Yes, that would have definitely been a bad move. Moving on.
Even if I just gave you one example, you should think to yourself, how did Gad find that one example in the first place?
You might have figured that I was able to predict JAK's plagiarism based on having seen many instances in the past. You can't just say, "that's one example, so what?" How in the world would I have just happened to stumble on it? And would it make sense that I'm suspicious of everyone, and copy and paste line after line into Google looking to catch someone of plagiarism? JAK's track record of plagiarism stretches far into the distant past. And it's based on that track record that I know when to be suspicious of what he writes. It was having seen many incidents of it before that gave me the ability to predict that one incidence I cited.
I also believe I know JAK's style. He's like a broken record with his lectures on evidence, "you have no evidence, you have
speculation". Yeah, that's JAK, the original. So I can scan his posts very quickly, and as long as the points he's making are on about a 9th grade level and phrased like Babelfish translating a page of Spanish into English, I know it's good old JAK. But once what he says begins to sound mature and thought out, I know it's time to at once, copy and paste into Google.
So, for your amusement, I spent 5 minutes going through some of his posts and that's all it took to find the following:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... ght=#14591
compare to:
http://www.indianchristianity.org/sacrement.html
Note that this isn't even a standard Encyclopedia source for his material. It's just an off-the-wall reference that probably just happened to come up in his rushed word search. Like his Godel material, it isn't first rate scholarship, just someone's home page, and it's hit or miss whether it would reflect any scholarly consensus at all. But let's take a deeper look, because his little tricks most certainly betray one who is stealing someone elses material and presenting as his own rather than someone who forgot to put the quote marks in. The highlighted green are word for word. Blue is JAK.
Nicene Councils were two councils of the Christian Church held in Nicaea (Nice) in what is now Northwest Turkey. The first Council was called in 325 by Emperor Constantine to settle the dispute caused by the Arian views of the Trinity. Arius was a priest of Alexandria who believed that Christ is
So when he plagiarizes word-for-word, he starts sounding smart. But once he interjects his own thinking in:
/was not the same essence as God, but of similar substance (whatever that means).
It just shows how his career of plagiarism has stunted his ability to learn. Clearly, Arius did not believe God and Jesus were of "similar substance". I'm not a theologin, but I'd bet the author being plagiarized here should have used "substance" instead of "essence". And why the parenthetical? It's just bizarre.
The Council also fixed the time for observing Easter.
It was questioned whether the Christian Easter should be on the same day as the Jewish Observance (Passover) or on a Sunday.
Again, an interjection by JAK seeking to interpret what the author says, and again, once his own thinking enters the discussion, it's one false statement after another. If you read the text in the article, it doesn't say at all that it was "questioned" whether easter should be on passover or the following sunday, it mentions that different traditions had arisen celebrating Easter on two different days. That doesn't necessarily imply there was a "question" about it.
The Nicene Creed summarized the chief articles of the Christian faith of that time. It’s next oldest to the Apostles’ Creed. It was adopted originally in
a particular form.
Of course in this case, since the original text says "following form" and then presents the creed, he had to modify to keep the length down.
The second Council was called in 787 by the Empress Irene and her son Constantine. The Emperor Leo, Irene’s deceased husband had forbidden the use of images for any purpose. The Council was called because of the opposition to that decree. The Empress revoked the decree after the Council had laid down principles governing the veneration of images.
462 years in that era was progressively a relatively short time space compared with that number of years today.
I take it he means society progreseed very little in that time. I'll leave it to Shades or Scratch to judge grammar, but this is hardly the careful expression of a professor. You have to really strain at it to make any sense out of it. And out of place?
“The nature of God” has been evolving ever since the invention of God was constructed.
Another sentence I didn't bother to search for in that article or on Google. Awkward, wouldn't you say? When is the last time you've seen an articulate professor speak of the time when the invention of something was constructed? Oh, the modern world has been going downhill, ever since the invention of the automobile was constructed.
I won't color the last three sentences which obviously aren't plagiarized. No ma'am. I didn't google those. No chance of those sentiments showing up in an encylopedia or even a homepage someone found worthy to put money into.
Hence, the “nature of God” was not the issue under discussion as the Second Council was called in 787.
On your question as to right vs. wrong, the “nature of God” was simply not relevant specifically to the convening of that Second Council.
The issue was (what we know as) the official position of what has been the historical evolution of Christianity at the time
.
I could do this all night. But I've got to get up for work soon.