Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 03-18-2012, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The world is compelled to either follow what evidence Big E. tenders in regard to "the church" or else to invent their own private historical fiction. Dear Jesus, please help me to find a commentator on Acts before the 5th century.

Until the 4th century, comment on any part of the Bible was risky.

Was Josephus's comments in the "TF" risky or forged?

Yes.

Christians in the time of Diocletian were engaged

They may well have been furtively engaged in writing personal letters about the Acts of the Apostles, along with the other 65 books of the Bible. But, for reasons natural and/or unnatural, not one of these letters has survived. What is extraordinary is that a religion that evidently forced a whole empire to acknowledge its power to convince has no written witness other than that of its origins. Even the fake witness, obviously written by imperial puppets, is far too sparse to be believable as representative of such a religion.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-18-2012, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

What is extraordinary is that a religion that evidently forced a whole empire to acknowledge its power

Christianity never did any such thing. Constantine forced an Empire to accept his OWN power. The content of the religion had nothing to do with it.

Duvduv · 04-25-2012, 10:38 AM

It's worth noting that according to the later "historian" Socrates, John Chrysostom was in his 30s when he converted to Christianity, and barely twenty years later became the "bishop" of the most important city only to retire and return to his native Antioch. Of course he supposedly wrote about the Book of Acts following on others around the same time (towards the end of the
4th century) writing commentaries on the epistles, i.e. the unknown Ambrosiaster and Marius Victorinus.

Apparently there was nothing worth saying about the epistles in the 2nd through 4th centuries or at least worth preserving along with the well-preserved epistles and gospels.

By the way, it is striking that the so-called ancient epistles were so well preserved from all their different locations that none had anything missing or lost. No fragmented texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Chrysostom did state that Acts of the Apostles was hidden which could NOT possibly be true if it was Canonised.

Acts of the Apostles is the LARGEST book by word count in the NT Canon and contains the supposed history of the post-Ascension Acts of the Apostles , the single most important event, the Day of Pentecost when the disciple received the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Persecution of Christians, the record of the supposed FIRST Martyr, and the conversion and Travels of Saul/Paul.

In fact, Chrysostom's statement is confirmed by Justin Martyr who wrote NOTHING about the Acts of the Apostles and Paul.

But, even more remarkably, is that Justin Martyr did NOT use anything from Acts to DEFEND the existence of his Jesus.

Justin Martyr used the Memoirs of the Apostles and an unknown OLD man to defend his Jesus story.

Acts of the Apostles was UNKNOWN by Justin c 150 CE and was Hardly known even up to the end of the 4th century based on Chrysostom.

Grog · 04-25-2012, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

You can't be serous.

You have to keep in mind that what sotto means by "the church" has little connection with what the rest of the world means by "the church."

You can tell the difference, though. He would have said "the Church" if he meant THE Church. It isn't so difficult really.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.