Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-18-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The "christian" Jerusalem Church is similarly an unhistorical entity.
The first historical entity of any relationship to the Jerusalem
Chuch is the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, Israel,
constructed by "The Basilica Man" in the fourth century.

Conjecture based on the literary tradition set aside, these
are the cold hard and historical facts.

And there were Christians, according to Irenaeus, who were followers of a non-historical Christ. Cold hard facts.

I did say "Conjecture based on the literary tradition set aside",
and this includes all the books of the new and old testaments,
and all pre-nicene "christian references" tendered by Eusebius,
under the regime of Constantine in the 4th century.

mountainman · 03-18-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLD

Are you saying that Paul's references to the Jerusalem church are merely later interpolations?

Obviously there was no building of a church prior to the 4th Century. But I don't think that's what anyone is talking about.

If these are later interpolations, I'd like to hear the arguments as to why you think so.

My arguments, and the question "Did Constantine Invent Christianity?"
are explored at this page

aa5874 · 03-19-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My arguments, and the question "Did Constantine Invent Christianity?"
are explored at this page

Can it be established that there was only one version of Christianity?
According to Irenaeus, there was Christianity according to Valentinus, Marcion, Basilides, Simon Magus and many more, and all these versions were long before Constantine.

Malachi151 · 03-19-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

If there were no Historical Jesus - What is the Jerusalem Church?

Isn't this kind of like asking "If there were no historical Moses, then where did the Torah come from?"

#1 I don't think that there was "a church" in Jerusalem during Paul's time, there were just small organizations of people who participated in this specific cult.

#2 I don't see why a real Jesus would be a needed part of the existence of any group of people who were worshiping Jesus.

Chris Weimer · 03-19-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Isn't this kind of like asking "If there were no historical Moses, then where did the Torah come from?"

That's a perfectly valid question, and there are plenty of good answers for it.

Quote:

#1 I don't think that there was "a church" in Jerusalem during Paul's time, there were just small organizations of people who participated in this specific cult.

Paul specifically uses the term εκκλησια.

Quote:

#2 I don't see why a real Jesus would be a needed part of the existence of any group of people who were worshiping Jesus.

That is, is the James community worshipping Jesus? What's the evidence for their "worship" of him?

Malachi151 · 03-19-2007, 11:56 AM

As for the claims about "the church", you'll have to be more specific.

Which of the usages of "the church" in the letters of Paul would lead someone to think that there was some substantial "Jerusalem Church" during the time of Paul?

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...&startnumber=1

As far as I can see, church just means body of people, and as to the specific nature of this body, I can get no impression of that from Paul's writings.

As for what James and his group were doing, I have no idea.

Chris Weimer · 03-19-2007, 12:00 PM

Church, ekklesia, actually means "community" - a specific body of believers. Why are you unnecessarily adding "substantial"?

Malachi151 · 03-19-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Church, ekklesia, actually means "community" - a specific body of believers. Why are you unnecessarily adding "substantial"?

Well, if "church" just means 20 to 200 people that hung out and preached then even "The Jerusalem Church" seems a little silly.

I doubt that "the Jerusalem Church" was anything significant in Paul's time. Probably just a loose band of religious fanatics.

Chris Weimer · 03-19-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, if "church" just means 20 to 200 people that hung out and preached then even "The Jerusalem Church" seems a little silly.

I doubt that "the Jerusalem Church" was anything significant in Paul's time. Probably just a loose band of religious fanatics.

Please let's stick to the facts, not what you think is "silly" or what your opinion of the church is.

S.C.Carlson · 03-19-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Church, ekklesia, actually means "community" - a specific body of believers. Why are you unnecessarily adding "substantial"?

Because his argument won't work without it?

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

03-19-2007, 11:56 AM	#56
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	As for the claims about "the church", you'll have to be more specific. Which of the usages of "the church" in the letters of Paul would lead someone to think that there was some substantial "Jerusalem Church" during the time of Paul? http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...&startnumber=1 As far as I can see, church just means body of people, and as to the specific nature of this body, I can get no impression of that from Paul's writings. As for what James and his group were doing, I have no idea.

03-19-2007, 12:00 PM	#57
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Church, ekklesia, actually means "community" - a specific body of believers. Why are you unnecessarily adding "substantial"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.