Christians, you DO know that until 325 "AD" christianity had no official mascot (god) right?

Question

In fact it took a vote, called by Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea (167 votes for and 157 against) to merge two brothers, Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus into one person and then deify him. This bit of literary shenanigans finally gave christianity a god.
An earlier attempt in 210 "AD" failed to do this.
And after this, any and all references to these two brothers, who led a Jewish revolt agains the Romans in Judea, were ordered gathered up and destroyed. In fact the destruction was so complete that only one copy of the oldest known Old testament (the Sinia Bible) remains. It is housed in the British Museum to this day.
And those that study that bible and any modern copy will tell you that there are a staggering 14000 differences between the two. And we're supposed to believe that this is the word of god?
Come on guys, have the courage to admit that you worship a fictional character.

GG,
Thanks for the puerile answer. Tell me do you have any facts to refute my question? Obviously not or you would have posted them.
Next time, either put up or shut up ok? Thanks.

nynerprincess,
because you people continually tell us that your religion is the "one and only true religion" yet when presented with facts to the opposite, you come up with all kinds of caterwauling and gnashing of teeth.
Like I said, have the intellectual courage to face the truth about your religion.

Answer 1

"167 votes for and 157 against"
Ha! That shows that Christians can't agree with anyone, including other Christians. (did the 157 against go to Hell?)

Answer 2

Actually, the purpose of the Council of Nicea was to decide which books belonged in the Bible and which didn't. That was the council that chose not to include the book of Enoch, the gospel of Thomas, and the gospel of James. The reason they chose not to include those books is because it was unknown who the authors were, and they could not pin down the date that the books were written, even within 100 years.
After the crucifixion of Christ (which is recorded in secular sources as well, not just the Bible), many "gospels" started popping up.
As for the idea that Jesus was a "fictional" character, there are several things wrong with that. One, many of Jesus's apostles were martyred. Why would someone who was "witness" to what Jesus did lie about it, and die horribly as a result? This is also recorded in history, not just the Bible. Two, there is more evidence that Jesus lived, than there is on the life of Plato. Three, whether ALL of the Bible is "true" or not, many events described in it have been proven to have occurred, AND the descriptions of where things were have been used on archaelogical expeditions.
Four, the orginal Bible would have been written in three different languages: Ancient Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic. Aramaic is pretty much a dead language, so is Latin, and Hebrew has changed a lot in the last two thousand years or so. There aren't too many people who can read any of those three, and I don't think ANYONE can read all three. Therefore, whether there are differences in the translations or not, I don't think anyone is alive today to tell.
Fifth, the prophesies of the Old Testament regarding the Messiah, which were fulfilled in the New Testament, can be pinpointed as to whom the authorship belongs to, as well as when the prophesies were written.
If the prophesies had NOT been fulfilled, I doubt that anyone would have been willing to die for it. It would be one thing if they had made it up for money, or fame, but I don't think a horribly gruesome death would have been worth either one of those. These were uneducated men (especially compared to now), whose survival depended on the generosity of others. They didn't take money from anyone, though they did take shelter and food, if they were offerred.
Considering the heavy persecution towards Christianity that took place, if it was all a lie, it would have died out. That's why I believe that ALL religions contain some degree of truth, although I'm a Christian.
From the beginning, the disciples served Jesus, and so did those that they turned to Christianity. This is obvious from literature of the time, which I've read much of.
Besides, there's one glaring thing wrong with your supposition: If Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both existed, then were merged to created Jesus Khrestus, and then all documents that said they were two different people were destroyed, how would anyone know about it?
Also, the debate at the Council was not as to the divinity of Christ, but to whether or not Jesus WAS God.

Answer 3

Where'd you get this info?

Just so you know, when Emperor Constantine made Christianity the ONLY legal religion in his Empire, he actually hurt the Church more than he helped it. Lots of ppl became Christians because it was "the thing" to do and their faith was only nominal. So these nominal "Christians" brought their own mixed-up views of the Bible and Christianity into the church. This confusion likely prompted the Council of Nicea to think it was "absolutely" necessary to approve some "official" god- when in fact God doesn't need approval to be a "mascot."
I'd be careful about deriving sources of Christianity from that time, considering the level of corruption and confusion in the Church at that time.
And what kind of differences are you talking about (in regards to the Sinia bible- which is just the Old Testament, by the way)? Like, language differences, typographical differences, what? And does it really matter so long as the message is the same and they don't contradict each other?
Also, let's face it, man has been trying to find errors and inconsistencies in the Bible since it was written. As of yet, they have failed. Go ahead and read the Bible for yourself and see if you can find any sure-fire error/inconsistency, or whatever.
You don't need a council to tell you what Christianity is about and who God is- we have the Bible for that. If you want to get an idea of what REAL Chrisitanity is, read the Bible.
I think this question is off the mark. Again, you may want to do a bit more thorough research by checking out the heart of Christianity itself- the Bible. And you may find the answer to your question there.

Oh, and that last person who commented seems to know more about the Nicene Council than I do, so I'd suggest you listen to what she has to say, too.

Answer 4

no yod ,anybody who met Jesus Christ or even WHO heres his words at any time ......after the full understanding of what God means,has God the mighty his only mascot...But as ever occurs betweem the uncomplete human beings who off course have not the same capabilities of God .so some people from the so called christians or who were after the understandings from the christ words and deeds,,some understood the same meaning in a differrent manner or way...and so they made this common meeting of philipy in year 325 to give a common written bond that proves to all the people on earth that they are all true believers and had only one god(allah) since the very beginng till the time every thing comes the common end understood by everybody

Answer 5

First of all, what evidence do you have for anything you are saying?

The Council of Nicea (which I do not acknowledge as having any authority) was convened in 325 to discuss the issue of the relationship of Christ to the Father.
* NOT to determine which books belonged in the Bible - that was settled hundreds of years before.
* NOT to reconcile two accounts of brothers leading revolts against the Romans.

All reference to these two brothers was destroyed - convenient. So do you have the only surviving copy of those documents? What do you have to support your position.

Of course there is only one oldest known copy of the Old Testament - there can only be one oldest of anything.

14,000 differences? Come on. Most of the so-called "differences" in copies are along the lines of an acute accent instead of a grave accent - a difference which not only doesn't change the English translations, but couldn't even be heard in the original language.

Have the common decency either to think for yourself or to document your claims.

Answer 6

I DARE YOU TO ANNOUNCE YOUR SOURCE IS THE DAVINCI CODE HA HA HA HA HA HA

The name you give of Khrestus is a little messed up and shows Dan Brown's unfamiliarity with the language.

The Latinized term Cristos comes from the Greek and is spelled χριστος (chi rho iota sigma tau omicron sigma), which means litterally "anointed" or "sprinkled with oil"

The letter "K" is a loan letter into the Latin alphabet from the Greek letter kappa and is used soley for Greek words or names that have come into Latin.

Who ever wrote this theory does not have any knowledge of the actual primary sources. If he did, he would have used the names given. I also find it considerably hard to believe that a Jewish Rabbi would have a Greek named brother given the extreeme tensions between Jews and Greeks from the Ptolemaic dynasties. It was an important part of Jewish culture to retain name and language in the face of the Egyptian/Greek racial opression. One only needs to look to the revolt of the Macabees to see the rise of zealotry in response to Greek policy towards Jewish subjects.

I won't argue with you about the existence of God, but where ever you got your source is just not scientifically sound.

Dan Brown has no idea what he is talking about. He is MISTER Brown, not DOCTOR Brown. He claimed in the book "Angels and Demons" that the Latin word for God was "dum". Anyone who has had any Latin will tell you that "dum" means "while" or "when", it has nothing to do with God.

This is what irks me about Dan Brown because anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of Greek and Latin can see what an amateur he is.

I can't believe you actually believe what you read. It's fiction! What he said about the Council of Nicea is not true and he is unable to read it because he has no knowledge of the language. You have revealed yourself to be uneducated. Do you believe we can travel back in time because you read it in a book?

So there you have it. Someone who has secular knowledge of the subject pointed out how stupid such a claim is. Notice lack of citations of Bible passages I do not know.

Saying "I don't believe in this because I said so" is a respectable answer. Your reasons are just plain dumb.

I believe the correct Latin word to describe this is "imbecillus"

Answer 7

Christianity is the most successful piece of revisionist history ever.

325CE: The dissenting bishops were offered two options: to sign the settlement at Nicea or be exiled. The bishops produced the Nicene Creed, which declared that Jesus Christ was "of one substance with the Father." This did not immediately settle the question of the divinity of Christ; many bishops and churches refused to believe in the council's decision for decades.

Answer 8

Swedenborg's theology states that the Council of Nicea actually ended the first Christian Church and started the New Jerusalem. In the New Jerusalem, only the Lord Jesus Christ is the light of the city according to scripture. This scripture is called the book or Revelation which was written by about 150 AD. So Jesus Christ was Lord of lords and King of kings before you say.

http://www.mechanicsburgnewchurch.org

Answer 9

HA HA HA! You really have it SCREWED UP!

Constantine took True Christianity and turned it in to a CULT.

You do some pretty far out research for an unbeliever!

All of the above is pretty ""old stuff"" ----------keep digging!
You gotta prove something!

Answer 10

I'm curious as to the source too. It's very interesting if it's true. Which, I hope it is. Amazing how we have all this information that proves the bible as a revisionist hoax on mankind, yet none to verify it's origin as being from God.

Answer 11

Shut up. Actual Christianity and Official Christianity are two very different things. I don't care about the Council of Nicea. Just because they decree that two characters be amalgamated doesn't change anything. It's said that they also changed when Jesus' birthday would be to make it go in concordance to the festival of Saturnalia. Officially, Jesus' birthday is Dec 25, but that doesn't mean that it actually is, just that it officially is.
And please cite your source about the 14,000 differences. I'd love to hear about them. My email address is [e-mail]. Please, tell me about this. I'd love to hear.