Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 01-31-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

From the Ency. Judaica: Ephesus played an exceptionaly important role in the history of early Christianity, and it's main importance in Jewish history is in the opposition of the Jewish community to Paul's missionary activity there.

I suppose you are now going to argue that

1. Jews never lived in Ephesus.
2. Jews invented a story about opposing Paul.

Your earlier reference appears to question how many gentiles were actually in Ephesus but none of this is actually relevant to the thread.

Solitary Man · 01-31-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

no, there were Jewish synagogues in all major cities of the empire.
the story of Jews opposing Paul is Roman Catholic fiction,
and the authors of the JE naively fall for that fraud.

Klaus Schilling

Please provide evidence that the story of the Jews opposing Paul is Roman Catholic fiction.

Wow. Just wow. We really ought to set it up so that these two can go at it vis-a-vis. That should be fun to watch.

Sheshonq · 01-31-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

no, there were Jewish synagogues in all major cities of the empire.
the story of Jews opposing Paul is Roman Catholic fiction,
and the authors of the JE naively fall for that fraud.

Klaus Schilling

Please provide evidence that the story of the Jews opposing Paul is Roman Catholic fiction.

For someone who never supports his own claims, you're really quick-on-the-draw to demand proof from others. :rolling:

arnoldo · 01-31-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Your thread on the samharris forum is a little confusing. You seem to have accepted the basic story of Acts (as Maccoby does.) But it's not clear why this is a big deal to you.

Christians depend on Paul to show that Christianity existed before the Jewish War of 70 CE. Otherwise there are no documents that can even be hypothesized to predate that turning point, and one might assume that Christianity arose after that war, as a reaction to the war and the defeat.

This would imply that Christianity was not started by anyone who knew a Jewish prophet who was crucified by Pilate, and leave us with no evidence that Jesus ever existed or inspired a movement.

Ok, I have the following question. You people do agree that christianity exists at the moment,right? :huh: If you do agree with that do you people seriously believe that christianity started after the Jewish War of 70 AD? :huh:

Toto · 01-31-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Your thread on the samharris forum is a little confusing. You seem to have accepted the basic story of Acts (as Maccoby does.) But it's not clear why this is a big deal to you.

Christians depend on Paul to show that Christianity existed before the Jewish War of 70 CE. Otherwise there are no documents that can even be hypothesized to predate that turning point, and one might assume that Christianity arose after that war, as a reaction to the war and the defeat.

This would imply that Christianity was not started by anyone who knew a Jewish prophet who was crucified by Pilate, and leave us with no evidence that Jesus ever existed or inspired a movement.

Ok, I have the following question. You people do agree that christianity exists at the moment,right? :huh: If you do agree with that do you people seriously believe that christianity started after the Jewish War of 70 AD? :huh:

Can you define what you mean by Christianity? What does it take to be a Christian? Do you count every person whose name is on a church roll? Every person who went to church last Christmas? Everyone who recites the Nicene Creed without crossing their fingers behind their back, metaphorically?

The Christianity that exists today is not the same as the Christianity of 50 years ago when I was growing up, and is not the same as the Christianity of prior years or centuries.

We have no good evidence of Christian origins. We don't know if Christianity started in 100 BCE or 100 CE. We don't know if the term Christian was used to refer to some other movement, and was adopted later by the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, or if it originally referred to those followers.

If you think that there is some amount of history to be derived from Acts, the first followers of Jesus preached in Synagogues, and were virtually indistinguisable from Jews; the term Christian was alleged first used in Corinth, some time after Paul started to preach. Since the dating of Paul's letters is so uncertain, we don't really know when this was.

So it is quite possible that the Christian church can only be dated post-70 CE.

What difference would it make to you if Christianity started 1,938 years ago or 1,975 years ago?

arnoldo · 01-31-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Ok, I have the following question. You people do agree that christianity exists at the moment,right? :huh: If you do agree with that do you people seriously believe that christianity started after the Jewish War of 70 AD? :huh:

Can you define what you mean by Christianity? What does it take to be a Christian? Do you count every person whose name is on a church roll? Every person who went to church last Christmas? Everyone who recites the Nicene Creed without crossing their fingers behind their back, metaphorically?

The Christianity that exists today is not the same as the Christianity of 50 years ago when I was growing up, and is not the same as the Christianity of prior years or centuries.

We have no good evidence of Christian origins. We don't know if Christianity started in 100 BCE or 100 CE. We don't know if the term Christian was used to refer to some other movement, and was adopted later by the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, or if it originally referred to those followers.

If you think that there is some amount of history to be derived from Acts, the first followers of Jesus preached in Synagogues, and were virtually indistinguisable from Jews; the term Christian was alleged first used in Corinth, some time after Paul started to preach. Since the dating of Paul's letters is so uncertain, we don't really know when this was.

So it is quite possible that the Christian church can only be dated post-70 CE.

What difference would it make to you if Christianity started 1,938 years ago or 1,975 years ago?

Thank you for your clarification that it is quite possible that the christian church can only be dated post 70 AD. However it is also possible it can dated before 70 AD also.

Toto · 01-31-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...
Thank you for your clarification that it is quite possible that the christian church can only be dated post 70 AD. However it is also possible it can dated before 70 AD also.

The point of this thread is to ask for what evidence there is that the Christian Church existed before 70 CE. So far we haven't seen any such evidence. Do you have any, outside of Christian documents?

arnoldo · 01-31-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...
Thank you for your clarification that it is quite possible that the christian church can only be dated post 70 AD. However it is also possible it can dated before 70 AD also.

The point of this thread is to ask for what evidence there is that the Christian Church existed before 70 CE. So far we haven't seen any such evidence. Do you have any, outside of Christian documents?

Yes, Marcion in the first century clearly gives evidence that an accepted gospel existed before 100 AD hence he was called a heretic for trying to revise already established canon. Historical fact are historical fact.

Toto · 01-31-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The point of this thread is to ask for what evidence there is that the Christian Church existed before 70 CE. So far we haven't seen any such evidence. Do you have any, outside of Christian documents?

Yes, Marcion in the first century clearly gives evidence that an accepted gospel existed before 100 AD hence he was called a heretic for trying to revise already established canon. Historical fact are historical fact.

Marcion is variously dated to 135-150 CE - NOT the first century. And there was no canon before him. It is generally accepted by Christians that the canon was compiled in reaction to Marcion. See Marcion, the Canon, the Law, and the Historical Jesus.

Please stop posting these wild guesses.

schilling.klaus · 02-01-2008, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yes, Marcion in the first century clearly gives evidence that an accepted gospel existed before 100 AD hence he was called a heretic for trying to revise already established canon. Historical fact are historical fact.

no, anachronistic lies are anachronistic lies.
There's no evidence for Marcion having worked in first century
and having known of a canon, only patristic fabulations from
not before mid second century.
Of course it's the Roman church of that time who forged and faked
the later canonised scribbles in an attempt to deceive the masses
by corrupting so-called heretical writings.

Klaus Schilling

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.