stephan huller

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? What a pathetic wretch you must be to troll topics to find some 'angle' to get thing back to your stupid conspiracy theory. You act like a drug addict.

spin

Any non-centralized, or heterodox, religion. The Hindu religion is not centralized.

You misunderstand the notion of orthodoxy. What would an atheist heretic be?

Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of religion as well. A religion involves a set of tenets about the world, its origin and purpose, based on belief and requiring supernatural notions such as deities, souls, forms of existence beyond life.

While everyone has beliefs, they don't in themselves imply religion. I believe the sun will "rise" tomorrow. I believe that a critical, ethical education is necessary for our young to survive our institutions. Etc. The religious notion of "belief" (sing.) or faith has nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism, though you apparently would like to kid yourself that it does.

I haven't claimed that either have an orthodoxy or a belief. You are projecting once again and need to actually find out about what you clearly don't know enough about.

You have totally failed to comprehend agnosticism. It is a position based on the fact that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision regarding deity. Both atheism and agnosticism work from evidence, agnosticism more successfully so.

If I told you there was an occulted mantis-like monster continually behind you ready to suck your brain out if you made a mistake, you would be skeptical, because you would want evidence before you considered such a notion seriously. Do you think I could require you to prove it didn't exist before your position would be deemed reasonable?

I'm sorry, this doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Apostolic succession is an extremely common notion regarding late second century christianity's dealings with doctrinal issues. What do you have against the notion? Is it your apparent anti-catholicism? Have you just misunderstood the discussion (perhaps indicated by your use of the present tense "have") or do you have something in mind that you haven't explained clearly enough? Your resistance to discussion and your non-stop sniping have made it hard to communicate with you.

la70119

There are payrus manuscripts and fragments dated to the second and third centuries CE. Also gems. Plus inscriptions in the catacombs, usually dated to the third century.

But what kind of christianity???

For example, papyrus P-90, found in the buried Oxyrhynchus town dump, which is dated to 150 CE or later, has gJohn 18:36-19:7 including the earliest inclusion of the name of the hero of the story. But instead of IHSOUC or the Nomina Sacra abbreviation IC, we have ISE.

Color-coded text is comparable to the phrase in gJohn 19:5 (Greek NT, Greek Orthodox Church):

sotto voce

Really? So which person do you know who has apostolic succession? We know there's no God, yet we know who his representatives are.

Christians are so terrifying, they have to be placed under the control of pagans.

spin

mm dismisses palaeographic dating out of hand, so you'd need dated texts from Oxyrhynchus, such as administrative letters, though there aren't any to my knowledge that are early testimony to christianity. However, I served him up the house church in Dura-Europos and the gospel harmony found in the city, so he contorts and denies and forgets and repeats the initial erroneous claim. Don't bother any further. It's a swamp of ever more complicated conspiracy.

outhouse

excellent reply.


Is dismissal of most modern scholars considered looking very hard??


We all know Carrier is researching the historical method's involved in percieved historicity. But I have a feeling his popularity with mythers is due to his acceptance of both sides of the fence.

spin

Why not just read what people say to you before opening your mouth to change feet? What do you think "apostolic succession" refers to? (I did supply a Wiki link to help you.) This question is so incoherent: "So which person do you know who has apostolic succession?" I clearly indicated that the phrase was being used about the 2nd century. Break down and read the link. And stop the nonsense.

I don't know why you wasted your breath with such weird stuff. Jesus. You show a glimmer of there being someone at home, so you get a more substantial response, then the light goes out again.

la70119

More's the pity, because he could get a heck of a lot more mileage exploiting these anamolies and whatnot in the documents if he realised that Christianity was a heterodox phenomenon, i.e., several different religious groups all claiming an origin from some Yeshuah from Galilee, before Constantine basically made one of the factions the State Religion, displacing the Imperial Cult of the Caesars.

sotto voce

Oh, I do. But how often do you write anything worth reading? It's either evasive bullshit or juvenile insults. Get real.

spin

You don't show any consistent evidence of having done so.

When you post more than your usual sniping and nastiness, I try to respond more substantively, as I did here. Was that "either evasive bullshit or juvenile insults"?

Once again you have twisted out of communication. You complained about my use of the notion of apostolic succession and you still haven't communicated your grievance.

Next time you troll, I'll simply report the incident.