Try this one Different story huh?
OK... you're debating skills have declined over the last couple years. I'll try to go easy on you. :-)
1st - "Lazy scholarship" ?? YOU said "it should be easy to document" and I was demonstrating HOW easy it is. Took me less than 30 seconds.
2nd - "Lazy scholarship" ?? I point out that the site I used is a major university... yours is???
3rd - (Here's the best one)... "Try this one Different story huh?". Ummm. No.
You didn't even realize that your "scholarship" had found you a site that agreed with me did you?
They have "The majority opposed the Nicene creed" under the column of "lies" where "Anti-trinitarians misrepresent facts of history". "But the opposition was over the use of specific words that could be misunderstood, not the deity of Christ." is precisely what I posted.
So, no... it isn't a "different story"
Can you give me points for the jab anyway? ;-)
They have "The majority opposed the Nicene creed" under the column of "lies" where "Anti-trinitarians misrepresent facts of history". "But the opposition was over the use of specific words that could be misunderstood, not the deity of Christ." is precisely what I posted.
So, no... it isn't a "different story"
OK Mr. Officious Smartass, I realized full well I directed you to a site which strongly defended the "truth" of the Trinity.
I did so to show "easy" it is to change "majority" to "minority" by arguing that the jackasses simply didn't understand what they were opposing.
I was hoping, wrongly, that even one with your extreme prejudice would note the twisted logic involved.
We will grant, for argument sake that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. But the opposition was over the use of specific words that could be misunderstood, not the deity of Christ. (Even though the deity of Christ was the main purpose of the council)
The opposition was also from those who "misunderstood" what the creed was saying. In other words, they felt the creed could lend support to Sabellianism (modalism, as taught today by the United Pentecostal church UPCI) of which they were equally opposed, when in fact it did not! But again, although opposed to the creed, did not view Jesus as a creature.
You will notice that only a few bishops from the west (Ossius: Alexandrian party) were present and most of the bishops were from the east (Oregonian theology), but neither viewed Jesus as a creature! In addition to this there were a small number aligned with Arius who openly stated Jesus was a creature!
The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius! The "majority who disliked" firmly believed that Jesus was God, they didn’t like the Greek terms used to describe Jesus deity, not that they rejected the deity itself!
When Frend says "The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position" he tells us what that position is: "The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have tended to dub them "Semi-Arian." In fact they were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church"
"The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of 'consubstantial' at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius' contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing." (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)
Is the "majority" explained away to your satisfaction?