Iskander

You will be ignored by me as one with a foul mouth and nothing more than that

sotto voce

As you wish. I have no idea what you are talking about.

For those otoh who wish to discuss the OP, and who are unaware that Lutheranism is not actually Protestant, but merely affirms with Protestantism that the Vatican's Mass is a profanely imagined re-sacrifice of Christ, the comparison with Adolf Hitler may be ignored. Rather, it should be noted that Lutheranism, unlike Anglicanism, not only substituted consubstantiation for transubstantiation, that made no significant difference politically, retained also auricular confession, similarly maintaining state control of German people.

Constantine is alive and kicking.

sotto voce

It's very good to see that Calvinism is considered a bad thing, anyway.

Duvduv

It this clear, therefore, that Harnack, like many other modern academics in this field, has no evidence for Christianity in the second century other than the claims and assertions of the ancient propagandists themselves.
Ironically it is not unlike what can be said of Islam, i.e that there is no clear evidence that Quranic Islam existed before the 8th or 9th century after the emergence of the Abassid regime in Baghdad. Nor is there evidence of Shia Islam (as a development from Arabian syncretic Imamism) as we know it before the emergence of the Safavid regime in Persia in the 15 or 16th century.

sotto voce

It might be clear if there was not such a colossal insistence on Christianity having a totally alien character (systematically contradictory, in the case of Vaticanism) in comparison with that presented in the Bible, from Abram to Revelation.

Ironically, Islam is so comparable to the aforementioned contradiction (so explicit, that lacks any subtlety!) that it could very aptly be described as the Eastern version thereof.

Wherever in the world you go, despite themselves, people cry out that Jesus lived. Something, somewhere, makes them do it.

Duvduv

Since I don't know Greek I cannot figure out why the words in these two different passages seem to use different expressions that are both translated as "New Testament" in English, and whether this can make any difference.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html
From Epiphanius:
Τὰ δὲ τῆς καινῆς πάλιν οὐκ ὀκνητέον εἰπεῖν· ἔστι γὰρ ταῦτα. εὐαγγέλια τέσσαρα· κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μάρκον, κατὰ Λουκᾶν, κατὰ Ἰωάννην.

From Eusebius:
1. Ευλογον δ ενταυθα γενομενους ανακεφαλαιωσασθαι τας δηλωθεισας της καινης διαθηκης γραφας

sotto voce

What difference do pagans ever make?

Duvduv

I am asking a technical linguistic question, not a philosophical one. Can you clarify?

Toto

Your first quote is not from Epithanius, but from Athanasius

Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New [Testament]. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

From my rudimentary Greek:

Καινῆς ∆ιαθήκης is New Testament. Καινῆς in the first quote is a shortened version of that phrase, since in the previous sentence, Athanasius has referred to the Old Testament = τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης ...

διαθήκης is covenant or testament.

Sheshbazzar

He musta fergot to tell that bit to Saint Justin the Martyr. :banghead: