Originally Posted by George Knighton
Looks like a non sequitor to me. :shrug:
it's the same situation you suggest
Didn't say they were! The Dead Sea Scrolls is just an example of how everybody can jump on something new as proving or disproving something, and then a few decades later as the excavations continue, you realise the writings were transcribed by criminals who had a vested interest and did not have access to the Church fathers of the era because they were criminals.
i find it very convenient that the church dismisses works that, if found to be truthful would shatter it's very foundation. sounds like a simple defense mechanism to me but, who is to say truthfully either way. neither you nor i nor anyone else on this planet can give an accurate inventory of those present for the sermon on the mount simply because none of us were there. I just find it difficult to believe that over the centuries the gospels and writings that compile the bible haven't been twisted in one shape or another to further the motives of those in power. the power of the church at the time was absolute, and as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The Roman Catholic Church did ot exist in that part of the world at the time. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church has never held sway in Palestine. It is the domain of the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Orthodox) and the Patriarch of Antioch (Orthodox).
sorry, spoke wrongly, i meant the church of christ around the time of constantine I when he converted to christianity from strict paganism to ride the coattails of that new sensation of the time.
In recent decades, the western churches have a very visible, clearly defined political role; however, they simply did not exist at the time.
as i said before, that is not an absolute. to put that much faith in an organization of men is simply naieve.
You're stating the obvious. What you omitted is that they decided that Christ's dual nature (Man and God) had to exist in order for him to do what he did.
did they? religions for thousands of years share one common bond and that is control of the masses. the roman empire needed control of the masses at that time and what better icon to use than jesus. truly, he was a great man, but at the time of constantine I 's conversion to christianity from paganism, the storys of jesus were ever popular and growing with the masses. my theory is that constantine used this sensationalism to compose the bible in order to put a spin of a man's (who was the king of the jews) greatness into divinity in order to capitalize.
You left out what the Oecumenical Councils actually said, I guess because it didn't support your argument.
that's beacuse what was said is irrelevant. it neither supports my thesis or disproves it. the mere fact that his divinity had to be decided upon by men. all men in power have an agenda, hidden or in the open.
I can't call you crazy. I can call you misinformed, and perhaps a little prejudiced because of our tendency to fight what we perceive as the establishment.
am i misinformed? one thing you need to remember in an argument such as this... there are three sides to every story and the victor always writes the history books. just because it's not what you were taught in sunday school doesn't make it false.