mountainman

An after the event Public Relations exercise dated c.313 CE (after Constantine has secured the libraries in Rome and the Western empire) for the first legal appearance of the "New and Strange Religion" of Christianity in the Roman empire. The first milestone in the "legitimisation" of the authenticity of this new and publically displayed emperor cult. As Pontifex Maximus the Lord God Caesar Constantine had the lawful and divine rights of sponsoring any cult of his personal choosing.

I believe that he rejected all the "pagan" (ie: graeco-roman) cults, and simply fabricated his own for the sake of maximising the acquisition of gold, silver and treasure (the traditional established religious temples and shrines would not need their gold any more) and the securement of abolute power, not just over the citizens, but over all the extant religious networks of the religious cults of the empire.

aa5874

It must be noted that the Edict of Milan mentioned "Christians" there was no distinction. Now, based on Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, and Athenagoras, who ALL predate the Edictof Milan, the name "Christian" did not mean ONLY people who believed in Jesus.

Justin Martyr's "First Apology" was written to SHOW exactly such was the case, even Simon Magus was considered a Christian by ALMOST the whole of Samaria.

"First Apology" VII This is Theophilus of Antioch in "To Autolycus" XII So, long BEFORE the Edict of Milan there were Christians who did not believe in JESUS of the NT. All the so-called heretics were Christians.

The Edict of Milan does not confirm that people believed in JESUS of the NT it only tends to support the notion that there were people called Christians.

See http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/milan.stm

Cege

The quote from Justin Martyr does not state or even imply that the name "Christian" meant people who did not believe in Jesus. The "First Apology", Chapt 7, which contains that quote demands that people be judged as evil doers for the acts they commit rather than just because they claim to be Christians.

Theophilus was a pagan who converted to Christianity.

Both believed the Jesus of the NT was the Christ, the saviour sent by the God of the OT.

I don't understand how you use either man or quotes from them to support the idea that all so-called heretics were Christians or that there were Christians that did not believe in the Jesus of the NT.

aa5874

What you have stated is FALSE. You are merely re-gurgitating mis-leading information.

Justin Martyr did write that people who followed or believed Simon Magus, a magician and Holy One, Menander or Marcion were called Christians.

This is Justin Martyr in "First Apology" XXVI It is CLEAR that there were Christians that were NOT Jesus believers according to Justin Martyr.


Again converting to Christianity did NOT mean believing in Jesus.

Theophilus in his writing "To Autolycus" did NOT mention Jesus at all. Theophilus did not write that Jesus was crucified or died for his sins.

Theophilus claimed some people were called Christians because they were anointed with the oil of God.

Please examine the following the words of Theophilus in "To Autolycus" XII

Theophilus did NOT even write that "Jesus Christ", "Jesus", or "Christ" was crucified, died and was resurrected in any of his 3 books.

That is because you don't understand OR have not seen the EVIDENCE from antiquity.

Please examine book 3 chapter XXIX of "Theophilus to Autolycus" entitled the "Antiquity of Christianity" and you will notice that NOT one single reference is made of Jesus, Christ or Jesus Christ as the origin of Christianity.

Christianity PREDATED Jesus. Christianity is more ANCIENT than Jesus of the NT.

Now, if Jesus did exist he could have only been just a man so he could NOT have been "good". There is no man that is good according to Jesus himself.

Once Jesus was a man and claimed he was a God and the Sanhedrin considered he was guilty of blasphemy then the penalty for blasphemy is applicable.

Stephen in Acts was stoned to death for similar blasphemous words but it was NOT claimed that Stephen died for the sins of ALL mankind.

Jesus died for his own blasphemy. Jesus died for his own sins.

Cege

I think you misunderstand the meaning behind what Justin wrote. He wasn't arguing that Simon Magus and others were actually Christians; he was protesting that they were called Christians although they actually were not.

Theophilus used the term "annointed with the oil of God" as a metaphor, and he put it in context with other "annointed with" metaphors. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but I think you mean to claim that Theophilus was not actually a Christian himself because he didn't write about Jesus by name in his one extant work. If so, I think you lack much company in your claim.

The "Antiquity of Christianity" intended to show that the Old Testament recorded the beginnings of Christianity which culminated in the New Testament revelations about the Christ, not that there were people called "Christians" in the time of Moses.

aa5874

But, it does not matter whether Justin Martyr believed that they were not Christians. All that matters is that THEY and their followers WERE CALLED CHRISTIANS by themselves or by others in ANTIQUITY.

It must be obvious that it was also likely that those who were called Christians and followed Simon Magus did NOT consider that Justin Martyr was a Christian.

The followers of Marcion called Christians used to laugh at Justin Martyr.

Some people do not believe Mormons are Christians but it does not matter what those people believe once Mormons are called Christians by others or recognised themselves as Christians.

"First Apology" Justin Martyr is CLEAR. People were CALLED Christians who did not believe in JESUS.

You seem not to understand that the words "Christ" or "Christian" are derived from the Greek word for "anointed with oil".

The words "Christ or Christian" was NOT derived from JESUS.

And how in the world could I claim that Theophilus was NOT a Christian when I am arguing that there were people who were CALLED Christians who did not believe in JESUS and never mentioned that Jesus was crucified and died for their sins?

Please show a single passage in "Theophilus to Autolycus" where JESUS of the NT, and a passage from the NT is mentioned.