Fiach

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because if you had you would know that they portray the early Christians as Catholic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really? I could swear they called them Christians and never once referred to them as the "one true" church. But do expand on this extraordinary assertion. There was no Catholic or Protestant in the beginning. Criminy, Luther sounded more like Augustine than anp Pope in the 6th to 14th century.

As I remember reading, the "christians" were not referred to as Christians until the time of the council of Nicaea when Constantine proclaimed the Augustinian/Athanasians who favoured the Trinity God version, were officially called Catholic or universal church, and Christian. I am not sure that they were called either name before 324 AD because there were many Paulites (followers of Jesus): Ebionites, Nazarenes, Arians, Nestorians, Donatists, Manichaeans, Gnostics, and the newest group the Athanasian Trinitarians. The Arians were the largest group, but Constantine (his mother Helena a Trinitarian) influenced her son.

So Constantine for more political than piety reasons wanted to unify the troubled Empire. He consciously merged his personal faith in Sol Invictus (Sun Cult), Mithraism, some parts from Druidism (he spent time in Britain), and Egyptian Trinitarianism. He cleverly merged them into a really new religion born in 342 AD, the mosaic known as Catholic Christianity with beliefs based on Original Sin, need for redemption, saving grace from the Mithraists, Jesus (directly copied from Mithra) merged with a possible Hebrew Jesus, the Jesus death and resurrection (mirroring that of Mithra), and the trinity of Father, Son, Holy Spirit taked directly from the ancient Egyptians and demonstrated at the Holy of Holies temple murals at Luxor. Father (Atum), Son (Aten), and Holy Spirit (Kneph or Ra). The Egyptians actually referred to Kneph as the Holy Spirit.

True early christianity if we may call it that was not very much like the Catholic Christianity that is still with us today. Many of the smaller Jesus cults of the first century, they are lost to time.

Fiach

Biff the unclean

Really? I could swear they called them Christians and never once referred to them as the "one true" church.
How would you know, you've never read them.
Criminy, Luther sounded more like Augustine than anp Pope in the 6th to 14th century.
If Augustine had been a heretic, but since he wasn't….

Blah blah blah. Give me the scriptures you are talking about. Of course if burning your own books makes you a thug, you might have a point. The rest is garbage.
Make up your mind, the AoA is garbage now?
Here's the part where Paul blinds a man for warning one of his friends that Paul was up to no good.
The work of a thug.
And here's the book burning. And yes burning your own books makes you a thug, so hang on to those Harry Potters.
No, it's whether they sold the land and agreed to keep part of it and say they gave it all.
And that's enough for your Saint to murder two people over?
This is obvious to anyone but a cynic, and you are comitting nothing short of slander.
It's obvious that you are too brain washed to read what the text actually says.
You cannot prove otherwise, and of course the law specifically places the burden on the slanderer to prove the truth of his assertions.
I have proved it. The AoA is a confession of the crimes.

No problems with lying to the Holy Spirit and his apostles ever since, far as I know.
Or before…but this time there are two dead bodies.

Well know, he did not say Peter personally lived by the sword any more than anyone else might, but made a general statement.
Bull shite. Have you never even read the bible?

"Again thy sword," the word again lets us know that this isn't Peter's first offence. And the rest of the copy lets us know that Jesus was talking directly to Pete the Knife.

Sounds like he knifed them? Let's see. So you're accusing someone (who didn't exist apparently), who isn't here to tell us his side of the story, or present any witnesses, of knifing people although you haven't any proof except what you gleaned by reading between the lines.
No from reading the lines themselves. Something you don't appear to have done.

And what was that you were saying about fitting it to what we choose to believe? You don't try fit it. You torture it.
I just read it straight. It is you who see only what they want to see. How have I tortured it? I presented it line by line. Peter murders the husband for holding out on him, dumps the corpse and then murders the wife and gets rid of her too. It's all there in black and white.

I take it you're another 25-year-old Jesus-myther. Right?
Wrong by several generations. I take it you are in your thirties and are too indoctrinated in superstition to know a fairy tale when you see one. I'm a Jesus-fairy taler not a myther. The story is too stupid and childish to rate as a myth.

Radorth

Now that's scary. But I just read your location, which explained a lot.

So it's all a fairy tale, but we know Peter knifed Saphira and Annanias. A rational person would conclude a fairy tale would have God doing the killing, which is why, when I argued this on another forum once, most skeptics agreed (in a poll taken by my opponent) that Peter did not knife them.

Let us lnow how this all fits in with the thread subject. Best I can tell, you think the Catholics have been a cult of thugs from day one and got their ideas about killing their enemies and burning other people's books by taking a few liberties in interpreting Acts. Is that pretty close?

Re: Fiach:

Huh? What were you reading, some fringe scholar's speculations?
------

The Roman official Tacitus:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures a class hated for their abominations, people called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [AD 14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." Annals 15.44.

-----

Oh wait. I forget. It's all a giant plot, with words put in everybody's mouths by the Catholics in 324.

Or, far more likely, Fiach and Biff particularly, are just making up stories and ignoring large portions of scripture and historical fact to prove theories they began with.

Rad

Radorth

Summary of Fiach and Biff's position, best I can tell:

Based on spectral evidence, indistinguishable in quality from that employed at the Salem witch trials, the Catholic church has always and best represented Jesus and his followers, a group of murderous, lying thugs from day one, the extraordinary good works, scholarship and benevolence of many of them notwithstanding.

Rad

Biff the unclean

Now that's scary. But I just read your location, which explained a lot.
What do you find so scary? My age, my doctorates? Or the fact that I can read English while you struggle for comprehension?
My location and my "nom de net" come from Christopher Moore the brilliant humorist. But seeing that you are in LA LA -land rest assured that you have just given many of us a good chuckle at you own expense.

So it's all a fairy tale, but we know Peter knifed Saphira and Annanias.
The whole Jesus story is a fairy tale, and not even an original one. The only possible reason to include the Ananias and Sapphira incident at all is to frighten the gullible into donating to the church. The Peter character kills the Ananias and Sapphira characters. Nobody dies in real life, this is just a work of fiction. I'm just trying to stop you from changing the plot line into your own story and keep you to the script.
A rational person would conclude a fairy tale would have God doing the killing, which is why, when I argued this on another forum once, most skeptics agreed (in a poll taken by my opponent) that Peter did not knife them.
You are ill equipped to comment on what is rational.
If God killed them then the sacrifice of Jesus for the forgiveness of sin is rendered null and void.

Let us lnow how this all fits in with the thread subject. Best I can tell, you think the Catholics have been a cult of thugs from day one and got their ideas about killing their enemies and burning other people's books by taking a few liberties in interpreting Acts. Is that pretty close?
The Catholics didn't get their ideas from interpreting the bible. The Catholics wrote the bible, it got its ideas from them.

Fiach: As I remember reading, the "christians" were not referred to as Christians until the time of the council of Nicaea
Sounds about right. But you have to keep in mind that a "Christ" was not a particular God to the Hellenistic Romans. A Christ was a specific type of demigod/hero. Serapis, Jesus, Adonis, Attis and, of course Christna (who lent it his name) were all Christs.

Oh wait. I forget. It's all a giant plot, with words put in everybody's mouths by the Catholics in 324.
Gee a plot in Byzantine Rome, what would the chances be of that?
So are you saying now that the Catholics didn't change anything and wouldn't dream of doing so, or are you still arguing that the Catholics did change stuff? Your schizophrenia is making me dizzy.

Or, far more likely, Fiach and Biff particularly, are just making up stories and ignoring large portions of scripture and historical fact to prove theories they began with.
But if we reread the last few days of this thread we find the only person who claims that the bible says things that it doesn't is you. The only person who rejects bible verses is you. The only person who doesn't back up what he says with chapter and verse is still you.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Summary of Fiach and Biff's position, best I can tell:

Based on spectral evidence, indistinguishable in quality from that employed at the Salem witch trials, the Catholic church has always and best represented Jesus and his followers, a group of murderous, lying thugs from day one, the extraordinary good works, scholarship and benevolence of many of them notwithstanding.
Nice try, but you are making yourself look even more foolish than usual.
The people who are reading your "summary" have already read what has come before it for themselves. They already know that you are intellectually bankrupt, don't give them any ideas about your moral state.

lpetrich

I like to think of Peter as a Stalinist and Ananias and Sapphira as pesky kulaks who refused to collectivize all their property.

the_cave

Not to take this thread in another off-topic direction, but why do you think this? I think the gospel of John, for starters, clearly indicates the Mythic nature of Christianity.

Fiach

The Roman official Tacitus:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures a class hated for their abominations, people called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [AD 14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." Annals 15.44.

While I don't have a copy of Tacitus for referral, I read from another post that Christians did not initially call themselves Christians. And that it was in a biography of Constantine the Great that I read that the word Christian was used after the council of Nicaea.

I will concede that your reference is more plausible. I yield the point to you. One of the characteristics of scientists and freethinkers is to admit if we are in error.

Fiach

Biff the unclean

The cave; Not to take this thread in another off-topic direction, but why do you think this? I think the gospel of John, for starters, clearly indicates the Mythic nature of Christianity.

Fair question. Fairy tales and myths bear a great deal of similarity in structure. The distinction I am making is in construction. Myths generally evolve over time due mostly to their oral nature. Fairy tales do not. They are a literary genre.
The NT shows itself to be such by it's sudden appearance. You also find that it's substance has been plagiarized from earlier stories. A crime now, but standard practice then.
You find the story of the triune Celtic goddess of the Galatians, in the three Marys. Jesus, and his friends, you find made up from Mithra and Dionysus stories, you find pieces of Roman boys own adventure books and even sections of Euripides plays. And that's only in the books that survived Constantine. In the banned books of the bible you'll find the stories of Gods from as far away as India.
Many of the books (but not all) even mention actual historical figures, to this day not an uncommon practice in fiction. Considered a nice touch, actually. Like when Indiana Jones meets Hitler in the last movie. Makes Indy seem more real some how.
The authors all appear to have been given the same rather vague outline and then let their imaginations run free. (Could "Q" have been the contest rules?) Not unlike those sci fi and mystery books that have chapters written by different authors, or they all write about a single hero like Tarzan.
In The Acts of John (not the book you were talking about with a similar name) which is the only Gospel written in the first person, Jesus feet never touch the ground. He also looks different to everyone who sees him. John and James meet Jesus together but John sees a teen-aged boy and James sees an old bald man. Pure fairy tale stuff.
Also fairy tales are generally geared to a young audience so the quality of the writing isn't as important as how engrossing the story line is. The NT, while not fit for children, is aimed at less than sophisticated readers who do not question the obvious plot flaws and who can't even recognize the self contradictions sprinkled through out like a grade B movie (wait a minute, the detective took off his coat as he was walking through the door but when he was inside he still had his coat on!!!)

So I say fairy tale and not myth. But a fairy tale whose story is stolen from myths.

Fiach

The story is consistent. It is consistent with the myth of Aten (the Sun God) in the Temple wall murals at the Holy of Holies in Luxor, Egypt. They date 1600 years older than the Christian era. The first panel shows the maiden Queen or virgin, Mut-emua, and the God Taht, the Annunciator of the Gods telling her that she is to give birth to a divine son. The nest panel shows the God Kneph giving her the new life. Kneph is the Holy Spirit who causes the Immaculate Conception (Kneph is the ancient Coptic/Egyptian word for "Spirit.") The painting shows the virgin's swelling form.

Third panel shows the mother seated in the midwife's stool and the child is supported by the hands of the midwife/nurse. Fourth panel shows the "Adoration", and enthronement. Three Magi are offering gifts to the child-god. Kneph stands behind. These older scenes of Pharaonic Mythology were most likely the inspiration of the Gospel writers since it is obviously nearly identical to the Gospel accounts. The Gospels are plagiarism.

Tertullian, an early Christian theologian also educated in ancient North African antiquities, was familiar with Egyptian mythology. This is known from his other writings. When he invented the Trinity in the 2nd century, despite his later apostasy to Donatism, he created a Trinity that remained unknown until Athanasius a century later found it compelling as a way to gain godhood for Jesus while not rejecting Jehovah (the Father). Athanasius incorporated the fictional Jesus into the son’s position of Aten, or simply renamed Aten with the name Jesus. The Holy Ghost was an afterthought to make a trinity. Three has always been a magic number. Kneph was a Spirit God so Christianity acquired the Holy Spirit mainly to be the third guy on a trinity.

Constantine was the major force. He was a believer in Aten, the Sun God. But he had mutually antagonistic Christians; themselves divided into Arians, Nestorians, Donatists, Athanasians, and Ebionites/Nazarenes. Then there were over a million Mithraists. Mithra, Aten, and Jesus were all merged by Constantine personally. He called the synod at Nicaea. His troops bullied the bishops into merging all three religions into Roman Catholicism, the Empire’s legally recognized form of Christianity. We have modern Christianity because of the plagiarism of old myths and the political needs of an emperor.

Constantine made the Sabbath, Aten’s day or Sunday instead of the Jewish Saturday. He made Mithra and Aten’s birthday the Winter Solstice, December 25 in the old calendar, the birthday of Jesus or Christmas.

Fiach (I have posted this before but it is perinent to the above post.)