just follow Jesuss

teachings...Jerry Worthylake.
Jerry, You responded:
I'd appreciate it if you all would stop trying to
push your product on me. If it is that good of a
product then people will come to it willingly
(Buddhism never advertises). The Bible is a
compilation of stories (torah) written ~ 600 BC
during the Babylonian exodus. The Gospels (new
testament) were accounts disjointed that only 4
made it in where many more were hid away (Nag
Hamadi) . The Council of Nicea and the Roman
Emperor Constantine decided how Christianity
should look and feel to the Roman Empire and what
a church should look like and what the 'official
story' should be(that should give you a clue right
there). Vedas from the Hindus, Koran from
Mohammed, Sutras from Buddhism, Tao Te Ching
from Lao Tzu. These are all keystone books for
their respective religions, but not one of them can
corner the market on how this universe came to
be....not one. Scientists also have theories on how
the universe came about based on rational analyis.
But are they absolutely correct on this account? I
dont know...and i am perfectly happy with 'i dont

know'...but i am more happy with 'i dont know and

a mystery' then 'God made the world in 6 days
blah blah blah' which is absurd. ...Please
Christians , just follow Jesus's teachings of love
everyone, forgiveness, take care of people
(universal healthcare) and stfu and be humble!!
Thank you.
I thank you Jerry for giving me the opportunity to respond
in turn.
Firstly Jerry, A relationship with the Creator of the
Universe, (as in uni verse, i.e. Single spoken phrase), is
not a product. There are those who commercialize
Christianity just as they do with every other
belief/ideology/worldview in their attempt to make
money.
It is written, The love of money is the source of all kinds
of evil.

You write that The Bible is a compilation of stories

(torah) written ~ 600 BC during the Babylonian exodus.

Jesus believed He was the fulfillment of the Old

Testament promises. Speaking to two of His own
disciples, Jesus began with Moses and all the Prophets

and interpreted for them the things concerning Himself

in all the Scriptures. Luke 24:27). Jesus was so confident
in the divine authority of the Old Testament that He
quoted it to define Himself and His mission and to settle
controversies with His critics (see Matt 22: 15-45). He
rebuked Satan by quoting from the book of Deuteronomy
(see Matt 4: 1-11). He even went so far as to affirm some
of the most controversial passages in the Old Testament.
He referred to Noahs flood as though He believed it
actually occurred (Matt 24: 37-39). He affirmed Moses,
Daniel, and Isaiah as the authors of their own material
(Matt 24: 15). He talked about the miracles of Elijah and
Elisha as though He really believed they happened (Luke
4: 25-27). He even referred to Jonahs experience in the
fish as a type of His own resurrection (Matt 2: 39-41;
16:4).
On the Cross Jesus quoted Ps 22:1, My God, my God,
why have You forsaken me? (Matt 27:46). In the face of
His impending death, Jesus told Peter that the Scriptures
[must] be fulfilled that say it must happen this way (Matt
26:54). In regard to His own future, Jesus said, But I tell
you, in the future you will see the Son of Man seated at
the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of
heaven, quoting Dan 7:13-14 (Matt 26:24). While he
challenged the many misinterpretations of the Hebrew
Scriptures prevalent in His Day (e.g. Matt 5:21-22),
nevertheless, Jesus affirmed the teachings of Scripture
when rightly understood. Thus, He said, Dont assume
that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not

come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until

heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or
one stroke of a letter [jot or tittle, KJV] will pass from
the law until all things are accomplished (Matt 5:17-18).
(The Essence of the Old Testament: A Survey.
Hindson and Gates, eds. Academic. Nashville, Tenn. 2012.
Pp. 2-3.)

God revealed His word to ancient Israel over a thousandyear period (c. 1400-400 BC), and then scribes copied the
biblical scrolls and manuscripts for more than a
millennium after that. The process by which the Old
Testament books came to be recognized as the Word of
God and the history of how these books were preserved
and handed down through the generations enhances our
confidence in the credibility of the Old Testament as
inspired Scripture. (2 Tim 3:16).

the earliest parts of the Old

Testament were written c. 1400
BC, the earliest existing Hebrew manuscripts for the
Though

Old Testament are the more than 200 biblical manuscripts

found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating
from roughly 250 BC to AD 70. (The Essence of the
Old Testament: A Survey. Hindson and Gates, eds.
Academic. Nashville, Tenn. 2012. P. 43. Emphasis in blue
added).

God has revealed Himself to man in nature and in the

special revelation of His Word.
Since God is what He isinfinite, loving and the
Redeemerwe can only expect that a loving and wise
God would reveal a plan of redemption to man powerful
enough to save him.
Since man is what he islimited, sinful and needywe
can only conclude that he needs a message of help that
will meet his need.
Therefore, we expect the message of redemption from
God that is given to meet the needs of sinful man to be
authoritative, accurate and reliable. (Pg. 28. Theology
for Today. Elmer Towns. Cengage Learning. 2008.
U.S.A.)

It appears that youve been spoon-fed some erroneous

information Jerry regarding the Old Testament and I
suspect you have a similar low opinion regarding the
inspiration of the New Testament.

the first five books of the Old Testament, Genesis

through Deuteronomy (also called the Five Books of
Moses), are known as the Pentateuch, deriving from the
Greek word pentateuchos meaning five-volumed [sc.
Book]Law. 49/957

The collection of these five books was first called the

Pentateuch by Origen in the third century A.D. in his
commentary on the Gospel of John. 32/495 Jewish
tradition has called these five books the Torah (deriving
from the Hebrew word tora, meaning instruction), the
Book of the Law, the Law of Moses or simply the Law.
(Mcdowell. 39).
PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PENTATUECH
The Bible is history, but of a very special kind. It is the
history of Gods redemption of mankind, and the
Pentateuch is chapter one of that history. 61/187,188
Unger elaborates:
The author of the Penateuch had a definite plan. He did
not apply himself to recording the story of human history.
His task was rather to give and account of Gods gracious
provisions for mans salvation. The Pentateuch,
accordingly, is history with a motive behind it, a deep,
religious motive, which imbues the whole. The religious
principles underlying it, on the other hand, does not
render the events recounted any less historical. It merely
gives them a permanent importance far transcending the
times in which and about which they were written and far
out-reaching in importance their application to any one
nation or people, investing them with an inestimable and
abiding value for all mankind
Failure to comprehend the precise character and
purpose of the Pentateuch has led many critics to deny its
historicity altogether or to adopt low views of its

reliability. If, for instance, the account of the Egyptian

sojourn, the miraculous deliverance, and the wilderness
wanderings were fictitious, its vital connection not only
with Hebrew history but with the whole Biblical plan of
salvation raises the insoluable [sic] problem of how this
extraordinary record could ever have been fabricated.
61/188/189
D. A. Hubbard speaks of the prime importance of the
Pentateuch in understanding Israels relationship with
God:
A record of revelation and response, the Pentateuch
testifies to the saving acts of God who is sovereign Lord
of history and nature. The central act of God in the
Pentateuch (and indeed the Old Testament) is the Exodus
from Egypt. Here God broke in upon the consciousness of
the Israelites and revealed Himself as the redeeming God.
Insights gained from this revelation enabled them under
Moses leadership to reevaluate the traditions of their
ancestors and see in them the budding of Gods dealings
which had bloomed so brilliantly in liberation from Egypt.
49/963

Although there were several groups and individuals from

the first two centuries A.D. who denied the essential
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the following
passage from Young should be noted:
During the first two centuries of the Christian era there is
no recorded instance of criticism that is hostile to the

Bible among the Church fathers or in the orthodox Church

itself. The Apostolic Fathers and the subsequent AnteNicene Fathers, in so far as they expressed themselves on
the subject, believed Moses to be the author of the
Pentateuch, and the Old Testament to be a divine book
Such instances of hostile criticism as are extant from this
period come either from groups that were considered to
be heretical or from the external pagan world.
Furthermore, this criticism reflected certain philosophical
presuppositions and is of a decidedly biased and
unscientific character. 71/113-114
The allegation that Moses was not the author of the
Pentateuch thus had its beginning during the first two
centuries A.D. The primary basis upon which this charge
rested was the presence of passages supposedly written
after Moses time. There was some minor activity in the
question of Mosaic authorship during the following
centuries but it was not until the 18th century when the
argument moved to a new foundation, that of literary
criticism, that the theory of non-Mosaic authorship was
extensively developed. (For a survey of the developments
from the third century to the 1700s see E.J. Young, An
Introduction to the Old Testament.) 71/116-120

Jerry, the Radical Historical-critical schools of Higher

Textual Criticism, that is to say the Form critics; Radical
critics; Liberal critics; so-called Modern critics; so-called
Progressive critics; Redaction critics; Documentarians;

Source critics; etc, who all employ the invalid GrafWellhausen Documentary Hypothesis outlined in Josh
McDowells two volume landmark work Evidence That
Demands a Verdict embrace that theory upon which
they construct their various approaches to biblical textual
criticism upon imaginary, non-existent source documents:
The purported J/E/P/D documents along with the never
ending divisions of those divisions. There is not a single
shred of evidence for their existence. The assertion of
their existence is complete conjecture.

Regarding the reliability of the New Testament

Documents allow me to recommend THE NEW
TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS Are they Reliable? By F. F.
BRUCE, M.A., D.D., F.B.A.
(http://ncbible.info/MoodRes/Transmission/NTDocumentsReliable-Bruce.pdf).

You are a very smart man Jerry. I trust if you actually took
a look at the FACTS you too would be compelled to accept
Jesus as your Savior and invite Him into your heart to be
your Lord.

You go on in your response to me to parrot the notion that

The Gospels (new testament) were accounts disjointed
that only 4 made it in where many more were hid away

(Nag Hamadi). Which only demonstrates that you have

skewed understanding of the true nature of the Nag
Hammadi find not based upon FACTS but upon the lies
of certain proponents of modern Gnosticism, or neoGnosticism; that is to say the religion of Liberalism, or
Progressivism that is founded upon a
Materialist/Humanist worldview and routinely leads to
individuals embracing a Liberal-fascist, or Socialist
worldview. (And Ill say it again: All Socialism is National
Socialism, yes, as in NAZI.)

Regarding the Nag Hammadi documents I searched a few

different books I have on hand and offer the following as
solid refutation of the belief that you voice that those
documents should be included in the canon of Scripture.
Nag Hammadi Codices. In 1945 twelve plus codices
(books) were discovered by Egyptian farmers in cliffs that
border the Nile River about six miles outside Nag
Hammadi, just north of Luxor.
There are forty-two different tractates in the collection,
some being represented by more than one copy; bringing
the total to fifty-two. The documents were translated from
Greek into Coptic about A.D. 400. Most originated in
Christian Gnostic circles, probably as early as the second
century. Two of the the texts, Teachings of Silvanus and
Sentence of Sextus, are Christian but not Gnostic. A few
short sections from Platos Republic are included in the
collection.

The general outlines of Gnosticism in the Nag Hammadi

writings are familiar from what is contained in other
sources. They state or imply that matter is inherently evil,
propound salvation by knowledge of both the inner self
and the cosmos (which makes Gnosticism appealing to
such groups as Jungian psychology and New Age
movements), employ esoteric speculations, and use
symbolic languageincluding the affirmation that
women, representatives of the material, will be made
male so that she too may become a living spirit
resembling you males. (Gospel of Thomas 114).

The documents can be classified by literary type, such as

gospels, acts, epistles, apocalypses, discourses,
dialogues, worship materials, doctrine, and others.
Another way to arrange them is by their religious
orientation, particularly the type of Gnosticism they
represent.

The importance of the Nag Hammadi find can be

appreciated by noting two facts. (1) Along with Jewish
legalism, Gnosticism was the major internal threat to
Christianity in the earliest centuries. (2) A number of the
early Christian writers, including (but not limited to)
Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Irenaeus, seem to have done
so fairly accurately. Nevertheless, before this discovery
virtually all we knew of Gnostic thought came from its
enemies.

At the same time, the Nag Hammadi documents display

Gnosticism as a more complex phenomenon than do their
antagonists. Although Hippolytus mentions Sethian
Gnosticism, it is missing from Irenaeus's list. The Nag
Hammadi documents contain a number of representative
writings from this school. Valentinianism seems to have
been one of the more important Gnostic systems.
Iranaeus describes it in some detail. The Nag Hammadi
collection contains a number of writings from a clearly
Valentian origin. Gospel of Truth was most probably
written by Valentinus himself.

Some New Testament figures appear prominently in the

Nag Hammadi writings. The titles of at least three
tractates each bear the names of John and James, two
each are associated with Peter, Phillip, Paul, and Thomas.
Of these the Gospel of Thomas has attracted the most
attention. It is essentially a collection of isolated
sayings by Jesus. Some are identical, others similar,
and still others quite different from New Testament
statements; attempts have been made to identify Gospel
of Thomas with the hypothetical Q source from which
Luke and Matthew allegedly drew material.

Although they relate to vastly different areas, the Nag

Hammadi documents rank with the Dead Sea Scrolls as
the most important twentieth-century discoveries for
Christian studies. They have contributed to the study of

the Coptic language and literature as well as to

papyrology. The Nag Hammadi collection provide sizable,
significant new data for the study of Gnosticism and
opened the door to almost countless new studies,
theories, monographs, and articles on the subject. These
include both the fields of Jewish sectarianism and early
Christian heresiology.

No serious work in the fields of biblical, historical, and

theological studies touched by the Nag Hammadi
documents can ignore them or their impact. At the same
time, it must be remembered that both the documents
themselves and the theological position they represent
were weighed in the balances by the church and found
wanting. They provide important evidence of that with
which such Christian illuminaries as the second-century
missionary-pastor Irenaeus (Against All Heresies) wrestled
and rejected as contrary to the revelation of God in

Modern readers Like you and

me Jerry, of these ancient Gnostic
documents should also not fail to pay
attention to the analyses and refutations
by those who lived in close proximity
with proponents of Gnosticism and
rejected as inadequate their view of the
Christian faith. (Emphasis added. J. J. Scott Jr. Pg.
Scripture.

811-12. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Second

Edition. Walter Elwell, Ed. 2001 Baker Book House

Company. U.S.A.)

The heresy of the Colossians was grounded in gnosis,

that is, unknowable wisdom and mystery. (Technically, the
cult of Gnosticism did not develop into a full threat to the
church for half a century though its seeds were
manifesting themselves early.) Epaphras came to Rome
telling Paul of the problem(s) in the church. Paul seems to
sum up this heresy in the phrase, philosophy and empty
deceit based on human tradition, based upon elemental
forces of the world (2:8). (Pg. 207The Essence of
the New Testament: A Survey. Towns and Gutierrez.
Ed. 2012. B&H Publishing Group. Nashville, Tenn.)

In chap. 1, (of 1st Timothy) Paul begins dealing with the

false Judaizers. Now he turns his attention to the early
problem of Gnosticism. These are deceitful spirits (v. 1)
which are the subtle influences of demons, that is,
doctrines motivated by demons to get people to
depart from the faith (v. 1). (Pg. 234. Towns).

W. F. Albright questions the veracity of Gnostic influence

on Christianity:
(And Jerry , you will be hard pressed to find anyone of
Albrights caliber in Higher Textual Criticism, History, or
Archaeology.)

The New Testament, according to many scholars,

exhibits pronounced gnostic features, and in fact is
unintelligible, historically speaking, unless understood
against a gnostic background. Gnostics believed that
salvation came through esoteric mysteries, gnosis, a
mysterious, superhuman, enigmatic knowledge, which
was hidden from ordinary men. Now these scholars
claimed that there was a pre-Christian Gnosticism, and
that this is best illustrated by the books of the
Mandaeans, the so-called Christians of John the Baptist,
who still survive in Iraq on the lower Tigris. This is rather
a surprising claim, since, although John the Baptist is their
great hero, the Mandaeans consider Jesus as their great
demon or devil, and are bitterly hostile to both
Christianity and Judaism.
Albright continues his attack:
In fact, two discoveries have now proved this theory to
be entirely wrong. The first is the Dead Sea Scrolls. The
second is the Chenoboskion papyri.
He notes:
Before this discovery, nothing was known about the
early gnostics except what was preserved in the writings
of the specialists in heresies, the so-called
heresiographers, notably Irenaeus of Lyons (late second
century), Hippolytus (early third century), and Epiphanius
in the fourth century.

Finally he tells of the archaeological finds confirming the

reliability of the Church fathers as opposed to the
gnostics:
The gnostics were believed by many scholars to
be fairly orthodox Christiansthe church fathers
were said to have exaggerated their divergences.
We now know that the church fathers were very
reliable. They did not tell us everything by any
means, but what they did tell us has been
confirmed in large part by these new finds, and
nothing of what they said has been shown to be
wrong. This is just what we should expect, since
they would have played directly into the hands of
the gnostics, if they had represented them. On the
other side, there is no evidence today for preChristian Gnosticism. (Albright, W.F. New Horizons
in Biblical Research. New York. Oxford Univ. Press.
1966. Pp. 41-42. Quoted from Evidence That Demands
a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Pp. 295-96.)

You continue with the assertion that The Council of Nicea

(sic) and the Roman Emperor Constantine decided how
Christianity should look and feel to the Roman Empire and
what a church should look like and what the 'official story'
should be(that should give you a clue right there).

Great as were the favors which Constantine showed to

the church, they were only for that strong, close-knit,

hierarchically organized portion that called itself

Catholic. The various heretical sects, (And that
would have included all those which rejected the
Romanist cult), could look for no bounty from his
hands. (Pg. 105 A History of the Christian Church
Third Edition. Williston Walker, Ed. Charles Scribners
Sons. New York. 1970.)

If Christianity was to be a uniting factor in the empire,

the church must be one. Constantine found that unity
seriously threatened. In North Africa the persecution
under Diocletian had led to schism, somewhat
complicated and personal in its causes, but resembling
that of Novation in Rome, half a century earlier (see p.
93). The church there was divided. The strict party
charged that the new bishop of Carthage, Caecilian, had
received ordination in 311, from the hands of one in
mortal sin, who had surrendered copies of the Scriptures
in the recent persecution. That ordination it held invalid,
and chose a counter-bishop, Majorinus. His successor, in
316, was the able Donatus the Great, from whom the
schismatics received the name Donatists. In 313
Constantine made grants of money to Catholic clergy of
North Africa. 5 In these the Donatists did not share, and
appealed to the Emperor. A synod held in Rome the same
year decided against them, but the quarrel was only the
more embittered. Constantine thereupon mapped out
what was to be henceforth the imperial policy in
ecclesiastical questions. He summoned a synod of his

portion of the empire to meet, at public expense, in Arles,

in southern Gaul. The church itself should decide the
controversy, but under imperial control. Here a large
council assembled in 314. The Donatist contentions were
condemned. Ordination was declared valid even at the
hands of a personally unworthy cleric. Heretical baptism
was recognized, and the Roman date of Easter approved.6
The Donatists appealed to the Emperor, who once more
decided against them, in 316, and as they refused to
yield, now proceeded to close their churches and banish
their bishops. The unenviable spectacle of the
persecution of Christians by Christians was exhibited.
North Africa was in turmoil. Constantine was, however,
dissatisfied with the results, and in 321 abandoned the
use of force against these schismatics. They grew rapidly,
claiming to be the only true church possessed of a clergy
free from deadly sins and of the only valid sacraments.
Not till the Mohammedan conquests did the The Donatists
disappear.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSEY TO THE DEATH OF

CONSTANTINE
A much more serious danger to the unit of the church
than the Donatist schism which Constantine encountered
was the great Arian controversy. It has already been
pointed out that while the West, thanks to the work of
Tertullian and Novation, had reached practical unanimity
regarding the unity of substance between Christ and the
Father (see pp. 66-71), the East was divided. Origen, still

its most dominating theological influence, could be

quoted in opposing senses. If he had taught the eternal
generation of the Son, he had also held Him to be a
second God and a creature (see P. 76). Adoptionist
tendencies persisted, also, about Antioch; while
Sabellianism was to be found in Egypt. The East,
moreover, was vastly more interested in speculative
theology then the West, and therefore, more prone to
discussion; nor can there be any doubt that, in the fourth
century, much more intellectual ability was to be found in
the Greek-speaking than in the Latin-speaking portion of
the empire.

The real cause of struggle was these varying

interpretations; but the actual controversy began in
Alexandria, about 320, in a dispute between Arius and his
bishop, Alexander (312?-328). Arius, a pupil of Lucian of
Antioch (see p. 97), was presbyter in charge of the church
known as Baucalis. He was advanced in years and held in
high repute as a preacher of learning, ability, and piety.
Monarchian influences imbibed in Antioch led him to
emphasizing the unity and self-contained existence of
God. In so far as he as a follower of Origen, he
represented the great Alexandrians teaching that Christ
was a created being. As such He was not of the substance
of God, but was made like other creatures of nothing.
Though the first-born of creatures, and the agent in
fashioning the world, He was not eternal. The Son has a
beginning, butGod is without beginning.1 Christ was,

indeed, God in a certain sense to Arius, but a lower God,

in no way one with the Father in essence or eternity. In
the Incarnation, this Logos entered a human body, taking
the place of the human reasoning spirit. To Ariuss
thinking, Christ was neither fully God nor fully man, but a
tertium quid between. This is what makes his view wholly
unsatisfactory.
Bishop Alexander was influenced by the other side of
Origens teaching. To him the Son was eternal, like in
essence with the Father, and wholly uncreated.2 His view
was perhaps, not perfectly clear, but its unlikeness to that
of Arius is apparent. Controversy arose between Arius and
Alexander, apparently on Ariuss initiative. It soon grew
bitter, and about 320 or 321 Alexander held a synod in
Alexandria by which Arius and a number of his
sympathizers were condemned. Arius appealed for help
to his fellow pupil of the school of Lucian, the powerful
bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and soon found a refuge
with him. Alexander wrote widely to fellow bishops, and
Arius defended his own position, aided by Eusebius. The
Eastern ecclesiastical world was widely turmoiled.
Such was the situation when Constantines victory over
Licinius made him master of the East as well as of the
West. The quarrel threatened the unity of the church
which he deemed essential. Constantine therefore sent
his chief ecclesiastical adviser, Bishop Hosius of Cordova,
in Spain, to Alexandria with an imperial letter, counselling
peace and describing the issue involved as an
unprofitable question.3 The well-meant, but bungling

effort was in vain. Constantine, therefore, proceeded to

employ the same device he had already made use of at
Arles in the Donatist dispute. He called a council of the
entire church.

ARE YOU STILL WITH ME JERRY? I HOPE SO, THIS IS

A BITCH TO RESEARCH AND WRITE. I THINK I
DESERVE A POSTCARD. 6766 MARSHALL FOCH
STREET, NOLA 70124U.S.A.

That of Arles had been representative of all the portion of

the empire then ruled by Constantine. Constantine was
now master of all the empire, and therefore bishops of all
the empire were summoned. The principle was the same,
but the extent of Constantines enlarged jurisdiction
made the gathering in Nicaea the First General Council of
the church.
The Council, which assembled in Nicaea in May, 325, has
always lived in Christian tradition as the most important
in the history of the church. To it the bishops were
summoned at government expense, accompanied by
lower clergy, who did not, however, have votes in its
decisions. The East had the vast preponderance. Of about
three hundred bishops present only six were from the
West. In included three parties. A small section, led by
Eusebius of Nicomedia, were thoroughgoing Arians.
Another small group were equally strenuous supporters of

Alexander. The large majority, of who the church

historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, was a leader, were not
deeply versed in the question at issue. Indeed the
majority, as a whole, were described by an
unsympathetic writer as simpletons.4 As far as they had
any opinion, they stood on the general basis of the
teachings of Origen. Conspicuous in the assembly was
the Emperor himself, who, though not baptized, and
therefore not technically a full member of the church, was
far to eminent a personage not to be welcomed
enthusiastically.
Almost at the beginning of the council a creed presented
by the Arians was rejected. Eusebius of Caesarea then
offered the creed of his own church. It was a sweetsounding confession, dating from before the controversy,
and was, therefore, wholly indefinite as to the particular
problems involved. This Caesarean creed was now
amended most significantly by the insertion of the
expressions, begotten, not made, of one essence
(homoousion, .) with the Father; and by the specific
rejection of Arian formulae such as there was when He
was not and He was made of things that were not. The
later technically unlike words essence, substance
(ousia), and hypostasis (upostasis) were here used as
equivalent expressions. Loofs has attempted to show5
that the influences which secured these changes were
Western, doubtless above all that of Hosius of Cordova,
supported by the Emperor. In particular, the test word,
homoousion, had long been orthodox in its Latin

equivalent, and had been in philosophic usage in the

second century, though rejected by a synod in Antioch in
the proceedings against Paul of Samosata (see p. 69).
Indeed, it was used very sparingly by Athanasius himself
in his earlier defense of the Nicene faith. It is easy to
understand Constantines attitude. Essentially a
politician, he naturally thought a formula that would find
no opposition in the Western half of the empire, and
would receive the support of a portion of the East, more
acceptable than one which, while having only a part of
the East in its favor, would be rejected by the whole West.
To Constantines influence the adoption of the Nicene
definition was due. Theat he ever understood its shades
of meaning is more than doubtful; but he wanted a united
expression of the faith of the church on the question in
dispute, and believed that he had found it. Under his
supervision, all but two of the bishops present signed it.
These, and Arius, Constantine sent into banishment. The
imperial politics had apparently secured the unity of the
church, and had given it what it had never before
possessed, a statement which might be assumed to be a
universally recognized creed.
Besides this action in thus formulating the creed, the
Council of Nicaea issued a number of important canons
regulating church discipline, paved the way for the return
of those in Egypt who had joined the Melitian schism over
the treatment of the lapsed, made easy the readmission
of Novatians, and ordered a uniform date in the
observation of Easter. (Pp. 107-110. A History of the

Christian Church. Third Edition. Copyright 1970.

Charles Shribners Sons. U.S.A. Amelia Walker Cushing
and Elizabeth Walker, eds.)
Vedas from the Hindus, Koran from Mohammed, Sutras
from Buddhism, Tao Te Ching from Lao Tzu. These are all
keystone books for their respective religions, but not one
of them can corner the market on how this universe came
to be....not one. Keystone books from their respective
religions, but NONE of them can demonstrate AS THE
BIBLE CAN through prophecy and other literary features
that it is supernaturally inspired.
Science has already proven that the universe came to
be, that is to say had a beginning. The Bible contains the
history that God created the Universe, (I re-emphasize
the meaning of that very word: Uni Verse: Single
spoken phrase.)

On its face to claim that you are perfectly happy with I

dont know and (its a) mystery just as in your assertion
that you are Agnostic (I dont suppose you are familiar
with the Latin translation of that Greek word, are you?) is
disingenuous in the extreme.

Honestly Jerry I have the highest respect for your intellect

and most especially your unparalleled sense of humor
and such a cop-out is beneath you. The issue is of too

great of importance and relates to the eternal destination

of the souls of you, your wife, and children.

At the same time that you assert you are happy with I
dont know and its a mystery you maintain that you are
confident that you know that God did not create as is
maintained in the biblical narrative in 6 days. Such an
assertion on your part is an obvious contradiction which
reflects an anti-supernatural presupposition on your part
which results in a cognitive dissonance arising in any
assertion by you that on the one hand you are
Agnosticthat you dont knowwhile on the other
hand, or other side of your mouth as it were you maintain
that you do know that God did not create the Universe.

You cannot logically claim that you dont know, as in

Agnostic, while at the same time asserting that you do
know and in fact are certain of one thing: That Jesus did
not create as is recorded in the Bible. To maintain such a
position is absurd, and hypocritical in the extreme. It is
intellectual cowardice because you would rather simply
retract from examining the evidence and withdraw to
your comfort zone of not knowing. Did I mention that
Agnostic in Latin is IGNORAMUS. Dont you dare get
mad. I am not trying to smugly insult you. It is just a
related fact.

You are not an Agnostic, Jerry, you have decided just

what it is that you want to revere as your godand just
whom you do not want to recognize as God.
You close your response with a reference to Jesuss
teachings:
Please Christians, just follow Jesus's teachings of love
everyone, forgiveness, take care of people (universal
healthcare) and stfu and be humble!!

In all humbleness I ask you to consider

what Jesus is recorded as having taught
and do just as you write and just
follow Jesuss teachings.:
Therefore go and make disciples
in all the nations, baptizing them into the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, and then teach these new
disciples to obey all the commands I have
given you; and be sure of this that I am with
you always, even to the end of the world.
Jesus taught,

(TLB, Matthew 28:19-20)

Jesus also taught that we must be spiritually regenerated

Verily, verily, I say

unto you, Except a man be
born again, he cannot see
the kingdom of God. (John 3:5).
born again: