‘…just follow Jesus’s 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 Noah’s 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 Jonah’s 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, “Don’t 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 thousand-year 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).

“Though the earliest parts of the Old Testament were written c. 1400 BC, the earliest existing Hebrew manuscripts for the 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 is—infinite, loving and the Redeemer—we 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 is—limited, sinful and needy—we 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 you’ve 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 God’s 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 God’s gracious provisions for man’s 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 Israel’s 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 God’s 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 Ante-Nicene 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 1700’s 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 Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis outlined in Josh McDowell’s 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/NTDocuments-Reliable-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 neo-Gnosticism; 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 I’ll 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 Plato’s 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 language—including 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 Scripture. 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. 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. 207—‘The 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 Albright’s 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 Christians—the 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 pre-Christian 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 Scribner’s 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 Alexandrian’s 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, but…God 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 Arius’s 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 Origen’s 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 Arius’s 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 Constantine’s 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 70124—U.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 Constantine’s 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 sweet-sounding 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 Constantine’s 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 Constantine’s 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 Shribner’s 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 don’t know and (it’s a) mystery’ just as in your assertion that you are Agnostic (I don’t 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 don’t know and it’s 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 ‘Agnostic’—that you don’t know—while 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 don’t 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.’ Don’t 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 god—and just whom you do not want to recognize as God.

You close your response with a reference to ‘Jesus’s 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 Jesus’s teachings….’:

Jesus taught, “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.” (TLB, Matthew 28:19-20)

Jesus also taught that we must be spiritually regenerated—born again:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5).