Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
And he should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how he knows that it is. Thanks
The first source given is Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition, which does not contain this quote. Nor does the 2nd source, the Opitz, Athanasius Werke, which contains the same Defense of the Nicene Definition, in Greek, but also some other Athanasius writings.The Wiki link for 16.5.6 takes you back to this quote, with another source for the same information:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110819215807/http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be . . . [consigned to the flames, etc. etc.]
No writings contradicting the Gospel accounts, or presenting anything contrary to them, were destroyed by Constantine's bookburning squads, if they existed.
No writings contradicting the Gospel accounts, or presenting anything contrary to them, were destroyed by Constantine's bookburning squads, if they existed.
You could not possibly know that. And you should copy and paste from GMark exactly what is fictional and detail how you know that it is. Thanks
Isn’t it thought that the Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts were probably hidden by a monastery, to prevent church authorities from destroying them?
Isn’t it thought that the Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts were probably hidden by a monastery, to prevent church authorities from destroying them?
Yes. Under Theodosius, all Gnostic books were ordered destroyed. Having them in one's possession was a capitol offence.
You're making up stories. There's no evidence whatever for this.
Isn’t it thought that the Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts were probably hidden by a monastery, to prevent church authorities from destroying them?
Yes. Under Theodosius, all Gnostic books were ordered destroyed. Having them in one's possession was a capitol offence.
You're making up stories. There's no evidence whatever for this.
Or you're slurping this up from your favorite modern debunker-guru-pundit.
You're making up stories. There's no evidence whatever for this.
Or you're slurping this up from your favorite modern debunker-guru-pundit.
https://southerncrossreview.org/2/gnostic.html
- Eileen Pagels
"Mohammed Alí could not have imagined the enormous implications of his accidental find. If they had been found 1,000 years earlier, the Gnostic texts within would surely have been burned for their heresy. Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon c. 180, wrote five volumes entitled The Destruction and Overthrow of Falsely So-called Knowledge. By the time of the Emperor Constatine's conversion in the fourth century, possession of books denounced as heretical became a criminal offense. Copies of Gnostic books were confiscated and burned. But someone in Upper Egypt, possibly a monk from the nearby monastery of St. Pachomius, took the banned books and hid them from destruction in the jar where they remained buried for almost 1,600 years. Today we read them differently -- as a powerful alternative to orthodox, organized Christianity."
Bark, bark, bark! Bark!
Lumpy, wasn't that your initial stance on the miracles performed by Joseph Smith?You're making up stories. There's no evidence whatever for this.
Isn’t it thought that the Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts were probably hidden by a monastery, to prevent church authorities from destroying them?
Yes. Under Theodosius, all Gnostic books were ordered destroyed. Having them in one's possession was a capitol offence.
You're making up stories. There's no evidence whatever for this.
You're making up stories. There's no evidence whatever for this. [for the claim that Theodosius or Constantine ordered Gnostic books to be destroyed. There is scant evidence that some Arian books (and ONLY Arian books) were destroyed by Constantine, but no Gnostic or other books.]
Lumpy, wasn't that your initial stance on the miracles performed by Joseph Smith?
That there were no such things? Totally made-up?
No corroborating testimony?
My small ant farm refrain is about the notion of god and the purpose of earth and the purported afterlife.
Why would an all-powerful entity make tests of human belief in itself as a criterion for getting the ‘gift’ of eternity in . . .
Why would an all-powerful entity make tests of human belief in itself as a criterion for getting the ‘gift’ of eternity in paradise over a real death or even my dreaded phrase “eternal Auschwitz for the masses” doctrine?
Why would it toy with such mortal creatures in such a half hazard way?
No human would toy with their 6 children in such a callous way.
But somehow it is ok for a god construct to be evil, while some try to call it good.
These are points of philosophical consideration. And I often utilize the phrase “eternal Auschwitz for the masses”, as far too many Christians are glib in their ugly dogma, in what most people can only consider as an evil construct. This is partly why more and more Christians reject the theology of eternal torment.
It would be ironic, assuming the atypical Christian deity exists, if it only throws those into eternal torment that actually believe it to be a just punishment for “unbelievers”.
IMPOV these issues are another component of why this theology is nonsensical. You harp on belief in the Miracle Max part pretty much as the only important thing, as your very custom version of Christian theology that sounds far more like a custom deism than anything else.
27 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David." 28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." 29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you." 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly charged them, "See that no one knows it." 31 But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.
Most Christians think the Jesus sacrificing himself for our sins is the big thing.
The idea that Jesus-god, sacrificed this part of itself to the god-head part of itself (for 3 days out of eternity), for the sins of creatures it created; and knew from before it created them how it would play out; is rather pathetic theology.
These philosophical items all point to human machinations far more so than some all-powerful, just, loving creator entity.
Part of what gets discombobulated in discussing/debating Christian theology with you, is that you seem to be a deist, who throws out 90% of Christian theology, and seems to make Jesus The God;
. . . as most people are debating normative Christian theological constructs.
Tleilaxu Epigram:
Here lies a toppled god —
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and tall one.
Today, even the percentage of Christians is probably down to 28-30% of the world population. The Christian population probably peaked out around 1900, with roughly 34% of . . .
Never-mind those numbers (mostly fake news).
Jesus will turn those numbers around and make Christianity great again, after he completes his courses at Trump University.
So for a god that purported exists and cares about his little ant farm, he sure never did a good job getting the word out...
He used human communication. He provided us with sufficient evidence and left it to humans to pass this on, but we can always complain that there should have been more evidence than this.
Yeah, Trump University is probably where your MHORC theology belongs. It is not a complaint about lack of evidence, . . .
What? You're now saying there's NOT a lack of evidence that Jesus did the miracle acts? So he did show this power, and there is evidence for believing in him, as I've been saying? Are you suddenly changing into a believer? All this time you seemed to be saying there IS a lack of evidence.
. . . not a complaint about a lack of evidence, it is an observation of fact regarding the stagnation of Christian theological faith adherents.
So then you agree there's enough evidence for a reasonable person to believe, but you're only saying there's a failure of people to believe, or lack of "faith adherents."
But when you said "he sure never did a good job getting the word out," didn't you mean there's not enough evidence? i.e., that God didn't provide enough miracles or didn't intervene enough into history to give us certainty about Christ's power to save us, and that if he had provided that much evidence, most or all humans would believe so that God's "ant farm" of believers would be much larger?
That's not the point you were making?
But now you've changed and are saying there is not a "lack of evidence"?
Are you daft? See underlined above. Observing reality is not a concession on sufficiency of evidence.
No, no, that's your story NOW. Read it again.Lumpy, wasn't that your initial stance on the miracles performed by Joseph Smith?
That there were no such things? Totally made-up?
No corroborating testimony?
No, it isn't that there was no evidence at all for the JS reported miracles. The reason for the lower credibility in his case is:
.