Amos

After watching Larry King last night I don't think protestant Christianity has changed at all.

the_cave

No, but John the Baptist was doing it. Alright, if you're saying it could have originated some years after the founding of Christianity, I suppose it's possible. Acts is full of baptisms, though acts is also somewhat suspect as an historical source. I suppose Paul (or whomever--tradition declares it was Jesus himself, since the resurrected Christ commands his followers to baptize at the end of Matthew) could have borrowed it from somewhere else, but that would still make it a pretty early practice!



[grumble mutter mutter...] Initiation rituals are common to many groups. Perhaps the fact that there are 7 was borrowed, alright--but I don't think that means each time there's a resemblance, it was borrowed. And if it was borrowed early on, then it was still there early on! That's mostly all I'm saying.



Bah. Retroactive labeling. These were, at best, the bishops of Byzantium, who was elevated to the level of Patriarch by, naturally, Constantine. However, you're correct in saying that the Patriarchs (however many there were) were originally equal in status. Now, I do think that there's a case to be made that the bishop of Rome had a certain unique status, probably because Rome was the capital--though later it was claimed Peter was there. But I would agree it was nothing like the current claims of the Pope.

Hah--I never heard it put that way before! Funny. Helenaism, hm...interesting point.

I freely admit Christianity by 325 already had elements taken from the pagan and mystery religions--but it would seem that even you admit some of those elements may have been there to begin with--Christianity has been called one of several mystery religions at the time, and so it was, I suppose. So, it's no surprise that it borrowed from others. I guess I would tend to agree with you on this point.

I would say that "original" Christianity would look like a flavor of Judaism, with gentile borrowings and a unique philosophy. Change and adaptation was a part of its nature. But I don't have a problem with that.

Fiach

I have no problem with any of them. I believe in none of them so I try to be a neutral observer as much as possible. But we both know that being raised in a Christian culture colours our biases positively or negatively, and admittedly negatively in my case.

Fiach

the_cave

Fiach--just a couple of comments:

I believe Josephus does mention him. Yes, this was written down later, but most assume we can trust Josephus. Sure, you can doubt it, but then what's to stop you from doubting anything written in the ancient world?

Alright, granted.

I've never heard this, and would be interested to read your source. I still dispute it, but it's not important.

Amos

Long after the "fact" so we can not trace the historic evidence of it, obviously, and for good reason because Baptism has nothing to do with water, or dunking even sprinkling. Baptism with water is needed to be juxtaposed with fire, wherein fire makes reference to our conscious mind and water to our subconscious mind. John was born in the netherworld from parents of old and after the Annunciation Mary went into the netherworld to signify that the time during which rebirth must take place is not "a spur of the moment one night stand idea" but is preceded by a long melancholic period that is brought about by our subconscious mind and is therefore involutionary. So John actually is Christ but needed Jesus to carry his own cross to "Calvary" where he died to the sins of his world (his sins were his cross). The sins of his world were the sins of Joseph if Jesus was the reborn Joseph. Therefore later, "mother, there is you son."

The secret ingredient of Baptism is Catholic indoctrination after we are assumed into the fold where we have communion with the saints in heaven and the community of the faithfull. We do this by just being there and do like Catholics do without any further questioning as to "why we do what we do." If so, the Sacrament of Baptism will do its own thing in its own time or it would not be a Sacrament (sacraments have power of their own, sic).

The reason why the rebirth of John must precede the rebirth of Christ is the victory over sin. This again is a concept but it makes reference to the inner conviction of the futility behind our desires to be something other than what we really are. Albrecht Duhrer has a nice woodcut to depict this lost hope mentality. It is called "Melancholia."

The Baptism by John are just there as an allegory to gather a flock and to confirm to those who question the sanity of it all.

Amos

Double post, sorry.

Radorth

Stop playing dumb. I said to prove the verse, and Jesus saying it, is responsible for those sins. It just happens nobody got to read the Bible for themselves during that 1500 year period. It just happens that when they did get to read it, people began to ask what the hell was going on. Even Luther said heretics should be "burned only with the scriptures." Read a history book sometime. It's like blaming 30,000,000+ Communist murders on something Marx said. Right? Or are you just applying hypocritical logic with nothing to back it up?

So what? It proves my point that as the Bible became widely read, we found no reason to burn heretics or anybody else. Nothing neutralizes goofy religious ideas like reading the NT. Thanks for helping me prove it.

Rad

Fiach

Some is discussed in Will Durant's "Age of Faith" History of Civilization, Vol 5. and I have two websites.

http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/subject.../mail-134.html

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/St_Andrew.htm

Himerologion is a book in Orthodox Cathedrals listing the Patriarchs back to the orginal. They did refer to Andrew as naming one Stacys as first Patriarch of Byzantium, and they were so called until the city name change to Constantinople.

St. Andrew came to Jerusalem for the First Synod of the Apostles, about 50 AD, another historic first for him and the other apostles, some of whom he had not yet met. There he rejoiced in joining the great St. Peter together with those but for whom Christianity might never have become the glorious human experience it is today. Out of the Synod, the apostles went forth with renewed vigour to establish the ecclesiastical system.

St. Andrew alone is credited with having set up parishes throughout Asia Minor, in Pontos, Bithynia, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, Scythia (Russia, where he is still regarded as patron saint) and in the capital city of Byzantium. It was in Byzantium that St. Andrew ordained Stachys as first bishop of Byzantium (later Constantinople), thereby establishing an unbroken line of 270 patriarchs down to the present day Patriarch Bartholomeos 1st. From Byzantium, St. Andrew went on to more glory through his compelling oratory and power of healing through Jesus Christ. He eventually found himself in Achaia, in the city of Patras, where he was to suffer death.

We could quibble over the city's name change. But the Patriarch Bartholomeos of Constantinople still carries that despite the city being called Istambul. Does that satisfy your heart burn over that?

Fiach

Biff the unclean

It proves my point that as the Bible became widely read, we found no reason to burn heretics or anybody else. Nothing neutralizes goofy religious ideas like reading the NT. Thanks for helping me prove it.
Rad

Sorry Rad but the only thing that I see being proved is that you hold strange baseless Protestant fantasies. You really do believe that the Prods are the original Xians. You really do think that a verse in which Jesus orders his followers to burn heretics didn't cause his followers to burn heretics.
Everything evolves Rad, even your religion. It wasn't criminals who burned heretics it was the church fathers. They didn't do it because they lacked morality. They did it because they were very moral. They didn't stop doing it because Jesus said so. They stopped because the civil authorities made them stop. The only reason you think that what they did was terrible and immoral is because YOUR religion has changed from their time to this. What was virtue then is sin today.
Don't throw the Commies in my face…that old straw has been rebuked too many times already. I'm not bringing up the killing of heretics to show how rotten religion is. I'm bringing it up because it is the most undeniable (even if you insist on trying to deny it ever happened) graphic difference between the Protestant religion of a few hundred years back and that of today. I'm trying to show you that your religion itself has changed in the hopes that you will drop some of your rabid anti-Catholic bigotry.

the_cave

Again, granted that this may be so, but the reference to John doesn't contain any Christian references, and I've never encountered a scholar who doubted its authenticity. We might as well doubt the existence of the Essenes.

This is all pious legend. Now, maybe it's true, and maybe it isn't, but just because the Durants copied it down doesn't mean it's authentic history! Again, it's not an important point, but I do get heartburn when questionable facts are portrayed as genuine history, as I'm sure you do as well. It's not vital to this discussion, but it could confuse someone down the road. I don't think we need quibble over it any more.