stephan huller

He also believes that Mani wasn't Christian (= Buddhist) and that there is no datable evidence for Christianity at Dura Europa. There are also no Christian documents before Nicaea. No archaeological evidence for Christianity before that time too allegedly. Welcome to the twilight zone

Duvduv

Is MM concerned to be a heretic because of what he *believes*???

stephan huller

No of course not. But if you believe something without any reasonable supporting evidence you can be fairly be called unreasonable. If many people have tried to show you that your way of thinking is unreasonable and you continue to resist reason you may be fairly identified as either deranged, dishonest or both.

Duvduv

So you must be thinking similarly about someone who despite a total lack of any evidence (aside from claims of untrustworthy ancient church writers) believes that someone named Marcion lived in the 2nd century had some kind of canonical gospel and "collected" epistles of "Paul"? Now that's unreasonable.

spin

On what grounds do you claim that ancient church fathers, when talking about issues of church history rather than theology, are "untrustworthy"? Can you give a few specific examples?

Jeffrey Gibson

Concerned or considered? If the later, considered by whom?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Which Church fathers in particular did you have in mind? And how do you know that these fathers are not to be trusted in what they say about Marcion? More importantly, what particular statements about him are not to be trusted (as historically accurate?) and why?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

Or why does duvduv think the Fathers of the Rabbanites are more reliable than the Fathers of the Christians, or why does he embrace the tradition associated with the one group, accepting its authenticity, and rejects the reliability of the one associated with the other?

Duvduv

Hello, Jeffrey. Thank you. Yes, the word should be "considered."

Duvduv

One facet of this question (I don't know if I should be flattered that you have chosen to inquire specifically about my criteria as opposed to anyone else on the forum or thread) is simply that the Christians identified their faith as the FULFILLMENT of Judaism, and therefore must of course show familiarity with its beliefs, language, mindset, history, teachings, etc.

Another facet of this is that unlike Judaism Christianity relied on an imperially-sponsored regime for the development and spread of its faith as of the 4th century, and thus its apologists, its church fathers represented the interests and agenda of this empire. This context should not be ignored because it was the empire that had the motive, means and opportunity for enforcing and developing its faith any way it liked.

There are a number of other facets, but these two are main ones.