Nicene Christians

You can seriously fuck up Christianity with that line of thinking. I mean all sorts of falsehoods can be reconciled.

>Persian paganism
You mean the monotheistic religion that your religion completely plagiarized?

Zoroastrianism was polytheistic before they were influenced by Jews

>citation needed

Ask Constantine

A reliable source for Orthodox thinking and propaganda. but not academic consensus history, which he has dismissed time and time again

I think you're thinking of JWs.

most SDAs are trinitarian, it's in their statement of beliefs.
however there are nontrinitarian splinter sects, as well as the fact that some of their founders were nontrinitarian.

Jews were henotheistic before they were influenced by Zoroastrian monotheism.

Well it isn't as much of a hot topic now as it was then, most know that Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons are really weird and oftentimes not considered Christian.

>You mean the monotheistic religion that your religion completely plagiarized?

What you mean that religion that didn't have any writings until 1000 AD even though it existed since 2000 BC? That religion is meant to be secretive and that the members couldn't communicate with anyone?

But the orthodox disagree with the Nicaen Creed so why would they call themselves heretics, or do you mean forms of Christianity not presents at the council of Nikea

You tell me:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

>Present-day mainstream Christian Churches, including all of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Christians, together with most Protestant denominations, adhere to the Nicene Creed and are thus examples of Nicene Christianity.
Oriental Orthodox =/= Eastern Orthodox

^This.
Miaphysitism for the win.
The Chalcedonian heretics can fuck off.

>Miaphysitism
>Divinity and Humanity are united in one
wanting to be like God rather than subservient to him is the first sin ffs

Am I crazy or were Christians a lot rarer on Veeky Forums around 6-7 years ago?

And where exactly does miaphysitism imply personal apotheosis?

humanity is subservient to divinity, it isn't exactly personal godhood, but Miaphysitism puts humanity on equal status with Divinity.

You'd prefer I was an adherent of docetism them?

Moreover, I don't see your line of reasoning. In the Lord is all things, so why would humanity as a characteristic be excluded from that unity? Are we not made in His image? Miaphysitism REJECTS Nestorian and Eutychian perspectives.

Nah, you're not crazy.

not that user but docetism denies the humanity of Jesus completely so I don't want anyone to be that however miaphytism flirts with monophytism so dyophytism does a better job of explaining how the logos could be incarnate in a human who bleeds and experiences anxiety.

>he doesn't think Yeshua was an Apparition of Light like Hevel Zhiva and Lilis Zhariel.

>spooky tripfag starts posting spooky nonsense

what a surprise

Hevel Zhiva is the redeemed light-ghost of Abel in the Mandaen tradition. His love and compassion awakened the spirit of Lilith, who underwent the same transformation.

They escaped from the Abyss together. Got hitched. It's a cute story imho.

No they were influenced by the Assyrians that believed that their god ashur was omnipotent and omnipresent and that the other gods werr just aspects of him

>Rabbinical Judaism as it developed in Late Antiquity is emphatically monotheistic, but its predecessor, the various schools of Hellenistic Judaism and Second Temple Judaism, and especially the cult of Yahweh as it was practiced in ancient Israel and Judah during the 8th and 7th centuries BC, have been described as henotheistic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism#Canaanite_religion_and_early_Judaism

The only good papist is a dead papist

ebin
>>>/l/eftypol

I am sorry academically accepted history triggers you so much.

I am sure there is some hugbox on reddit where scary ideas like that wont be present

>academically accepted history
Don't forget that Romans were black and Vikings were women!
Academics are fucking hacks. Also, appeal to authority.

Peer review is not a blind appeal to authority, it is a systematic process by many scholars to vet new arguments and evidence.

And if your best argument against it is that leftist are trying to destroy your religion. you are grasping at straws. The same people dismissed the "Christ myth" theory

Many scholars have concluded that gender does not exist
>Peer review is not a blind appeal to authority
Saying "My claims are true because my professor said so" literally is

And who are these "many scholars"?

Your confusing sociology with the historical method.

The claim is true because we have inscriptions and writings from near by peoples. If you take all of those and put them on a time line you see a move from polytheism to monotheism in the area.

An agurment from authority is only a fallacy when the person in question is unqaulified to comment.

If I am making an argument about gravity and quote a gravity researcher from a university that is not fallacious.

>If you take all of those and put them on a time line you see a move from polytheism to monotheism in the area.
No you do not
>An agurment from authority is only a fallacy when the person in question is unqaulified to comment.
No, it's not. Your professor isn't the god of science retard
>If I am making an argument about gravity and quote a gravity researcher
False equivalency

The same fedora tipping "scholars" would have told you the Gospel of John was definitely written in the 170s 100 years ago. Then we found the papyri. Your "scholars" go straight into the trash can.

The gospel of John was most likely written in parts, the later of which were written most likely in the 2nd century.

and what makes you think the majority of these people are atheists? there are plenty of Christians studying the history of Christianity and Judaism at a professional level. Some of them are incredibly prominent

>No, it's not.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.[1]

>Can be fallacious
>when the authority cited is not a true expert

Your talking out of your ass. I am going to go out on a limb and say you dont know much about the historical process either.

>The gospel of John was most likely written in parts
There is no evidence of that
>and what makes you think the majority of these people are atheists?
The only reason they make up such nonsense is because they do not worship the true God. There is no other reason

"What my professor said is true because my professor said so!"
Don't forget (s)he's also right when (s)he saus white men are evil!

textual analysis is evidence.

>The only reason they make up such nonsense is because they do not worship the true God. There is no other reason

Have you considered that Jesus might not be the one true God and the evidence they are presenting is accurate?

Just throwing that out there, not that accepting this stuff means you cant be a Christian, unless you consider the bible to be literal and inerrant which most Christians do not.

>Don't forget (s)he's also right when (s)he saus white men are evil!

Speaking of informal logical fallacies this one is called "poisoning the well"

>the fallacy fallacy
Adorable.

>Ps. I am an Anglican with heavy Orthodox leanings, but I retain Anglican ecclesiology, Sacramental theology, and Filioque.

Orthodox here: Why?

"My professor is always right! Smash the white supremacist capitalist cisheteropatriarchy!"

Nice lack of supporting evidence.

He is the one who brought fallacies up, also he is wrong even if he wasn't arguing like an idiot.

tips fedora

>tu quoque
Buddy you may wanna quit while you're ahead.

yeah except I never suggested he was wrong because he used fallacies.

Would you like to provide some evidence as to why he is right?

Religion is sort of like cooking.

You have one dish

but many interpretations and mutations. There is no pure religion.