Attonitus

Well, that demonstrates that you are a person whose education is as faulty as its knowledge

Vinnie

I stand by my ignorance!

Attonitus

You are a guy with absolute education lack!

Kosh

Well, we have Acts, which itself is dated quite awhile after the supposed events that it documents. And aren't those writings by Paul considered questionable as to their authenticity?

Which is not quite the same thing, right? Just because a story has been set in a valid historical backdrop, does not make the story true. You know this, Vinnie.

But do we? Do we have writings by those people? Or do have late writings (Acts) which claims those people knew him?

SO what? Jesus was "widely regarded as having been historical" until people took a hard look at him. I don't see why John the Baptist should be granted special historical status. Who's doing the special pleading?

Of course, with Josephus writing at what, 90 AD? It was a good 60 years after his alleged death, and plenty of time for the story to have become an urban legend. I'm afraid that falls short of good evidence!

Embarrasment argument? Or good plot device?

Good point. We'll count John as questionable too.

Hmm. Except for those damned writings by those very people....

spin

While the cat's away...

"unbroken record" gets a grin for (empty) rhetoric.

1) OK, Clement indicates a knowledge of the dying and resurrection part, but where do you get the historical part? And does the fact that one writer from Rome produced something which you claim looks like later orthodoxy reflect on the whole Roman church??

2) Try and date Ignatius for me. And I mean provide the historical data. Then we can discuss the value of Ignatius.

3) Justin was in the church at the same time as Marcion and Justin polemicized against him, so obviously he was not kosher by Justin's standard, ie he was still in the church and heretical. And, before Marcion, Valentinus was in the Roman church.

Rubbish. Justin was not Roman.

That's why the greatest "heretics" spent much of their time in the church. You must be joking.

Remember that Marcion was in the church, when, we are told, Polycarp attacked him. Who else do you need to show that Marcion wasn't orthodox while in Rome?

Your only response is that they must have miraculously started being heretical either at the moment they were kicked out or after they left. They sorts of complex positions that both men developed took a long time -- hence my comment about "overnight". I think there are enough indications that you are mistaken regarding Marcion becoming a heretic only after his long stay in the church.

You simply had early believers in xianity with differing ideas, but all gathered under the one roof -- as long as they could.

Total rubbish. I have provided evidence which you ignore. There were various "heretics" who frequented the Roman church for a very long time. We have Marcion who was still there during Justin's time and Justin was writing against him. All you can say is that they must have been orthodox while they were accepted by the church on no basis whatsoever. "Unbroken record, mumble, mumble."

You have shown nothing of the kind. What you have shown is a willingness to retroject ideas into a period where they are inappropriate. Luther for example could only have been trained in the church. Justin and all the early academics came from outside the church bringing their ideas in. This was a religion of converts with who knows what diverse backgrounds. Until you understand the situation back then, you ain't gonna make sense of it for yourself.

This doesn't fit the data.

It took well over twenty years to get rid of Marcion. You claim that he was orthodox while he was in Rome, but Justin and Polycarp disagree with you.

But of course you can't expect the church fathers to admit that Rome permitted "heresy". Naturally they were all kicked out when they were discovered. (Yeah, sure.) That's why there was a chain of non-orthodox church members including Valentinus, Cerdon and Marcion. We only hear about these from antagonists. Add to these Tatian of course.

This doesn't make too much sense to me.


spin

Attonitus

What is this? A bad joke?

spin

Ha-ha-ha. Sadly no.


spin

Vinnie

So JBap isn't historical either. We are really reverting into comedy on this list now. It is no wonder serious scholars do not have a habit of taking this material seriously.

Vinnie

Attonitus

Then...it is good the joke! Ha-ha-ha

Vinnie

Kosh, you are invited her for the attestation that Jesus had followers:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81415

I will not repeat that argumentation in here.

I don't even remember mentioning Acts except once or twice but now that you mention it

Vinnie