Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 06-03-2013, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juma

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

First, if you look again, you'll see the reconstruction at Yale with an arched structure on the left with frescoes to the right. Details of those frescoes (see other images) are 1) the scenes of the healing of the paralytic, to their right 2) scenes of walking on the Sea of Galilee with the disciples in the boat and Jesus and Peter in the foreground, and below that 3) the tomb with the women approaching it. The rest of the wall did not survive. In the lunette of the arched structure is an image of the good shepherd and from another wall you'll find a fragment with the Samaritan woman at the well. They are all to be found in that search.

I assume it is the images mountainman was kind enough to link.
I agree that they seem do depict storied from NT. But also that nothing indicates christianity as we know it today.

American Evangelicals come right out of Paul and the gospels.

Laying of hands(healing)
Speaking in tongues and interpreting
Visions
Singing
Reading scriptures
Spreading the word as a mission from Jesus and god

I had the opportunity to attend a private meeting and watched the above in action . Inline with the NT their group had people considered elders, but no actual authorities.

If someone wasn't feeling well, people would lay hands on him or her. Long bouts of singing interupted by someone proclaiming a vision and relating it.

Catholicism and a pope are considered not biblically based.

Going back to the 1800s when Christianity was fading there was The Second Great Awakening. There was a large gathering in the 1700s or 1800s where people started having visions and the like, and it spread.

The roots of the revival movement that led to Billy Graham and today's Evangelicals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_awakening

Circa 1970 when I was in Memphis preachers were out on the street preaching and prophesizing.

Bolding mine.

These are the 'second beast' imposters od the first.

Read Rev.13 to see the similarity between the first and second beast wherein the first beast is the real thing and the second beast is its imposter or 'look-alike' called Christian who will worship the first beast forever without end.

Chili · 06-03-2013, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

....

Additionally, the Dura-Europos-Yale structure is not claimed to be either a Christian church or a Christian church house (none of these structures have ever been found), but a "Christian house-church", and it is the SOLE EXEMPLAR of such a structure in the entire field of Christian archaeology. What sort of special pleading is happening here?

Dura Europas was a special case where ancient structures were preserved - much like Pompeii, although on a different scale.

The Hellenistic Jewish Synagogue is also unique in the field of Hellenistic archaeology.

I will let everyone here have on last post, and then this thread is over, based on our long standing rule that this subject has been done to death.

But you have to bury Pete first, don't you?

Tell him that walking on water is going by intuition that is based on knowledge pre-existing in us, where so now intuition is memory of our own soul.

Let me add here that we must learn to walk on water before we enter the promised land where walking on water is the name of the game wherefore the sea is no longer in heaven on earth.

Opposite this would be to part the water to get into the promised land that so converts heaven to hell where water is still wet for us to swim in and strike at every bait that we see.

Juma · 06-03-2013, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There have been several centuries for the christianity we know today to have gone through its developments.

It is sufficient to have new testament images at Dura to falsify mountainman's claim. However, he will not admit it. He'll talk of such half-assed things as confirmation bias when he looks at the healing of the paralytic or the walking on water scenes. Bias certainly. He's confirming that he will not call a spade is a spade when it is stuck in front of his face. A religion centered on Jesus and the accompanying gospel stories existed before 257 CE.

But these are just images similar to stuff mentioned in NT. Not NT images. To say that these images depicts jesus is at best wishful thinking.

steve_bnk · 06-03-2013, 08:11 AM

As I read it, it is more Constantine made Christianity a favored religion.

The result was from a number of different sects came a common theological foundation. it is more like he facilitated consolidation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Chili · 06-03-2013, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

As I read it, it is more Constantine made Christianity a favored religion.

The result was from a number of different sects came a common theological foundation. it is more like he facilitated consolidation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Except that Catholicism is not Christian but for whom Christian is the end of Catholicism proper.

Notably about Catholicism is their sin nature with no shred of salvation about them and have confessionals to prove that they are.

They are experts in sin even with a difference made between Venial, Cardinal, Capital, and maybe more, but with one of them isolated as unforgivable that they call sin against the HS. In is essence the sin against the HS is to call yourself rigtheous as saved-sinner and stand on that as an idol to worship and so be a slave to the Law of religion and at the same time a slave to Jesus as the angel of light, who would be called Raphael as second cause, and therefore prior to Catholicism and hence not forgivable under their umbrella as third cause via Mary, who's subordinate Michael is limited to Lucifer only, as fallen but not raised.

In evidence of this do they have the Church Suffering no longer Catholic as in Millitant Catholic and beyond that the Church Triumphant no longer suffering and, once again, no longer Catholic.

Chili · 06-03-2013, 09:27 AM

. . . and Steve, it is totally dumb to say that "born/created" is the same as "begotton" that in itself deny's the essence of Christ and hence the iota as well.

Plato called this a re-emergence that we simply call reborn wherein we encounter God as the source of all species including Man, here now identified by the son (that he called genus) raised to Higher Order outside the Cave (no longer doing penance inside the Cave), where also the interrelations of species is seen and hence bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ.

Quote:

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264–268 Synods of Antioch.

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

. . . and Steve, it is totally dumb to say that "born/created" is the same as "begotton" that in itself deny's the essence of Christ and hence the iota as well.

Plato called this a re-emergence that we simply call reborn wherein we encounter God as the source of all species including Man, here now identified by the son (that he called genus) raised to Higher Order outside the Cave (no longer doing penance inside the Cave), where also the interrelations of species is seen and hence bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ.

More impenetrable nonsense. How is this in anyway relvant to -- or an advancement of the discussion begun in -- the OP?

How does this reflect rational discourse?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

As I read it, it is more Constantine made Christianity a favored religion.

The result was from a number of different sects came a common theological foundation. it is more like he facilitated consolidation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Except that Catholicism is not Christian but for whom Christian is the end of Catholicism proper.

Notably about Catholicism is their sin nature with no shred of salvation about them and have confessionals to prove that they are.

They are experts in sin even with a difference made between Venial, Cardinal, Capital, and maybe more, but with one of them isolated as unforgivable that they call sin against the HS. In is essence the sin against the HS is to call yourself rigtheous as saved-sinner and stand on that as an idol to worship and so be a slave to the Law of religion and at the same time a slave to Jesus as the angel of light, who would be called Raphael as second cause, and therefore prior to Catholicism and hence not forgivable under their umbrella as third cause via Mary, who's subordinate Michael is limited to Lucifer only, as fallen but not raised.

In evidence of this do they have the Church Suffering no longer Catholic as in Millitant Catholic and beyond that the Church Triumphant no longer suffering and, once again, no longer Catholic.

More impenetrable twilight zone nonsense. How is this in anyway relvant to -- or an advancement of the discussion begun in -- the OP?

How does this reflect rational discourse?

Given the aims of the forum and what is expected of posters in their contributions to discussions, why is Chili allowed to post?

Jeffrey

steve_bnk · 06-03-2013, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Except that Catholicism is not Christian but for whom Christian is the end of Catholicism proper.

Notably about Catholicism is their sin nature with no shred of salvation about them and have confessionals to prove that they are.

They are experts in sin even with a difference made between Venial, Cardinal, Capital, and maybe more, but with one of them isolated as unforgivable that they call sin against the HS. In is essence the sin against the HS is to call yourself rigtheous as saved-sinner and stand on that as an idol to worship and so be a slave to the Law of religion and at the same time a slave to Jesus as the angel of light, who would be called Raphael as second cause, and therefore prior to Catholicism and hence not forgivable under their umbrella as third cause via Mary, who's subordinate Michael is limited to Lucifer only, as fallen but not raised.

In evidence of this do they have the Church Suffering no longer Catholic as in Millitant Catholic and beyond that the Church Triumphant no longer suffering and, once again, no longer Catholic.

More impenetrable twilight zone nonsense. How is this in anyway relvant to -- or an advancement of the discussion begun in -- the OP?

How does this reflect rational discourse?

Given the aims of the forum and what is expected of posters in their contributions to discussions, why is Chili allowed to post?

Jeffrey

What I do not get rs why you are allowed to keep making personal attack. If you think a poster is violating TOU hit the mod button on the left and complain. I generally just do not respond to chili.

steve_bnk · 06-03-2013, 10:03 AM

If one wants to claim Constantine invented Christianity then the attendees at Nicea and the Christian diversity they represented would have to be explained.

From the link there appears to be corroborating contemporary references to the council.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-03-2013, 08:11 AM	#54
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	As I read it, it is more Constantine made Christianity a favored religion. The result was from a number of different sects came a common theological foundation. it is more like he facilitated consolidation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

06-03-2013, 10:03 AM	#60
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	If one wants to claim Constantine invented Christianity then the attendees at Nicea and the Christian diversity they represented would have to be explained. From the link there appears to be corroborating contemporary references to the council.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.