sotto voce

To label as 'Christians' those who were more or less plainly antichrist tends to make skeptical argument superfluous.

tanya

Hi Sotto voce!

Thanks for your comment. Many forum members agree with you, that my submissions to the forum are generally superfluous.

I confess, I don't know enough about the writings of these half dozen authors to comment in any meaningful way, on your rejoinder to my post.

I sought to suggest that those who claimed to have been Christians, (Eusebius et al, listed above) and who have been regarded as Christians for fifteen hundred odd years, by many people on planet earth, had offered confluence of 25 December with winter solstice because of a simple deformation in the Julian Calendar, a problem which had been resolved, several hundred years later, by Gregory, if I am not mistaken....

Although I view your criticism of my listing of various 4th century authors as having been "Christian", as peripheral to the discussion of this thread, if Toto wishes to split my comments into another thread, indicating in essence that my post is off-topic, then I will not object.

I sought only to offer an explanation as to why there was "confusion" about the date of the winter solstice (22 December), and the tradition that Jesus was born on the one hand, on 25 December, AND, on the other hand, on the date of the winter solstice.

I would welcome a thread, or a response on this thread, if permitted, explaining why those half dozen authors ought NOT be regarded as "christian".

They certainly were not Muslims--Islam had not yet been invented. They were not Jews. They were not Zoroastrians. They were not Buddhists.

Eusebius had been a follower of his former friend, Arius, but converted, and denounced his friend, so his behaviour demonstrated loyalty to the Christian dogma--the architect of Nicea must certainly be regarded as Christian!!

Since the demigod Jesus himself wrote nothing, we really have no idea, what behaviour, (among men living 1600 years ago, or today,) ought to have been, to conform with his supposed teachings. If you find the writings of Athanasius, or Didymus, or Jerome, et al, to be contrary to the "true" Christian spirit, then, please teach me, for I have knowledge neither of what a genuine Christian thought ought to be, nor of what the underlying philosophy of those half dozen authors had been--especially, how their underlying philosophy contravenes "true" Christian mentality.

sotto voce

Then one wonders why you did not write:

'Four centuries, after Julius Caesar, we find Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, Didymus, Augustine, and other authors.'

... and have been described as antichrist in these threads...

Of course, there are those who, finding the moral demands of Christianity more disturbing than those of any other religion, seek to make theft, oppression, censorship and murder seem acceptable, because Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, Didymus, Augustine, and other like authors are associated with those sociopathies, and by their teachings actually abet them. 'Partners with and puppets of the scum of the earth' is their proper epitaph. It is high time scholarship got a measure of self-respect and recognised this, and stopped giving into modern day crooks.

Concern with a date is anyway nothing to do with the Bible, that not only gives no command to keep 'Christmas', it condemns such a practice as 'weak and miserable'. Surely people here read the Bible? The very word 'Christmas' is so deeply antichrist that no scholar with semantic awareness should see fit to do anything but disapprove of the common, yet gormless public association with Jesus of Nazareth. But perhaps corruption has destroyed scholarly self-respect.

Certainly, the existence of 'Christmas' should be treated in this forum as evidence of the total inability of the 'leaders' of Western society to dislodge belief in a faith that it evidently finds more or less terrifying. That is its only historic relevance, anyway, and any other attitude tends to confirm belief not only in HJ, but in the biblical claim for him, too.

Toto

sotto voce does have a way with words.

'Partners with and puppets of the scum of the earth'

:devil1:

sotto voce

Of course one would be most unwise to disagree with any of them.

sharon45

And why is that?

mountainman

If you look at the evidence fom that epoch, these were the people (all of whom were part of the Imperial Christian Organisation) who were making the claim that the real antichrist was Arius of Alexandria. For example see Athanasius 'against the Arians'. What do you see this evidence as representing?

Toto

Sure . . make it a convention of hobby horses. . .

sotto voce

This is the reason that skepticism has reached nugatory status. It's possibly actionable in law, too.

tanya

My explanation of why those five christian authors misunderstood the connection between 25 December and winter solstice, the error in the Julian Calendar, such that 3 days, unaccounted for, had elapsed without reckoning, a mistake corrected by Gregory, I believe, may be incorrect.

Similarly, those early authors, described by me, if no one else, as "christian", may have erred in significant ways.

My question to you, sotto voce, which remains unanswered, is WHY you consider these five authors, identified by me, as "christian", to be "antichrist". What is it about their writings that you find contrary to which writings of Jesus?

OOPS.. .. oh, that's right, I forgot, jesus didn't leave any writings. So, then, maybe first, one ought to explain what is meant by "pro-christ"? In that fashion, one can hope to measure the conduct of these five authors, to assess whether or not their texts represent "antichrist" or "pro-christ".

Gosh, there I go again. OOPS. How can we define "pro-christ", since we have no idea what jesus taught, what he thought, what he demanded, what he proscribed.

What about:
Sabbath?
Baptism
marriage
divorce
inheritance
money
language
food
hygiene
animals
crops
reading
writing
traveling
music
painting
sculpture
dance
??????