Sorry my analogies don't meet your standards, but I thought they made an adequate point in the context of what we were speaking about. I am glad to hear you do not hold "subordinationalist" beliefs. However, my point was that the early Christians did not need the council of Nicea to figure it out for them and put it into writing. They had the Scriptures as well as the teachings of the Apostles, so they believed in the truth of the divinity of Christ and the triune nature of the Godhead long before Nicea.
I have no distrust of the Scriptures. You persist in misunderstanding me on yet another point. I have confidence in the Scriptures.
Again, glad to hear that. So why do you feel the need to post such things as:
Dude, show me proof who wrote the four Gospels. Show me proof who wrote Jude. Show me who the various Johns were. Prove to me Peter wrote both of his epistles. And while you are at it, prove that Paul actually wrote more than half of the books attributed to him.
Finally, I can tell by your response that you probably did not bother to read the article at the link. It discussed far more things than Tacitus. But seeing as you declare that you fully trust the Scriptures and have complete confidence in them, the point is moot. However, I would suggest you go back and read the whole article, if even just for "grins". There is a lot there.
So do we, but you don't have to read far on these threads to see that the same heresies they fought then still exist.
In all of our postings and participation in threads, why would this be a surprise or an issue of contention to you?
However, my point was that the early Christians did not need the council of Nicea to figure it out for them and put it into writing. They had the Scriptures as well as the teachings of the Apostles, so they believed in the truth of the divinity of Christ and the triune nature of the Godhead long before Nicea.
Wrong. The early Councils were only convened in response to a crisis in the Church. Or crises. Nicea defined early Christianity, which was, shall we say, extremely variant at that point. One of them was Christology - hence the Nicene Creed.
Finally, I can tell by your response that you probably did not bother to read the article at the link. It discussed far more things than Tacitus.
It spent the first third on Tacitus and spent the rest throwing analogies about and using them as proofs. Believing Christians have no need of this author, and non Christians can use this article to attack Protestant Christianity at the very least.