Christianity: A Summary

[Brickjectivity]

My doctrines? I have never brought up my doctrines, and they are irrelevant in this discussion.

But the history and orthodoxy of Christianity has been preserved through MILLENNIA of lies, heresies, and distortions.

The doctrines claimed to have been preserved, presuming I suppose that Christianity must be preserved primarily through doctrines. The OP projects a brittle Christianity onto the past, says all notions not in line with that projection are heresy and lies, lists them in the OP. Yes they're your doctrines in the sense that you hold them to be continuous and Christian. You have owned them and the mechanisms of creeds and of lineage.

Again, you put words in my mouth i did not say, nor imply. This is a fallacy. Please stick with reason and facts, in your rebuttals of my points.

Yes, you can view the early church history and apologetics through an anti-christian bias.

Failure to notice the heresy in Ireneaus as he boasts of his master-student lineage and thinking that is somehow Bible, then turning around accusing me of anti-christian bias. Church history is a intense war in which love and fellowship are fighting against anti christian tendencies and politics. The anti christian forces divide christ, often by claiming somebody is heretical or incorrect or insufficiently lettered etc. I'm trying to point this out, and the items listed in the OP are tainted by all of that. They aren't protected from it. No one has immunity or can say truly they have the doctrines correct. There too much fog and political nonsense.

 

[usfan]

I have thought of others who have tried to 'define' Christianity, over the years.. There are some recent ones, like John Stott, who wrote the book 'Basic Christianity' back in 1958. Then there is Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, who penned the '4 spiritual laws'. I do notice a common thread in their 'summaries' as well.

From the index of 'Basic Christianity'.
PART ONE: CHRIST'S PERSON
2 The Claims of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3 The Character of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4 The Resurrection of Christ . . . . . . . . . . 57
PART TWO: MAN'S NEED
5 The Fact and Nature of Sin . . . . . . . . . . 77
6 The Consequences of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . 89
PART THREE: CHRIST'S WORK
7 The Death of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
8 The Salvation of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
PART FOUR: MAN'S RESPONSE
9 Counting the Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
10 Reaching a Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
11 Being a Christian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Here is the '4 Spiritual Laws' by Bill Bright, written in 1952
1. God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.
2. Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God's love and
plan for his life.
3. Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin. Through Him you can know and experience
God's love and plan for your life.
4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience
God's love and plan for our lives.

And in 1909, R.A. Torrey edited a large compilation in a set called 'The Fundamentals'. They put these 5 as the 'basics' for christianity.

1. The Trinity: God is one "What" and three "Whos" with each "Who" possessing all the attributes of Deity and personality.
2. The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is 100% God and 100% man for all eternity.
3. The Second Coming: Jesus Christ is coming bodily to earth to rule and judge.
4. Salvation: It is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
5. The Scripture: It is entirely inerrant and sufficient for all Christian life.

All of these, it seems to me, carry a similar 'look & feel' on the basics. Some of them add some unnecessary 'beliefs', but like my list, are implied in the actual act of salvation with the believer.

I remind everyone that this is not a list of mandated beliefs, but merely a definition of what 'Christian', is. The central message & mission of Jesus should be the standard for the term, so the basis for His teachings, & the central points have to provide that standard. Certainly, anything CONTRARY to what Jesus taught cannot be called 'christian', but would be considered 'non- christian', or even 'anti-christian'.

 

[blü 2]

This is not an example that God 'can't find someone!' That is stretching the translation to say what it is not saying. It is not the intent of the passage, nor is it alluded to. That is a 'gotcha!' moment for hostile critics looking for anything to attack.

It's an example of the primitive concept of God in the early books of the bible, particularly the Torah ─ a being who is essentially an alpha human, has to be told things, has to look for people, and kicks Adam and Eve out of the Garden, not for disobedience, but as expressly spelt out in Genesis 3:22-23, out of fear that his created humans will become his competitors.

This is the same tribal God who destroys the Tower of Babel, again to prevent competition.

And who, says the bible, is better than the other tribes' gods, as I quoted.

So with Sodom and the famous dickering scene, the story is about a negotiation between man and God. The idea that this is God's way of instructing Abraham is based on a modern concept of God, not the one found in the Torah.

..maybe.. but it would be ACCURATE, if not 'fair', to say my dismissal of unbased accusations, distortions, and caricatures of Christianity are from tedium, boredom, constant repetition, and weariness in fighting the phony propaganda memes from hostile anti-christian indoctrinees.

That's a telling 'maybe' ─ that you only read the bits of the bible that appeal to you.

And if you instead take the trouble to read the evidence I provided, you'll see that no 'phony propaganda memes' are involved, simply the words of the bible.

But as someone long interested in history I simply point out that being a Christian is not a license to pretend that the bible says things it doesn't say, or doesn't say things it says, or to claim that it must be read to form a unity when clearly it's a somewhat arbitrary collection of ancient texts written at different times and places by different authors for different purposes and agendas.

As I said, you can't claim to speak for 'Christianity', and the bible doesn't support what you say. But otherwise I freely acknowledge your right to believe what you wish.

 

[usfan]

The doctrines claimed to have been preserved, presuming I suppose that Christianity must be preserved primarily through doctrines.

Well, yes. ..through historical writings, apologists, commentators, and historians. That is how the words, opinions, and beliefs of people are preserved for posterity.. HISTORICAL RECORDS, not feeling based beliefs of how someone surely felt...

The OP projects a brittle Christianity onto the past, says all notions not in line with that projection are heresy and lies, lists them in the OP.

So you accuse, without evidence. I have quoted historians, biblical authors, church fathers, apologists, and creeds, to show the unbroken line of xtian orthodoxy.

And yes, departures from that historical line have been called, and are, heresies.

Yes they're your doctrines in the sense that you hold them to be continuous and Christian. You have owned them and the mechanisms of creeds and of lineage.

You assume and project. I am examining the historical and scholarly evidence for what ACTUALLY IS, historical Christianity. You merely accuse, without evidence, that these are my personal beliefs that i just made up, or something. This is an ad hom deflection, with no bearing on the subject.

There too much fog and political nonsense.

Yes, that seems to be the intent, from the anti-christian detractors.. obfuscate with innuendo, accusations, and unbased assertions. Evidence, however, is woefully lacking.

My points stand, unrefuted.

 

[usfan]

It's an example of the primitive concept of God in the early books of the bible, particularly the Torah

Everybody has an opinion or belief about the bible. This is yours. It is not 'Absolute Truth!', just your opinion.

you only read the bits of the bible that appeal to you.

ad hom deflection. You do not know what i read, nor have deep insight into my personal psychosis..

As I said, you can't claim to speak for 'Christianity', and the bible doesn't support what you say. But otherwise I freely acknowledge your right to believe what you wish.

I don't speak for anyone but myself. And, it is my contention, FROM EVIDENCE, that there is an exact, precise definition of 'Christianity', going back to the Founder.

Offshoots, departures, 'inspired by!' copies are common, historical beliefs, but they are not 'all the same!'

And of course, you can believe whatever you wish, as well.

Everybody gotta believe something..

 

[Salvador]

Yes, there are many opinions and speculations, and offshoots, from historical, biblical Christianity.

There are indeed countless hundreds upon hundreds of different Christian denominations, because the much of the Bible clearly is open to interpretation rather than meant to be taken literally.

The evils, suffering, and deceptions of this world are temporary, and will end when Jesus returns to make all things right

Not all denominations of Christianity believe Jesus Christ will literally return to historically end all evil and suffering of this world. The New Church (Swedenborgian), which is the brand of Christianity I've chosen to follow, believes Jesus Christ reappearance has already occurred spiritually with the positive influence of His teachings on each of His followers.

Jesus Christ's return was a spiritual event that has already happened rather than a historic event that has yet to become fulfilled.

If believers in Christ keep waiting around for Christ's Second Coming as a literal historical event , they will continue to become more sorely disappointed with the passing of each generation not having experienced a historical second coming of J.C. Eventually, after the passing of some few thousand generations, a perceived unfulfilled promise of Christ would be good reason for people to give up on Christian Faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No... I wouldn't say personal. Quite prevalent, really.

Yes, quite a few Christians make this error. Though not most. Creationism is a disease that is the worst in the U.S..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my!! Let's are "Orwellian" to the terms that the OP does not understand. @usfan , I and others have provided links and quotes that demonstrated that you do not understand what an ad hominem is. You have never been able to find a definition that says a correction is an ad hominem.

 

[blü 2]

it is my contention, FROM EVIDENCE, that there is an exact, precise definition of 'Christianity', going back to the Founder.

I'd define Christianity as the community of people who acknowledge Jesus as their savior, and / or their god and / or the object (or principle object) of their spiritual worship. It's not clear to me that anything further is required.

Anyway, good hunting!

 

[Salvador]

I'd define Christianity as the community of people who acknowledge Jesus as their savior, and / or their god and / or the object (or principle object) of their spiritual worship. It's not clear to me that anything further is required.

Anyway, good hunting!

You've pretty well covered all the bases there for defining Christianity. ....

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, yes. ..through historical writings, apologists, commentators, and historians. That is how the words, opinions, and beliefs of people are preserved for posterity.. HISTORICAL RECORDS, not feeling based beliefs of how someone surely felt...

All that has been accomplished in the OP is spin.

So you accuse, without evidence. I have quoted historians, biblical authors, church fathers, apologists, and creeds, to show the unbroken line of xtian orthodoxy.

And yes, departures from that historical line have been called, and are, heresies.

The evidence of struggle is all that has been presented. Its a preponderance of evidence that doctrinal purity can never preserve Christianity. Its James who says "If anyone lacks wisdom let him ask God who gives generously to all without finding fault." I guess some politician forgot to burn that book.

You assume and project. I am examining the historical and scholarly evidence for what ACTUALLY IS, historical Christianity. You merely accuse, without evidence, that these are my personal beliefs that i just made up, or something. This is an ad hom deflection, with no bearing on the subject.

I'm not accusing, but I'm not excusing either. Lineage of authority is a failure. Doctrinal purity is always in contest and changeable. These the OP claimed or were claimed in various posts by my accuser, and I was accused of anti-christian bias.

Look how the gospels contradict the ideas presented in the OP and succeeding posts: The spirit goes where it wills. We don't know where it comes from. We don't know where it is going. (John 3 ) Hence the doctrinal purity is not self preserving but rather glorifies people instead of God. Let God be true and every man a liar, that God's justice may be shown -- not ours. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Prophecies will cease and knowledge fail, but love is eternal. If someone says that they have faith, lets show them our faith by what we do. If someone believes, good for them; but liars do, too.

Yes, that seems to be the intent, from the anti-christian detractors.. obfuscate with innuendo, accusations, and unbased assertions. Evidence, however, is woefully lacking.

My points stand, unrefuted.

Unless the wound is cleansed it can't heal. All of this stuff in the OP is an empty boast. May as well just forget it if we can't accept correction, and that means accepting wisdom from unexpected directions.

 

[usfan]

I'd define Christianity as the community of people who acknowledge Jesus as their savior, and / or their god and / or the object (or principle object) of their spiritual worship. It's not clear to me that anything further is required.

You prove my point:
"There is a lot of confusion and flawed information about what 'Christianity' is. I wished to present a summary, as have many before, to reaffirm the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy. I am sure there are departures and offshoots from Christianity that do not carry the same core beliefs, so differentiating between them is necessary, especially since the term, 'Christian!' has become so ambiguous."

'Christianity', as an historical worldview, is not 'whatever anyone wants!', but has a precise, historical context. Sure, humans copy, add on, evolve, and springboard from the original ideas. I am not denigrating any offshoots, just defining the original. There is evidence that there IS, an exact, clear original.

The debate over Arianism, early in the history of Christianity, is an example of clarifying and specifying what Christianity is, and is not.

Islam, Buddhism, Lamarckian theory, relativity, and other real or abstract concepts have precise, historical, and exact definitions that are not subject to feeling. Christianity is no different. The term can (and has!) become ambiguous, or muddied to mean many or any, personal beliefs, but there is an Original, that has not changed with the whimsical notions of man.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@usfan

Hello fellow forum friend.

I noticed you left out of your Christian Basics regarding God any mention of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union. I find this very odd. These descriptions of God are peculiar to Christianity, setting it apart not only from other world religions, but also apart from other monotheistic faiths.

 

[blü 2]

You prove my point:
"There is a lot of confusion and flawed information about what 'Christianity' is. I wished to present a summary, as have many before, to reaffirm the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy. I am sure there are departures and offshoots from Christianity that do not carry the same core beliefs, so differentiating between them is necessary, especially since the term, 'Christian!' has become so ambiguous."

'Christianity', as an historical worldview, is not 'whatever anyone wants!', but has a precise, historical context. Sure, humans copy, add on, evolve, and springboard from the original ideas. I am not denigrating any offshoots, just defining the original. There is evidence that there IS, an exact, clear original.

The debate over Arianism, early in the history of Christianity, is an example of clarifying and specifying what Christianity is, and is not.

Islam, Buddhism, Lamarckian theory, relativity, and other real or abstract concepts have precise, historical, and exact definitions that are not subject to feeling. Christianity is no different. The term can (and has!) become ambiguous, or muddied to mean many or any, personal beliefs, but there is an Original, that has not changed with the whimsical notions of man.

Ah, but who's to say that the Arians, or the Gnostics, or the Docetists, or the Psilanthropists were wrong, instead of simply belonging to the losing faction? In supernatural religion there are no facts, no objective standard of truth, nothing but the popularity of an idea among those in power for the time being. They, of course, say (as the Cardinals say when electing a pope) that they're guided by the Holy Spirit and not by personal prejudice or political interest, but such claims are entirely untestable and if you look at the calendar of popes, highly improbable.

There is no single set of beliefs that are Christianity. In the British colonies, slave owners and traders quite accurately quoted the bible in support of slavery, and this continued in the American South up to and into the Civil War. Paul's advice to slaves is to be a better slave, for example, and Jesus said not a letter of the Law (which sets out elaborate rules for slave owners) would be altered till the Kingdom is established. Churches are divided, at least officially, on divorce, though in practice they can usually not afford to be serious about it. It's clear that both the Tanakh and Paul are homophobic, but not all brands of Christianity are.

It reminds us that one of the nice things about science is that it endeavors to maximize objectivity when testing for truth.

 

[Salvador]

You prove my point:
"There is a lot of confusion and flawed information about what 'Christianity' is. I wished to present a summary, as have many before, to reaffirm the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy. I am sure there are departures and offshoots from Christianity that do not carry the same core beliefs, so differentiating between them is necessary, especially since the term, 'Christian!' has become so ambiguous."

'Christianity', as an historical worldview, is not 'whatever anyone wants!', but has a precise, historical context. Sure, humans copy, add on, evolve, and springboard from the original ideas. I am not denigrating any offshoots, just defining the original. There is evidence that there IS, an exact, clear original.

The debate over Arianism, early in the history of Christianity, is an example of clarifying and specifying what Christianity is, and is not.

Islam, Buddhism, Lamarckian theory, relativity, and other real or abstract concepts have precise, historical, and exact definitions that are not subject to feeling. Christianity is no different. The term can (and has!) become ambiguous, or muddied to mean many or any, personal beliefs, but there is an Original, that has not changed with the whimsical notions of man.

There are zero contemporaneous historical records of Jesus Christ life or teachings. New Testament scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.

Hence, we should agree there is not nor can be any historic consensus of the Christian Faith.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is a lot of confusion and flawed information about what 'Christianity' is.

I have a clear idea of what Christianity is from direct personal experience as a former Christian and from interacting with Christians on message boards, as well as decades of news coverage of Christian activities.

do you want to discuss the precise definition of Christianity

There is no single precise definition of Christianity. The most popular one is the one the census and survey takers use - which religion if any do you identify with? If you say Christian, you're a Christian. They don't quiz you on your specific doctrine or examine your life to see how you live it, which refer to the definitions some other people use.

I see a lot of caricatures of Christianity, based on distortions, smears, and revisionism.

I see endless scandals in the news. They're not caricatures. They are news stories of the actual events in various Christian lives and venues.

Look at the Duggars - the exemplary Christian helicopter family with the heavy chaperoning. Then out comes the news of the diddling of the little sisters, then the Ashley Madison scandal (he's married). Is this not Christianity? Is it a smear? Is it revisionist? Is it a distortion? No. It's the public demonstration of a failed worldview.

Palin, too. Abstinence only, Sarah preaches as the Alaskan governor. Who had more incentive to not turn up unwed and pregnant that her daughter? Another failure of Christianity on public display.

These are facts, and constitute evidence of what Christianity is - what it does, how it affects lives, what kinds of people it generates. They don't become smears or distortions because they are an embarrassment to Christianity.

This was not intended as an apologia for critics of the CLAIMS of Christianity, but a clarifying, corrected view of what Christianity is, at its basic level.

This is your version of Christianity. It's not mine. You present it as if you are authoritative.

The historical, biblical ideology called 'Christianity', has remained consistent and constant, throughout history.

Christian theology is constantly evolving. It's changing now. Hell theology seems to be a popular topic for Christian revisionists, who understand how off-putting it is to feature a god that builds a torture pit, stocks it with demons, and then gratuitously keeps souls conscious after corporeal death just to make them suffer to the benefit of nobody except sadists looking on.

Now try to sell the idea that that is an omnibenevolent god. Once, they could. But today, people are less willing to believe such things, and so there is experimenting with revisionism. When I was young, I was told that Christianity taught that God judged us on Judgment Day, and condemned unsaved souls to perdition. Today, I read that God doesn't send anybody to hell - they send themselves. That's great news, I answer. Then I won't be going to hell if it depends on me damning myself.

How many denominations is Christianity up to now, each claiming as you do to be the authority and final word on the one true faith? Several tens of thousands. Some baptize by sprinkling and some by immersion. Some say the Sabbath is Sunday and some say Saturday. Some pray to saints and others don't. Some forbid alcohol while others don't. There's no single Christianity ideology called Christianity. They don't even seem to agree on whether Jesus called himself God.

No, that is revisionist interpretation, bias, and misquoting. Some shotgun cut and paste from anti-christian web sites does not 'evidence!' make.

Nice rebuttal.

You're the guy complaining that others won't argue the evidence, but instead, just dismiss it all with the wave of a hand, right? What did you do there if not just that?

This is not an example that God 'can't find someone!' That is stretching the translation to say what it is not saying.

Except that that is exactly what "Where are you?" means. I have never heard those words used for any other purpose than trying to locate somebody.

And nobody but religious apologists try to tell others what the plain English they're reading actually means. If one reads Gone With The Wind or Tom Sawyer, nobody tries to tell you that when Scarlett or Huck says, "Where are you?" that it doesn't mean "Where are you?" Only in this area do we see this continual sanitation of a heavily flawed holy book full of assorted categories of errors - unkept promises, moral and intellectual errors ascribed to a perfect god, internal contradictions, and dozens if not hundreds of errors in science and history - even a flagrant mathematical error (pi is not 3).

Incorrect. Paul does not contradict any teachings of Jesus, but affirms them all.

Except where he does.

Jesus: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

Paul: " Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." - Galatians 3:23-25

I'm sure that you intend to try to reconcile this contradiction with some semantic sleight-of-hand, but as I indicated above, I'm fluent in English and don't need to be told what those words mean.

Maybe somebody can explain to me how one fulfills a law. One can obey a law, write a law, flout a law, and a few other things, but one can no more fulfill a law than paint or eat one. It's a category error (yes, yet another error).

Promises and obligations can be fulfilled. But not laws. The sign says "No parking." Let's see you fulfill and in so doing, nullify the law.



.

 

[Road Warrior]

OT is very sophisticated, though. Nachmanides says 49 levels of understanding built into it, from literal to level of people who were able to see your mind working. Check meru.org for example. Or search: stan tenen youtube

More sophisticated than cave people, less sophisticated than the Greek civilization at its height.

 

[leov]

More sophisticated than cave people, less sophisticated than the Greek civilization at its height.

Greek alphabet derived from Hebrew, I came to think that some mystery school (Egyptian or older) was behind both.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is not an example that God 'can't find someone!' That is stretching the translation to say what it is not saying. It is not the intent of the passage, nor is it alluded to. That is a 'gotcha!' moment for hostile critics looking for anything to attack.

Again, the intent of the passage is not that God can't find someone. The questions Abraham asks are rhetorical, and the replies are also hypothetical. Specifics are not mentioned, just generalities. The progression from 50 to 10 'righteous people', is the crux of the exchange, as Abraham discovers more about the nature of God.

It is not intended or implied that 'God can't find someone!!' 'Ha ha!' That is an absurd caricature from hostile detractors looking for smears and 'gotcha!' moments.

Incorrect. Paul does not contradict any teachings of Jesus, but affirms them all.

I acknowledge, 'quashing dissent and decreeing!', as a human thing, primarily attributable to despots and controlling manipulators. It is not a virtue, in the teachings of Jesus, and to blame Christianity for the actions of despots or charlatans is a flawed attribution.

You do not have to include speculations or allusions to my 'choices!' or understanding. I'll tell you what i think. You don't need to.

Again, you put words in my mouth i did not say, nor imply. This is a fallacy. Please stick with reason and facts, in your rebuttals of my points.


My doctrines? I have never brought up my doctrines, and they are irrelevant in this discussion.

Are you going to be just another fallacy heavy debater?


Now, false accusations. I have said the opposite.

The goal here is to cleary define and enumerate the original, precise, and historical Christianity, as begun by the Founder, continued by His disciples, and extending throughout history as a continuous ideological belief. Departures FROM the original can be noted, or used to contrast comparisons to the original.

Christianity has an exact history, and exact teachings and orthodoxy, directed from the beginning by the Founder. 'Not Christianity', or offshoots, 'inspired by!' copies, or overt heretical departures can be many things, but if they don't fit the historical definition of Christianity, then they are 'not Christianity'.

Islam, Mormonism, Modalism, and Arianism are good examples of this departure from Christian orthodoxy.

Yes, many people have predicted the demise of Christianity over the millennia.. might as well toss your hat in the ring..

I see just the opposite. The false caricatures of Christianity are repeated loudly and constantly, until the actual Truth is obscured. That seems to be the goal..

You can have your Orwellian redefinitions if you want. 'Ad hominem', has been around for thousands of years, and is well known and understood by educated, intelligent people.

Why are progressive indoctrinees so enamored with redefinitions and revisionism?

No problem. I was not looking for a trophy. But your literary critique will be memorable, i am sure..

Yes, there are many opinions and speculations, and offshoots, from historical, biblical Christianity.

Yes. The deity of Christ is a major theme, and is THE CENTRAL ISSUE in orthodox xtian orthodoxy.

Then those are 'inspired by!' copies, not the original.

No, this is a false narrative, that the Deity of Christ was added later. NONE of the gospel writers promoted that false teaching. As this heresy grew, the expansion of terminology was employed to emphasize His Divinity. In every creed, statement, and apologia, the deity of Jesus was constantly emphasized, defended, and affirmed.

Jesus, the disciples, and the earliest apologists all affirmed Christ's Deity. Irenaeus used the terms, 'very God of very God,' which was alluded to in the Nicene creed. Athanasius (a participantin the Nicene council), in the 4th century, expanded the arguments to combat the heresy of arianism, which had become rampant in the 4th century. Tertullian even lamented that 'the whole world had become Arianist.'

In the 4th century, a new term was crafted to describe and clarify the Godhead, from a definitional POV.

ὁμοούσιον

Homoousion (Greek: ὁμοούσιον, romanized: homooúsion, lit. 'same in being, same in essence', from ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "being" or "essence")[1][2] is a Christian theologicalterm, most notably used in the Nicene Creed for describing Jesus (God the Son) as "same in being" or "same in essence" with God the Father (from wiki)

Athanasius crafted an in depth creed, refuting Arianism, and the 'Dark Dwarf' went through several periods of exile for his dedication to this core Christian tenet of faith.

An excerpt from the Athanasian Creed:
Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

As you can see, Athanasius does not just say, 'Jesus is God!', but expands, amplifies, and clarifies until there is no doubt as to what he was saying. He was not a word mincer..

A decent article on Athanasius and Arianism, including the Nicene council:
Athanasius

I see just the opposite. The false caricatures of Christianity are repeated loudly and constantly, until the actual Truth is obscured. That seems to be the goal..

If the ACTUAL TRUTH was indeed the ACTUAL TRUTH then I would expect that those with the ACTUAL TRUTH would be able to provide verifiable evidence for their claims that those who claim a FALSE CHRISTIANITY cannot. Yet, none of the thousands of different Christian sects has any greater evidence of their ACTUAL TRUTH than those who are FALSE CHRISTIANS.

You see ACTUAL TRUTH should be verifiable. I can claim that 2 + 2 = 4 and someone else can claim that 2 + 2 = 5. Yet, ONLY the person who is telling the ACTUAL TRUTH would be able to provide verifiable evidence for their claim. The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 can't be 'obscured' once that verifiable evidence is presented, no matter how loudly and constantly others insist that 2 + 2 = 5.

 

[Road Warrior]

Greek alphabet derived from Hebrew, I came to think that some mystery school (Egyptian or older) was behind both.

How does that change my statement? Aren't all civilizations built on the backs of barbarians?