METAL

Solid troll.

That’s a false analogy. Christianity isn’t a road trip to California where every route is equally valid. Christ said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). And He established one Church, not hundreds of competing denominations with contradictory doctrines.

You’re also confusing Bible translations with doctrinal interpretation. Having 500 translations doesn’t mean there are 500 different truths. Different languages and translations don’t change the underlying question of who has the authority to interpret Scripture.

And that’s precisely the problem with your argument. If Christians disagree about baptism, salvation, the Eucharist, and even which books belong in the Bible, who settles those disagreements? Christ gave His Church authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18), and Paul called it the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). He didn’t establish an interstate highway system of contradictory doctrines.

Nope. All Christian denominations have some of the truth and all people can have a relationship with Christ. We just believe that the Church has the fullness of truth through Christ’s promise.

Different argument.

Next we can introduce them to the original Greek… “ kecharitomene”

Do you understand the difference between dulia, hyperdulia, and latria?

This should be good.

Educate us please…

First, prototokos means “firstborn,” not “first created.” Look at Colossians 1:15-17. Paul literally says all things were created through Christ, that He existed before everything, and that everything holds together in Him. Being firstborn doesn’t necessarily mean being the first thing created. Psalm 89:27 calls David God’s firstborn, even though David wasn’t the first king or even his father’s oldest son. It’s about rank and authority. Hebrews 1 also makes a pretty clear distinction between Jesus and the angels, so calling Him an archangel creates another problem for your argument.

Second, just because Philo called the Logos “firstborn” doesn’t automatically mean Paul shared his entire theology. It shows that Jewish thinkers were using that language, sure. But it doesn’t prove Paul thought Jesus was a created archangel. You still have to establish that connection.

Third, Judges 11:24 doesn’t prove Ignatius believed multiple gods actually existed. Jephthah was speaking to a foreign nation using their own religious beliefs as a point of reference. That doesn’t somehow cancel out Deuteronomy 6:4 or Isaiah 45:5, which explicitly teach monotheism. And nowhere does the passage say God approved of Jephthah sacrificing his daughter.

Fourth, you literally admitted you don’t have good evidence that Eusebius forged Ignatius, but your still treating it like an established fact. Yes, there are different versions of Ignatius’s letters. Nobody disputes that. But scholars generally recognize the seven-letter middle recension as substantially authentic, while the longer version contains later additions. The fact that manuscripts were edited doesn’t mean Eusebius invented the original writings. Thats a pretty big jump.

And finally, your whole celestial crucifixion theory has some serious problems when you actually read Paul. Galatians 4:4 says Jesus was born of a woman and born under the Law. Romans 1:3 says He descended from David according to the flesh. Galatians 1:19 mentions James, the Lord’s brother. And 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 describes the resurrection appearances to Peter, James, and others.

How exactly do those passages fit with your claim that Jesus was an archangel crucified by celestial gods somewhere in the firmament? None of them naturally suggest that. You’re having to reinterpret multiple passages to make them fit a theory that Paul never actually states.

I’m not saying you can’t propose an alternative explanation of early Christianity. But you need actual historical evidence supporting it. Simply pointing out that ancient manuscripts sometimes contained additions or changes doesn’t establish that the historical Jesus was invented or that your celestial crucifixion theory is correct.

Wildly uninformed opinion.

So you’ve conceded Nicaea wasn’t a vote on whether Jesus was divine… but now you’re making several more historical mistakes.

First, where exactly does the Bible say Jesus was created? John 1:3 explicitly says all things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made. Colossians 1:16-17 likewise says all things were created through Him and that He exists before all things.

Second, “our God” doesn’t imply other gods exist any more than saying “our Lord” implies multiple Lords. Ignatius was writing within a Christian tradition rooted in Jewish monotheism, not pagan patron-deity worship.

Third, claiming Eusebius forged Ignatius because Theophilus didn’t mention the historical Jesus is an argument from silence, not historical evidence. Theophilus was writing apologetics to a pagan audience, not a comprehensive history of Christianity. His failure to discuss particular events doesn’t prove he knew nothing about them.

And your claim about Roman legions enforcing Nicaea is historically misleading. Constantine convened the council to resolve a theological dispute, but the controversy continued for decades afterward. Athanasius, one of Nicaea’s greatest defenders, was repeatedly exiled by Christian emperors.

Most importantly, Paul’s letters already identify Jesus as divine and describe His crucifixion and resurrection nearly three centuries before Constantine. You’d have to explain away those texts too.

You’re replacing established historical evidence with speculation about forgery and imperial conspiracy.