Myths about Nicea

**Carpathian Wolf** · November 16, 2009, 02:15 AM

The first video deals actually with some of the clothing the Orthodox clergy wear it. And it brings some very grim insight on it. But it isn't relevant to the specific discussion that's in the title.

The series isn't done but I think with this much so far we can put to rest any claims that the Council of Nicea was some conspiracy theory to usurp the true teachings of Christianity, Constantine's role in the council and the Trinity. Claims that are unfounded and have been made ad infinium by atheists, Jews, Moslems etc.

**Denny Crane!** · November 16, 2009, 05:04 AM

Thundareiksigg has done this one to death I believe in another thread.

**~~Arch-hereticK~~** · November 16, 2009, 06:33 AM

In many threads here and all the other discussion and debate forums.

**Pious Agnost** · November 17, 2009, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by Denny Crane!

Thundareiksigg has done this one to death I believe in another thread.

Yep, that's what I thought of as soon as I saw the thread-title.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=223888

**basics** · November 17, 2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Carpathian Wolf

The series isn't done but I think with this much so far we can put to rest any claims that the Council of Nicea was some conspiracy theory to usurp the true teachings of Christianity, Constantine's role in the council and the Trinity. Claims that are unfounded and have been made ad infinium by atheists, Jews, Moslems etc.

Please use quote tags and links for member quotes. -- VP

Explain then how it is in your eyes that a Pagan soldier could sit in on a subject which is beyond his mind to comprehend, to make suggestions, having the power of a conqueror, where those suggestions, if one wanted to live, probably weren't contested?

Perhaps a reading of Gibbon's Decline and Fall where he gives an unbiased opinion based on all the writings from a great many writers might just take you off that perch to see that all was not well with the church at that time and which brought about the elevating of the bishops to the point where they were not supposed to be.

**Carpathian Wolf** · November 17, 2009, 02:16 PM

First off Basics you didn't watch the videos at all. Secondly to consider Gibbon's Decline and Fall as unbias is hilarious and shows once again just how little history you portray accurately.

Which suggestions did Constantine make and who did he threaten with death?

**basics** · November 18, 2009, 06:38 AM

" First off Basics you didn't watch the videos at all. Secondly to consider Gibbon's Decline and Fall as unbias is hilarious and shows once again just how little history you portray accurately."

Carpathian Wolf,

Explain to me how it is biased considering the man was not a Christian when he wrote the history, used many sources including that of Christians as well as others and didn't become a member of anything until he became a Roman Catholic and later was converted to a Lutherist church.

I often wondered why you guys were so against Gibbon and his history but I begin to see now that I am going through it for a second time. He exposes the myth that your church is of the original. But then it doesn't take anything other than the Bible to dispell that misery.

I watched the first video regarding what the speaker called many things but I fail to see that in these days when they have no persecution, that they were not martyrs, why they still dress as such? Of course it is their tradition but that is neither here nor there as it does not prove any of them to be of the original.

The speaker says it was to hide their scars, perhaps like to hide other things as well. Things like being covered in gold and jewels which is also not of the original. If truth be told and accepted it is a mark of distinction that here is one higher than the plain old garden follower. That he and his idols have to be bowed to and even kissed. Remember what happened to the last person who kissed the Lord Jesus Christ? Go away man and read your Bible.

**Carpathian Wolf** · November 18, 2009, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by basics

" First off Basics you didn't watch the videos at all. Secondly to consider Gibbon's Decline and Fall as unbias is hilarious and shows once again just how little history you portray accurately."

Carpathian Wolf,

Explain to me how it is biased considering the man was not a Christian when he wrote the history, used many sources including that of Christians as well as others and didn't become a member of anything until he became a Roman Catholic and later was converted to a Lutherist church.

I often wondered why you guys were so against Gibbon and his history but I begin to see now that I am going through it for a second time. He exposes the myth that your church is of the original. But then it doesn't take anything other than the Bible to dispell that misery.

I watched the first video regarding what the speaker called many things but I fail to see that in these days when they have no persecution, that they were not martyrs, why they still dress as such? Of course it is their tradition but that is neither here nor there as it does not prove any of them to be of the original.

The speaker says it was to hide their scars, perhaps like to hide other things as well. Things like being covered in gold and jewels which is also not of the original. If truth be told and accepted it is a mark of distinction that here is one higher than the plain old garden follower. That he and his idols have to be bowed to and even kissed. Remember what happened to the last person who kissed the Lord Jesus Christ? Go away man and read your Bible.

First off you haven't even provided anything from Gibbon. All you did was mention him and when I said he's a bias source you go spouting non sense of some sort of triumph even though you haven't said anything at all. But go ahead show us how Gibbon "exposes the myth".

To hide their jewels? Are you really only capable of slander? What gold and jewels are they hiding? You're claims are so ridiculous. The rest of what you write is incoherent rambling as usual.

**basics** · November 19, 2009, 02:29 PM

" But go ahead show us how Gibbon "exposes the myth"."

Carpathian Wolf,

I've already given two but why not you try reading chapters 15 & 16 of the history and then you will see all the gimmicks that came to be known as the churches you want accepted to be the originals. As I've said he uses sources way beyond my competence to know nor wish to. In other words what I am saying is that what you and I see as churches today are but poor examples of the original and that because a hierarchy was installed where it was never meant to be once the disciples passed on.

**Carpathian Wolf** · November 19, 2009, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by basics

" But go ahead show us how Gibbon "exposes the myth"."

Carpathian Wolf,

I've already given two but why not you try reading chapters 15 & 16 of the history and then you will see all the gimmicks that came to be known as the churches you want accepted to be the originals. As I've said he uses sources way beyond my competence to know nor wish to. In other words what I am saying is that what you and I see as churches today are but poor examples of the original and that because a hierarchy was installed where it was never meant to be once the disciples passed on.

In other words you are making things up using sources you yourself admit you are not at the level to comprehend and you don't even show what they are saying to allow those more competent to do so.

So you haven't listened to what the person you are disagreeing with said. You haven't posted any information other than your disagreement. The place where you are getting your supposed sources, you won't post here, not that you can understand them as you yourself have said.

Something here is very very wrong.

**Carpathian Wolf** · November 21, 2009, 01:39 AM

Right right, so what policy did Constantine make? See I try to have a conversation with you but you go on ranting about non sense playing pretend brim stone and fire preacher. You made some claims about Gibbon, you won't specify what...just that Constantine was bad! But we don't know in what way because you don't back up your statements.

And heresies I won't name? Have you been reading anything?