J-D

Of course the name of a thing is related to the thing. But the name is not identical with the thing, and the origin of the name is not identical with the origin of the thing.

You still have not given an answer to the question I asked.

Chili

But Catholics are not Christians Johnny and when a Catholic becomes a Christian he is no longer a Catholic in the same way as Jesus was a Jew (I'll accept that for now), and when he became a Christian he was no longer a Jew and was never seen in the temple again except to raise a ruckuss from the precinct . . . which is a very normal response after transfiguration.

This then is why I hold that there are no Catholics in heaven but maintain that heaven is for Catholics and Jews only.

So let me tell you how it is that Catholicism is the inspired religion that was built on Peter who's insight was to be the rock of faith in the Catholic church and therefore is the seat of the papacy in Rome with Paul being the first pope thereon.

So if you go to Jn.20:28 you will find Thomas exclaiming "my Lord and my God" thereby removing all doubt and so leaving Peter defrocked since he was Thomas' twin in faith and doubt (21:2) . . . which cannot be conceived to exist without the other and that is precisely why Peter was defrocked on his next fishing trip when they caught nothing all night, to say that he was totally bereft of faith (sic). It is at this time that Peter put on a new cloak and dove headfirst into the celestial sea, there called "the other side of the boat" but really was his subconscious mind and there harvested the insight for the new religion called Catholic. This then is how it came to be a mystery religion that is beyond criticism for the simple reason that nobody can 'fish' on the other side of the human mind or we would be able to make our own mind the subjecty of our inquiry.

So now, to fill in the blank and finish my previous post it is easy to see that before resurrection can take place in us it is the Catholic church that must pull the old hide off of us, but that is something you may never understand.

aa5874

Good.
The word "Christ" (anointed with oil) appear to be original to Hebrew Scripture or Jews who were likely to be called Christians or Messianic before the Jesus stories were written.

I wont get involve in your illogical straw-man argument. You seem not to understand that Christianity is based on the BELIEF of the Expected Christ.

You must know that there are Christians who believed in the EXPECTED Christ.

Even in the NT Canon Jesus told people to believe he was Christ and that to EXPECT him, even Paul preached Christ and of his expected return.

Chili

What about Jews who are waiting for the first coming? Now I agree that Christendom is the spiritual domain where Judaism and Catholicism have a ligitimate end in that both have their own testament but that does not make them Christian until they reach that end and after that they are no longer Jew or Catholic but Christian. Of course I know what you mean by Christianity but I just want to make my objection known, that's all

J-D

It is true that Christianity is based on the belief of the Expected Christ. It is not true that Christianity is the same thing as the belief of the Expected Christ. Since Christianity is not the same thing as the belief of the Expected Christ, an answer to the question 'How did the belief of the Expected Christ begin?' (which you haven't given either) is not the same thing as an answer to the question 'How did Christianity begin?', which is the question I originally asked and which you won't answer.

So what's your answer to the question then?

J-D

The question is what it is. If you can't understand it I can't help that.

mountainman

You may hopefully mean that the question as it is in the series of questions in the poll is what it is, and that's OK. But you also asked if anything needs to be added and I suggested that your word "conclusion" may need expanding to address "hypothetical conclusions". I have answered your question by including "hypothetical conclusions" as a subset of all possible types of conclusions to which you appear to refer since I did not think you would ever consider that "conclusions in history" are anything other than "hypothetical conclusions".

We dont have antiquity in the muti media archives.
It is a reconstruction job involving tenditious evidence.
In this realm - that of the ancient history of antiquity - everything is hypothetical.
Dont you know that fact?

But more to the point .... dont you think I am also aware of that fact?

aa5874

But, you have failed to describe precisely the meaning of your Christianity.

Please explain what is YOUR meaning of "Christianity".

It has been brought to my attention that you may NOT even know what YOU mean by Christianity.

The options you provided in the poll seems to suggest that YOUR meaning for Christianity is not really certain.

mountainman

The first three options explicate the origins of christianity by the passing down of the christian message by an oral tradition --- each option commences with the statement .... "with people listening to the teachings of ...".

Origins of Christianity is associated not with an Oral tradition but a Written tradition

This "oral tradition business" defies the written tradition (Eusebius et al) that the christian message was firstly written down (by the most Holy Apostles and that Paul and Pseudo Paul character), and then secondly read to the people who were listening in the churches. The origins of christianity cannot be removed from the authorship of the new testament as greek literature which was also characterized by the universal use of certain specific words in an abbreviated form - ie: nomina sacra.

This implies either an early editor or a late editor -- for these universal nomina sacra. These abbreviations occur physically in the oldest extant manuscripts, codices and payri fragments. As I see there are three alternatives:

Who implemented the Nomina Sacra in the Manuscript Evidence available?

(1) The Apostles and Paul etc agreed to use the same written abbreviations before they wrote.
(2) A very early editor gathered up the gospels and paul etc and then established the standardised use of the nomina sacra.
(3) A very late editor did this (ie: Eusebius) and the manuscripts we now have are in fact 4th century.

Of these three alternatives, the first two are possible but highly unlikely, while the most logical appears to be the last, because Eusebius is also widely recognised as the very first editor of the earliest large-scale and widespread editions of the New Testament. .

J-D

What I mean by 'Christianity' is what the word means in general discourse and in standard works of reference, both online and offline. If you are not familiar with this meaning, I suggest you consult some standard reference works of your own choosing, whichever ones you prefer to rely on.

If you are having a problem understanding my question because you are aware of more than one meaning for the word 'Christianity' and you're not sure which one I had in mind, then I suggest you list the different meanings that you are uncertain between and I'll tell you which is closest to what I intended.