The first thing that a disinterested reader will note is that if you remove all references to God, from the following, there is no loss of meaning. (I have also corrected the spelling of Nicene and Nicaea)
Can you give us a clear summary of your position on the topic?Certainly!
Scripture was written in flowing narrative, not verses, so it is my contention that scripture is more likely to be properly understood if we appeal to the narrative rather than the verses.
This is either trivial or misleading. It is obvious that words taken out of context are without value, but the proposition of the Bible is that all the words are God’s; a Christian who then suggests that God could not express Himself perfectly, is then committing blasphemy.
The "church at large" agrees on one thing; "the Nicene Creed", and feels free to disagree on everything else. Since the Nicene Creed was established by democratic vote among representatives of all the churches in the Roman Empire, it is undoubtedly pagan,
This is a strange concept. In application this argument would indicate that the Declaration of Independence is a British Document, as those who produced it were British. I personally see this as the fact of the matter, but have to say that the Declaration makes sufficient distinction between “being British” and “being a member of a break-away group.” Thus the Nicene Creed established the basic tenets of Christianity sufficient to distinguish the belief system from the pagan one.
The only thing which unites Christians today, is a set of pagan doctrines which were forced on all the churches of the Roman Empire after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325AD.
… and thus they are all that is required.
Beginning with Abraham, "the faith", known as the faith of Abraham, is that a great nation of Abraham's seed will inherit all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt for an everlasting possession, and will bless all the families of all nations.
This is based upon an assumption that Abraham’s claim was indeed by God, and not simply Abraham and others claiming the authority of a mythical being.
Now since the earth lost peace and good will when man began to falsely judge good and evil,
This is a bald statement without any support. Against it is (i) the serpent’s word that “ye will be as gods and know good from evil” (ii) there is nothing in history to show that there has ever been a “loss of peace and good.”
and since a NT prophecy says that the Christ will be given the kingdom of his father David, and will bring peace on earth, good will toward men,
(i) Do you have the reference of that ‘prophecy’? (ii) I see you omit the slaughter of one third of Mankind in the process.
I concluded that peace on earth, good will toward men, brought about by David's kingdom, is close enough to a great nation blessing all the families of all nations, to consider it as evidence of story continuity.
So, this is a personal opinion of God’s word and has no authority at all. It is what you imagine.
Back to Abraham: Abraham believed God's promise, … was that a great nation would bless all nations, not that God would bless all nations, … Anything Abraham did in preparation for the coming great nation, was justified by his faith in the outcome.
This is the doctrine of “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”
If he had to do something which was evil to prepare for the coming great nation, he counted himself righteous because of his faith in the outcome. Because Abraham had faith in the end which God saw from the beginning, his faith in the end, justified the means.
Were it so that God were inspiring him, would this not mean that God could not achieve His ends without being evil?
When the mixed national assembly known as the Children of Israel was chosen by Moses, to become the great nation of God's promise, Moses gave the national assembly 10 rules of national unity, which would lead it to great everlasting nationhood.
You realise that there is no evidence for the existence of Moses, and much against it?
The Children of Israel virtually wiped out the Canaanites to conquer the land defined in God's promise, and it justified this evil action by their faith in the outcome Scripture writers made sure to complete that justification by adding that God told the Children of Israel to do it. .
Again, an omnipotent God fails to find a peaceful or just solution
The geographically defined nation of Israel became a kingdom, and during the reign of Solomon, it became divided against itself, having obviously broken the 10 rules of national unity, and Israel fell into non-existence without having achieved everlasting possession of the land, and obviously without repenting of breaking the 10.
You make it sound as if God had something to do with this.
Now since God saw the end from the beginning,
But did He see the middle – did He foresee that He would have to order the death of millions?
then His promised ending is everlasting and unconditional.
How do you know that (i) God has not withheld a sequel? Or (ii) in view of later changing prophecies, that what you claim is at all correct?
Prophets began to warn the former Israelites in the two warring enemy kingdoms which resulted from Israel's fall, that Israel is going to be resurrected, and that the former Israelites should repent and resurrect Israel.
To accept this, you have to believe that prophets can see into the future, for which there is no evidence. You also have to realise that these prophets made no prophecies about things that God must have known but they could not know – you will note the lack of prophecies about events in Australia.
God's promise was now defined as the good news of the coming kingdom, rather than the good news of the coming great nation.
Here we see the fallacy of believing a prophecy, as the prophecy changes as circumstances changes and its words are tortured to fit.
Since the borders of the great nation/kingdom were specifically defined in God's promise, and that specific land was part of the Roman Empire, Jesus' message represented a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire. Jesus was executed for sedition, before he could do anything which might cause Rome to retaliate by killing all the Jews. "Jesus died to save the Jews" from death at the hands of the Romans.
The truth of the matter is that the Romans has little interest in the affairs of the Jews. There were constant squabbles about who should run the Temple and how it should be run. So unimportant was the internecine strife, that Jesus is never mentioned in any known documents, although others who fomented trouble are.
The apostles carried on preaching the good news of the coming kingdom and were all killed by Rome. The church was driven underground around 70AD, and was never heard from again, that we know of.
This is not true. I suggest you have a look at various “gospels” that were written ater that date.
The anti-Nicean fathers were pagans,
See my earlier point
The names of the Celtic god Hesus, and the eastern god Krishna, were blended to name the new universal god.
Really? I’d be interested in any substantiated references.
Reality is a little different. The OT is a general and fictionalised account of the area of and around present-day Israel. It is a story of warring tribes; sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.
The NT is a story of rebellion against authority. It is probably no more than a political document turned into a narrative with a fictional hero used for unity of that narrative.
I end by urging you to remove references to any deity and observing that the events then do not change, but tend to make more sense.