Chili

Oh, who? me, Lambert here.

Amongst all the turmoil around here one must admit that Constantine brougth about change. Pete is correct here but I think he has everything backwards, as most people here in different areas for sure. But then so am I, and that is why we are here.

The obvious is that Constantine called the Church to Order, something like Bethel was for the Jews, and called it Christian that so now became a valid organized Christian Religion.

That is wrong, of course because they called it Catholic for cold, and that goes well together; at least it sounds right to me with Rome being the home of Peter and Mary who obviously moved to Rome so they could be our stonghold in faith and of knowledge, similar to Shechem, I suppose, but here now more in deep-seated knowledge retained from those fish they caugth on the other side of their that boat where Jesus said they would be plenty an big -- on that post-resurrection fishing trip, if you remember, in John 21 after he said "it is finished" and should know what he was talking about.

This would make it an inspired religion that was common language for John, and more like Gibraltar than a pebble or an old terebrinth ever can be.

So now the problem Pete has is that he is looking for evidence to support its success, something like tires and tits maybe that he can kick and feel to see if they are real while not seeing in the dark where love is the prime mover of life as was shown to Noah already back then.

And a poor preacher Noah was, was with no fire about him at all but 'do your own thing' as Catholic here, and you will be OK all on your own.

I add Noah here only to say that the was the culmination of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob combined, here now called Catholic to transfrom human minds and set the naos free in Christendomain.

The call to Order was not to preach fire from their own pulpit but to stamp it out wherever they saw it spread beyond normal so it would not scorch the hair on their own flock . . . while they hang a partial transfiguration on them like it happened to Moses already back then, and subsequently lead their flock astray.

To now identify heretics would be those with fire from the pulpit or from any place they will gather to convene, as surely they will if only to sootch their own pain while in between heaven and earth and there will remain.

Jeffrey Gibson

mountainman

By making over 300 posts in the 1000 repeating the WIKI mantra that the therapetae of antiquity were a JEWISH SECT because one of the hundreds of sources, the Christian preserved "Vita Contemplativa" indirectly suggests this possibility? I don't think so my opia.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

This is actually false because I have repeatedly claimed that if unambiguous evidence can be produced to refute the HYPOTHESIS then I would retire from the field of investigation. This quest is not about human sympathy it is about the field of ancient history and evidence admissible to the field. I make the claim that I am an amateur historian, studying and investigating (for seven years) the hypothesis being discussed.

Most people do not understand how little evidence supports the entire structure for the "hypothetical belief" that the "nation of Christians" predated the appearance of the warlord Bullneck. How barbarian was the warlord Bullneck?

And even fewer people understand how little evidence we have in order to reconstruct, from the heresiological "church histories" of the 5th century, the political history of the 4th century. The second most important event in Christian history - the Grand Nicaean Final Game of 325 CE - narrated by 5th century orthodox (military backed) stooges culminating with the scumbag Cyril of Alexandria.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili

They wouldn't be necessarily Jewish because holy rollers come in all shapes and colors because the gift of healing is an intuit urge in evidence of fire burning within.

spin

This is overtly false. The unassailable evidence from Dura Europos refuted your hypothesis. Your response was not to retire from the field, but to hum, ha and hedge. The scenes with Jesus healing the bed-ridden man and walking on water, the Samaritan woman at the well, the women at the tomb don't get explained away because the good shepherd trope precedes christianity. That context renders clear that the good shepherd was seen as Jesus. Rather than retiring from the field you just ignore the evidence.

spin

Citing the notion of "christian preserved" only becomes relevant if there were overtly christian content under discussion, which is not the case with the therapeutae material. We are left with a Jew talking to a Jewish audience about a group whose beliefs and practices don't distinguish them from Jews.

:hitsthefan:

(I'd have preferred a urinating into the gale smiley, but let's make do.)

Robert Tulip

Typical post from Stephan Huller. I have never at this or any forum promoted "hatred". That is simply baseless vilification by Stephan, presenting an interesting psychological case study as to why he might form such an emotional conclusion. The three example threads that I mentioned left me agog at how the three amigos, Gibson, Huller and Spin, display a near miraculous capacity to ignore simple evidence. Just on the Isis thread, I cited material from Witt, a noted expert, to illustrate the continuity between Isis and Mary, and yet Huller has the effrontery to claim that I ran for cover! No wonder Earl Doherty has made such caustic comments about this forum.

.

stephan huller

Whatever. I don't even bother trying to straighten someone out when I doubt their intellectual honesty. I don't know why you waste your time here. How many converts have you made to your cult from FRDB? None I bet. Not a single sucker. Why's that? Because only idiots would buy into any of the crap your selling.

So why keep coming here? I think you are here because things are fairly slow at the commune and the guitar playing gig at the coffee shop can't pay much more than coffee.

Let's get this straight. You insulted Jeffrey Gibson in your thread and I defended him. I defended him because it is ridiculous to suggest that he isn't needed around here. It is even more ridiculous to allow to to misrepresent the results of those earlier threads (therapeutae, daemon etc) to suggest that you and the guy with a hard on for Constantine actually won the debate. It wasn't even a debate really. It was a slaughter. No it was like bashing a seal with a pick ax. The slaughter was so merciless I ended up feeling sorry for Pete and felt obligated to defend him - merely to end the bleeding.

But enough about you. The original subject of the thread was Pete and the conspiracy. The question many have is why does he persist with it. Why do persist with your nonsense even though it is laughably irrational and uninformed. Here is the reason you guys confidently persist to put forward debunked nonsense. Confidence works and there is always the hope that people will see past your bullshit but buy into your confidence - your faith:

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire...31-205342-1682

But you know 'con man' is another way of saying 'confidence man.'

Duvduv

What passes for strict evidence of Christianity before the 4th century is speculation, projection and reliance on Church bias without much regard for context or even logic.

Some people rely on insults/argumentum ad hominem against Mountainman and never examine the extent of the motive, means and opportunity of the Constantinian regime in establishing the new religion.