham.
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
Originally posted by David C Been through this already with you, Ham.
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
QED.
(Yeah, I'm lazy. So what?)
Sorry Dave, I'll have to side with LH, this is hardly an ironclad case you are making here...
1) Jesus was fictional, a syncretic creation. A representation of the Sun and the New Age.
Unless you can pull some rabbit out of your hat, this is a preposterous assumption...
2) The Church Fathers after Nicaea taught that he was really real. Really.
Lol, I really think you need to back up premise 1) or this premise really falls. Really.
3) Hammy and the GodSquad don't question this nonsense today.
This we shall see based upon the reasonable evidence you present... if your evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt 1) and subsequently 2) then yes, I'll admit to 3)
Whilst a handful of Christians being constructive in no way undermines my argument that in general religious people waste their lives, you may be interested in my new thread:
"List of 'constructive' Christians - debunked. "
I hope you enjoy learning about the people named in your cut 'n' paste lists, Halitosis and PRatX.
Originally posted by howardgee Whilst a handful of Christians being constructive in no way undermines my argument that in general religious people waste their lives, you may be interested in my new thread:
"List of 'constructive' Christians - debunked. "
I hope you enjoy learning about the people named in your cut 'n' paste lists, Halitosis and PRatX.
Go check your list HG, and btw how can you determine if somebody is a Christian or not, you closed-minded atheist bigot...
Why religion is dumb - reason 6 (Wasted Life)
08 Nov '05 13:55
Back to Top