Why, when you present the historical truth to people, do they call you names and deride your answers?

Question

I stated that the Emporer Constantine made the decision that Jesus Christ would be an equal divinity to God, therefore Constantine was the father of the Trinity. People went wild over this. Which is an historical fact and the absolute truth. The facts surrounding the Nicene Convocation are historical facts. I was not even presenting my opinion of the decision.

Answer 1

Because they only want to believe what they want to believe.

Like when I stated that when certain countries went completely homosexual, the countries completely fell apart. Then the answerers went wild, because they only wanted to believe what they wanted to believe! The REFUSED to believe me. Some of them were practically crying like babies.

Oh yeah, and by the way, A LOT of atheists hang out in the spirituality & Religious section. They act like they own it.

Answer 2

Your assessment was correct. Faith will trump fact with the defenders of religion. Keep posting and keep educating.

Answer 3

because saying that a core belief in christianity was derived by a man and not divinely inspired puts into question why then one must believe in the trinity to be considered christian? it's a staple in majority of christian denominations. infact many other denominations that clearly teach of Jesus Christ but denounce the trinity are considered to be non christian for this very reason. to believe in the trinity = christianity. you take that away and you take away what their definition of what a christian is. kinda silly if you ask me though - since it is a fact that can't really be disputed. and it shouldn't determine someones christian status anyway.

Answer 4

I don't understand it either, every time I bring up the fact that Obama was born out of wedlock to a teenage girl my answer gets deleted.  It's simply the historical truth that some people choose not to accept and they report it, that's all I can figure.

Answer 5

If that were true and a historical fact, I would agree with it.  I'm not calling you names and I will try not to deride your answer.

But the divinity of Christ was a well established belief LONG before Constantine made it "official."  The New Testament was already written,  for instance, and there is plenty of scriptural evidence from that which shows that the early believers already held this particular belief.  

Answer 6

I would say your "knowledge" of history leaves much to be desired. It wouldn't have been garnered from an atheist website, would it by any chance?

Oh well, let's see if we can improve your knowledge of history:

"The Council of Nicaea, soon to be reckoned the first ecumenical council because of the range of representation there, was attended by about 220 bishops, almost all Greek. Only four or five came from the Latin West apart from Hosius of Cordova andtwo Roman presbyters sent by Pope Sylvester. Nevertheless, it was a notable event of the Chgurch, and was felt to be so at the time. At the solemn opening on 20 May 325 Constantine urged the bishops to achieve untity and peace. He quickly made it clear that he deplored the censure of Eusibius of Caeserea and declared full support for his doctrines. But Eusebius' vindication did not mean that his friend Arius was to be upheld. The creed proposed for adoption by the council was sharply anti-Arian in its affirmation that the Son is 'of one substance with the Father'. Its concluding anathema condemned the propositions that the Son is metaphysically or morally inferior to the Father and belongs to the created order. Astonishingly enough, after the strong partisanship apparent before the council, 218 out of 220 bishops signed the creed, a unanimity that must certainly have gratified the anxious emporer. It is, however, clear that the crucial terms of the creed were not understood in a precisely identical sense by all the signatories. 'Of one substance' (homoousios) affirmed identity. It declared that the Father and the Son are 'the same'. But this was ambiguous. To some it meant a personal or specific identity; to many others it meant a much broader, generic identity. The happy accident of this ambiguity enabled Constantine to secure the assent of everyone except two Libyan bishops whose objections seem to have been less to the creed than to the sixth canon which subjected them to Alexandrian control."

Smug self satisfied atheists really really shouldn't assume that Christians have never heard of the Nicene Creed; after all, they do recite it in church every Sunday.

Answer 7

While it may be an historical fact that Constantine said that, it does not make it a truthful statement.  Christ said that He is the "I am", which in Hebrew terms means that He was the same God that talked to Moses at the Burning Bush.

Whether Constantine makes a decision or one of us, does not make it truth.  Only God knows what is true.  This is truth that God is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Answer 8

Why that's heresy, but then I am a heretic among pagans. Actually you are correct that Constantine settled the argument but he was not the first to bring it up. I am currently reading "forbidden faith" by richard smoley. it's veeeery interesting. It's a discussion on Gnosticism. The problem is people are lazy and want simple answers. Did you see my question on James town?

Answer 9

Which part of the Bible are you suggesting Constantine wrote or changed?  The Trinity is Biblical.

Answer 10

Facts and truth are the enemies of Christian ignorance.  

Answer 11

It's just their willful ignorance bubbling over...

Answer 12

Unfortunately some in Answers are unable to conduct themselves in a respectful and tolerant manner, especially it seems in the R & S section. As soon as you promote any thinking that is contrary to their own, they shoot you down with insult.

Don't let it get you down though Dr B, just do as I do, have a giggle at their ignorance.

Answer 13

Emporer?  That in and by itself convinced me, even if the rest were hogwash...

Answer 14

Technically, Constantine ordered those at the council to come to an agreement and the trinity is the compromise position they reached.  He did not himself make the decision, and there were a few theologians suggesting that Jesus and God were one starting in the second century.

However, they don't teach that in church history lessons.  You can't have your flock knowing that the doctrine of the church wasn't established at the beginning of time.  They might realize how much of church doctrine comes from humans if they knew the actual history, so good Christians grow up learning the church's revised version of history only.  

Answer 15

FACTS/PROOF/EVIDENCE/LOGIC?

THIS.

IS.

CHRISTIANITY.

-kick-

Answer 16

Actually that's not historic truth, the truth is that the Gospels were written long before the time of Constantine and there is where you find your first reference to Jesus being God, when he said "I and my father are one", he also said "whoever has seen me has seen the father", these are references to his divinity.

In truth Constantine had no influence on the council of Nicaea or what went into the Bible, if you know your history you'll know that Constantine did not give up his sun worship just because he established Christianity in the empire.  It is true that he built churches and ended the long persecution of Christianity but he himself never had much of an interest in the religion by any accounts. Some say he converted on his deathbed others say he never did but it's only revisionist historians who attempt to make the case that he was the real creator of the Trinity and they never use any facts to back up the claim.

You sounded confident in your false statements and I'll give you credit for that but they were anything but historical truths.  I agree that it's nothing that should have been deleted.

Answer 17

Can't say it here.. hmm