Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality

[Meriweather]

The Bible is a book full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history. The crucifixion and resurrection story has many contradictions (different versions of events) between the gospels.

There were over forty gospels written and only four were voted into the Canon at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD.
The earliest found gospels are all found to be written in Greek and not in the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of Palestine/Judea/Israel

If the gospels were written by the purported eyewitnesses of the purported events in the gospel story, then what happened to the supposed originals written in the native language(s) of Palestine/Judea/Israel?

What I have learned in my research is...

Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.

Correct. While you had to research all this, it was taught to me in elementary school.

 

[BluePhantom]

The Bible is a book full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history. The crucifixion and resurrection story has many contradictions (different versions of events) between the gospels.

Correct.

There were over forty gospels written and only four were voted into the Canon at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD.
The earliest found gospels are all found to be written in Greek and not in the native language(s), Aramaic/Hebrew, of Palestine/Judea/Israel

Partially correct. There were over 40 gospels, but none of them were voted on at the council of Nicea. Despite popular belief, the Biblical canon was not determined at that council. They never addressed it. In fact, I don't think ti was ever formally addressed until the 2nd Council of Carthage and by that time the canon had been pretty much established anyhow.

If the gospels were written by the purported eyewitnesses of the purported events in the gospel story, then what happened to the supposed originals written in the native language(s) of Palestine/Judea/Israel?

Wrong. The gospels in the Bible, as you indicate below, are anonymous books that were later attributed to Apostolic authors by other people. The gospels themselves never claim to have been written by those to whom they are attributed.

Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.

Correct. And all this has to do with grace and fear based morality how?

 

[AudeSapere]

If you acknowledge that the Bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history then what are you basing your faith on? Why do you use Bible quotes to impart lessons of morality if it is shown and acknowledged to be full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history? Is it you just don't base your belief on a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Wrong. The gospels in the Bible, as you indicate below, are anonymous books that were later attributed to Apostolic authors by other people. The gospels themselves never claim to have been written by those to whom they are attributed.

You have to reread what I wrote because I wrote that as a rhetorical question. I finished the sentence with a question mark if you'll note.

Partially correct. There were over 40 gospels, but none of them were voted on at the council of Nicea. Despite popular belief, the Biblical canon was not determined at that council. They never addressed it. In fact, I don't think ti was ever formally addressed until the 2nd Council of Carthage and by that time the canon had been pretty much established anyhow.

I have to disagree with you on the gospels and the New Testament in general not being voted on at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. Bible scholars have shown that the record shows that they were. Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"

The first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate.

About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).

In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,

"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"

(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.).

It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.

The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620).

There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:

Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes

(God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods -Apollo and Zeus- but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanized version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Savior" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god.

Julius Caesar was hailed as, "God made manifest and universal Savior of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Savior of the whole human race"

(Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952).

Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalized on his coins as the "Savior of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Savior and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.

"As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..."

(God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects:

1)Caesar

2) Krishna

4) Mithra

5) Horus

6) Zeus

(Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).

Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god.

A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite.

That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".

 

[Meriweather]

If you acknowledge that the Bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history then what are you basing your faith on? Why do you use Bible quotes to impart lessons of morality if it is shown and acknowledged to be full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history? Is it you just don't base your belief on a literal interpretation of the Bible?

No one's life and circumstance is exactly the same. No two people see things precisely the same, either. People remember differently. When two people describe an accident differently, it does not mean the accident did not take place.

Some circumstances warrant not letting one's left hand know what the right hand is doing. Other times, we are not to hide our light under a bushel basket.

Scripture is lessons on loving God and loving one's fellow man. Lessons on knowing we are forgiven by God and in forgiving others. People have questions: How do we love? How do we forgive? How much do we love? How much do we forgive? Scripture helps us to delve into and explore how to love and forgive.

 

[Agit8r]

I've noticed no greater incidence of morality among Christians than other groups. I'd say that the basis of morality among the group falls more into the category of random chance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"If there are denominations of Christianity, that rejects/ignore certain concepts from the NT(such as Marks claim for believers), then can we really call it Christianity?" We never allow non-believers to define Christianity. And I do not know one Christian sect to define whether another Christian sect is Christian enough or not. The good Christian turns his back quietly on the disrupter and shuts the door.

 

[BluePhantom]

If you acknowledge that the Bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history then what are you basing your faith on? Why do you use Bible quotes to impart lessons of morality if it is shown and acknowledged to be full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history? Is it you just don't base your belief on a literal interpretation of the Bible?

WHOA!!! Ok....I realize you just joined yesterday so let me offer you some friendly veteran advice. Keep things short. I am not even going to bother to read everything you wrote and very few people actually will. Take that for what it's worth. Now to your question.

I am not a literal interpreter of the Bible nor do I view the books of the Bible in a connected or linear fashion. In other words there is contradiction in the birth account of Jesus between the gospels of Luke and Matthew. I don't try to reconcile them. I simply say 'well according to Matthew this happened and according to Luke that happened''. If someone asks me 'well then which did happen?' my answer is 'I don't know. One or the other at best and probably neither.' So I treat the books as separate entities and don't try to cram them together to fit a grand story line. I do look for grand schemes and overriding principles where books are written by the same author such as Luke/Acts or the undisputed epistles of Paul. The rest I take individually. My faith is based on a theological relationship with God and the Bible acts as a tool that provides lessons which may, or may not, have application in my personal set of beliefs. As I said, one can read scripture and look for principles that have relevance to modern Christian faith and reject those things that have become antiquated..

Wrong. The gospels in the Bible, as you indicate below, are anonymous books that were later attributed to Apostolic authors by other people. The gospels themselves never claim to have been written by those to whom they are attributed.

You have to reread what I wrote because I wrote that as a rhetorical question. I finished the sentence with a question mark if you'll note.

Yes I see that. I misread what you wrote. My apologies.

I have to disagree with you on the gospels and the New Testament in general not being voted on at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. Bible scholars have shown that the record shows that they were. Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"

We can agree to disagree. I don't put a great deal of faith in the historical accuracy of an event based on missing records. Show me records that exist and I will base my evaluation upon that.

That's as far as I am going. I appreciate the effort you put into writing that long post but I don't have the time or interest to read it all.

Again....what does any of this have to do with grace and fear based morality? You are going WAY off topic.

 

[BluePhantom]

I've noticed no greater incidence of morality among Christians than other groups. I'd say that the basis of morality among the group falls more into the category of random chance.

For the most part I would agree. I am not arguing that Christians are morally superior or are more likely to be moral. I am simply refuting atheist claims about the motivation for moral behavior according to Paul.

 

[Agit8r]

I've noticed no greater incidence of morality among Christians than other groups. I'd say that the basis of morality among the group falls more into the category of random chance.

For the most part I would agree. I am not arguing that Christians are morally superior or are more likely to be moral. I am simply refuting atheist claims about the motivation for moral behavior according to Paul.

Yes. I suppose the motivation depends on the individual or congregation.

 

[AudeSapere]

We can agree to disagree. I don't put a great deal of faith in the historical accuracy of an event based on missing records. Show me records that exist and I will base my evaluation upon that.

That's as far as I am going. I appreciate the effort you put into writing that long post but I don't have the time or interest to read it all.

I thought what I brought up was relevant to the topic, my apologies for posting at all here.

As far the "long post" was concerned, I get this occasionally from intellectually lazy people and it may be long to you and you may just have an attention span and the lack of intellectual curiosity that does not allow you to read and/or fully comprehend what is being written. You read the title "missing records" and just assumed that there was no citation of sources. I cited numerous scholarly sources in what I posted. They were at the end of the sentences. Later...

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, lazy people do not correct long, unnecessary posts, sap.

You could have said in half the space what you needed to say.

Literalist scholars posting sources is meaningless to knowledgeable Christians.

 

[BluePhantom]

I thought what I brought up was relevant to the topic, my apologies for posting at all here.

Apology accepted. I am going to say this is the nicest manner I can. Believe me I am offering this to you in the best way possible. Your post had nothing to do with the topic. We were not discussing authorship of the gospels, Biblical contradictions, the Council of Nicea, or my personal method on how I use the Bible to support my faith. If you wish to discuss those things there are plenty of other threads dedicated to those topics and I will be happy to discuss them with you there. Or just wait because a new one pops up every few months and everyone makes the same arguments we have heard for years. Furthermore, by a complete lack of fortune you also ran into three posters (JakeStarkey, Meriweather, and myself) who already know perfectly well what you are attempting to educate us about. There are plenty of other posters who don't and would benefit from your scholarly wisdom. Go educate them, although I would suggest that you attempt to establish some credibility before acting like no one knows anything but you.

Now....if you have an opinion on motivation for morality in regard to grace, spiritual self-preservation, or something along those lines, then by all means share it with us so we can explore your contribution. If you wish to attempt to educate us about the historical authorship of scripture, create a different thread and offer your insight there.

I'll let your snarky comment at the end of your post slide. Let's chalk this up to a learning experience and welcome to the boards.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sap may have something to offer, but if he comes across like Keys who does not understand what rationalism means, or saintmike who proves that fascists can claim to be Christian, he will get battered.

 

[BluePhantom]

sap may have something to offer, but if he comes across like Keys who does not understand what rationalism means, or saintmike who proves that fascists can claim to be Christian, he will get battered.

He may indeed have something to offer and I hope he sticks around. But it would behoove him to find out something about the people he is talking to before embarking on a long, off-topic, dissertation about stuff we already know with his 10th post on the boards.

 

[AudeSapere]

Literalist scholars posting sources is meaningless to knowledgeable Christians.

No, lazy people do not correct long, unnecessary posts, sap.

You could have said in half the space what you needed to say.

Literalist scholars posting sources is meaningless to knowledgeable Christians.

I don't believe you're capable of correcting what I posted because what I posted is based on well sourced Bible scholarship from people who are far more knowledgeable on the subject matter than you are. The scholars I used for sources were not "literalists" ace (you need to work on your reading comprehension a little if you couldn't glean that), and what are so called "knowledgeable Christians" basing their knowledge on if the Bible they are using is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history and not to be understood literally?

I am finished here and I am not going to respond to anymore posts on this. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[BluePhantom]

Literalist scholars posting sources is meaningless to knowledgeable Christians.

No, lazy people do not correct long, unnecessary posts, sap.

You could have said in half the space what you needed to say.

Literalist scholars posting sources is meaningless to knowledgeable Christians.

I don't believe you're capable of correcting what I posted because what I posted is based on well sourced Bible scholarship from people who are far more knowledgeable on the subject matter than you are. The scholars I used for sources were not "literalists" ace (you need to work on your reading comprehension a little if you couldn't glean that), and what are so called "knowledgeable Christians" basing their knowledge on if the Bible they are using is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history and not to be understood literally?

I am finished here and I am not going to respond to anymore posts on this. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't believe you're capable of correcting what I posted

I am your Huckleberry.

[/QUOTE]

 

[BluePhantom]

If you acknowledge that the Bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history then what are you basing your faith on? Why do you use Bible quotes to impart lessons of morality if it is shown and acknowledged to be full of contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history? Is it you just don't base your belief on a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Wrong. The gospels in the Bible, as you indicate below, are anonymous books that were later attributed to Apostolic authors by other people. The gospels themselves never claim to have been written by those to whom they are attributed.

You have to reread what I wrote because I wrote that as a rhetorical question. I finished the sentence with a question mark if you'll note.

Partially correct. There were over 40 gospels, but none of them were voted on at the council of Nicea. Despite popular belief, the Biblical canon was not determined at that council. They never addressed it. In fact, I don't think ti was ever formally addressed until the 2nd Council of Carthage and by that time the canon had been pretty much established anyhow.

I have to disagree with you on the gospels and the New Testament in general not being voted on at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. Bible scholars have shown that the record shows that they were. Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"

The first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate.

About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).

In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,

"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"

(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.).

It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.

The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620).

There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:

Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes

(God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods -Apollo and Zeus- but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanized version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Savior" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god.

Julius Caesar was hailed as, "God made manifest and universal Savior of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Savior of the whole human race"

(Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952).

Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalized on his coins as the "Savior of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Savior and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.

"As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..."

(God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects:

1)Caesar

2) Krishna

4) Mithra

5) Horus

6) Zeus

(Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).

Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god.

A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite.

That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".

Wow....look at this JakeStarkey Not only is it completely off-topic, all he did is copy and paste this whole thing from Nexusmagazine.com. It wasn't even his research. He is just taking what someone else wrote, pasting it word for word in an attempt to pass it off as his own and educate us. https://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doc_view/11-the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament starting on page 2

Why not just say "well here's an argument I find convincing" and post the link? Rookie mistake, I know but sheesh. Guys acts all arrogant and then doesn't even provide his own argument, then insults me about being intellectually lazy.

Ok...whatever...moving on

 

[BreezeWood]

The lesson of Noah you refer to is rendered moot by the sacrifice of Jesus according to Paul.

.
Noah is The Commandment from God to humanity, the Triumph of Good vs Evil for its preservation or certain failure, punctuated by the brutality against sinners.

BP: Thus, Christian morality, when one follows the Bible at least, is for the sake or morality itself and a genuine love of mankind.

that's interesting you believe God changed the Commandment of Noah for the sake of modern christianity ... Christian morality based on universal sin.


Refuting Fear Based Motivation for Christian Morality

there should be fear for christians if they haven't any ....

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

https://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doc_view/11-the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament The Forged Origins of the New Testament

OK, poor source material, from which he plagiarized.

Keep it on file for when he posts again.

I knew he was fishy.

Breezewood, can it. You are no expert on anything.