Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 06-11-2007, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Very strange that the State spent so long trying to suppress its following, then.

Where do you get these fantasies?

From the historical record.

"Christianity was illegal, and its illegality was reaffirmed by every emperor of the second and third centuries" (T.D.Barnes, "Tertullian").

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 06-11-2007, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

I'm not sure. When the books were written, the apostles were still alive. Indeed even in the early 2nd century, Papias can prefer 'a living voice' to written accounts.

Evidence?

Deposit $1,000 in my paypal account, and I will be happy to point you to the ancient sources that you so rudely demand.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clouseau · 06-11-2007, 02:41 AM

[QUOTE=aa5874;4526152]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

The church is always united.

Quote:

Prove it.

Odd how you didn't ask for proof of:

'The Churches were not unified, before that time.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Worldly people were unable to retain credibility, just as their 'Catholic Church' was unable to contain people with both education and Scripture, so they had to keep inventing denominations that approached more closely what people wanted. It's still going on.

Quote:

Prove it.

Prove it's not so.

Clouseau · 06-11-2007, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Evidence?

Deposit $1,000 in my paypal account, and I will be happy to point you to the ancient sources that you so rudely demand.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I don't think it's so rude. However, googling could save him money.

Roger Pearse · 06-11-2007, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Since the 2nd century, Christians were suppresing Christians

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Prove it.

Please read Agaisnt Heresies by Irenaeus at http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...s/advhaer1.txt

You will get some insights of the suppresion that occurred among Christians in the 2nd century.

Exactly where does Irenaeus describe 'oppression and suppression'? You write as if Christians aren't entitled to determine their own beliefs, or to resist take-over attempts!

Quote:

The Christian, Marcion of Pontus, was kicked out of the Roman Church for his beliefs around the middle of the 2nd century. Marcion a believer and follower of Christ, taught that Jesus was not the son of Mary and Jesus Christ came directly from heaven to earth.
See http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_marcion.html

Marcion was kicked out of the church for inventing his own beliefs and trying to introduce them into the church. He was a gnostic who believed that Christ only seemed to be human but was in fact a phantasm, and that the OT should be discarded and all Jewish elements removed from the NT. He got the finger from no less than Polycarp, who knew the apostle John personally.

Quite how that justifies your suggestion of 'oppression and suppression' you do not say. Or are Christians not entitled to determine who is a Christian and who is welcome at their meetings?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Knupfer · 06-11-2007, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Assuming we have authors in antiquity writing about the good news
why do you suppose the publication of the package now known as
the bible, consistent of the Hebrew Bible plus the New Testament,
was not enacted by someone before Constantine c.331 CE?

Dont you think 300 years is a little after-the-fact?

And even if you postulate gospels written as late as 131 CE,
that is still two centuries until someone formally publishes the
package texts of the new christian religion.

How is the delay to be explained?

That's like asking all the biographers of Caesar to make a compilation of their biographies onto one book. So until that's done, does that make any of those biographies wrong?

Of course not.

Vicious Love · 06-11-2007, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knupfer

That's like asking all the biographers of Caesar to make a compilation of their biographies onto one book. So until that's done, does that make any of those biographies wrong?

Of course not.

So you're saying God is fallible and limited, like human biographers?

Roger Pearse · 06-11-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Love

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knupfer

That's like asking all the biographers of Caesar to make a compilation of their biographies onto one book. So until that's done, does that make any of those biographies wrong?

Of course not.

So you're saying God is fallible and limited, like human biographers?

Is he? Where?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Vicious Love · 06-11-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Is he? Where?

My bad, I actually misread that. Though I still find it bizarre that an omnipotent god would wait more than 300 years to divinely inspire His followers to separate the "correct" gospels from the apocrypha, especially if this god wanted His word to get out to as many people as possible.

Masorah613 · 06-11-2007, 11:29 AM

Actually, the first "bishops" or rather they should be known as "patriarchs" (Avoth) of Jerusalem were the family members of Jesus:

* James the Just (until 62)
* Simeon I (62-107)
* Justus I (107-113)
* Zaccheus (113-???)
* Tobias (???-???)
* Benjamin I (???-117)
* John I (117-???)
* Matthew I (???-120)
* Philip (???-124)
* Senecas (???-???)
* Justus II (???-???)
* Levis (???-???)
* Ephram (???-???)
* Joseph I (???-???)
* Judas (???-135)

The fact that the grandsons of Jude was known to live during the days of Caesar Domitian is recorded in Historia Ecclesiae, 3.20.

Also, Jesus lived and died much earlier than the Christian claim of his dying in 33 CE in order to make sense of the chronology in the NT. It is suggested that Jesus was actually born between 10-6BCE rather than 0-6CE. This is based on the idea that Quiriunus led campaigns in Syria, between 14-6BCE before becoming official governor in 6CE. This would also corroborate with the Jewish claim that it was in these days that the zealots formed in order to fight the romans.

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

06-11-2007, 11:29 AM	#80
Masorah613 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: midwest Posts: 16	Actually, the first "bishops" or rather they should be known as "patriarchs" (Avoth) of Jerusalem were the family members of Jesus: * James the Just (until 62) * Simeon I (62-107) * Justus I (107-113) * Zaccheus (113-???) * Tobias (???-???) * Benjamin I (???-117) * John I (117-???) * Matthew I (???-120) * Philip (???-124) * Senecas (???-???) * Justus II (???-???) * Levis (???-???) * Ephram (???-???) * Joseph I (???-???) * Judas (???-135) The fact that the grandsons of Jude was known to live during the days of Caesar Domitian is recorded in Historia Ecclesiae, 3.20. Also, Jesus lived and died much earlier than the Christian claim of his dying in 33 CE in order to make sense of the chronology in the NT. It is suggested that Jesus was actually born between 10-6BCE rather than 0-6CE. This is based on the idea that Quiriunus led campaigns in Syria, between 14-6BCE before becoming official governor in 6CE. This would also corroborate with the Jewish claim that it was in these days that the zealots formed in order to fight the romans.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.