Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus (Muslims, gospel, Pilate, contradictions)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now you speak of Constantine making Christianity legal, WHAT DOES THE CHRISTIANITY OF CONSTANTINE HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY?
Nothing. He just called a convention of Bishops, and asked them to get their stuff together.
Quote:
Constantine said himself that Gentiles should no longer keep the ways of Jews, you are talking about the invention of modern Christianity which happens to be a wholly different religion.
Paul settled that question hundreds of years before Constantine. Those interested in this can find Joachim Jeremia's excellent Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus for that and more on the culture and society of the times. One can note that if any part of the Gospels had been just made up by con artists they would have been filled with anachronistic errors, geographical errors, legal errors, etc., etc, etc., another reason we know the Gospels were contemporary to the times they claim to describe.
Quote:
Constantine outlawed all the ways of God. He created his own religion apart from the first Christianity.
Not true; he didn't change a thing. Nobody has any proof that the 27 books adopted were faked; they were in use from early on, and many thousands of copies verify this, in several languages. As Darrell Bock said, the orthodoxy was there from the beginning. The Bishops who did that would have been tossed out by their congregations if that had been tried; too many copies around to even try and pull off something stupid like that.
We're supposed to believe that after hundreds of years of being imprisoned, murdered, tortured and the like, some of the Bishops at Nicea had been tortured themselves, eyes put out, etc., without denying their faith, that they suddenly jumped up and let Constantine tell them what to do??? It's an absurd claim on its face. Constantine's fellow Tetrarchs tortured and persecuted Christians almost as badly as the last Emperor before them had; they didn't succeed at forcing them to rewrite anything to suit them, so it's pretty unlikely Constantine could have, either.
Gentiles stopped converting to the then Orthodox Judaism of those days because by AD 0 it was little more than a legalistic and racist sect and held no advantages or appeal for the 'racially impure', while the reformed Judaism of Christianity held a lot of appeal.
Nothing. He just called a convention of Bishops, and asked them to get their stuff together.
Paul settled that question hundreds of years before Constantine. Those interested in this can find Joachim Jeremia's excellent Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus for that and more on the culture and society of the times. One can note that if any part of the Gospels had been just made up by con artists they would have been filled with anachronistic errors, geographical errors, legal errors, etc., etc, etc., another reason we know the Gospels were contemporary to the times they claim to describe.
Not true; he didn't change a thing. Nobody has any proof that the 27 books adopted were faked; they were in use from early on, and many thousands of copies verify this, in several languages. As Darrell Bock said, the orthodoxy was there from the beginning. The Bishops who did that would have been tossed out by their congregations if that had been tried; too many copies around to even try and pull off something stupid like that.
We're supposed to believe that after hundreds of years of being imprisoned, murdered, tortured and the like, some of the Bishops at Nicea had been tortured themselves, eyes put out, etc., without denying their faith, that they suddenly jumped up and let Constantine tell them what to do??? It's an absurd claim on its face. Constantine's fellow Tetrarchs tortured and persecuted Christians almost as badly as the last Emperor before them had; they didn't succeed at forcing them to rewrite anything to suit them, so it's pretty unlikely Constantine could have, either.
Gentiles stopped converting to the then Orthodox Judaism of those days because by AD 0 it was little more than a legalistic and racist sect and held no advantages or appeal for the 'racially impure', while the reformed Judaism of Christianity held a lot of appeal.
Legalistic racists, ok.
Constantine didn't outlaw the ways of God, ok.
Christianity never accepted the pagan Sabbaths and feasts, ok.
Why don't you try and read the New Testament without false pre conceived ideas.
...because the NT is not a history book. It is a book of nonsensical 1st - 2nd century belief in superstitious nonsense and does not accurately portray what was going on at the time.
Nothing. He just called a convention of Bishops, and asked them to get their stuff together.
Indeed. One would have thought that with such a 'coherent' history, they would not have such a major theological differences such as Arianism and the trinity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OberonKing
One can note that if any part of the Gospels had been just made up by con artists they would have been filled with anachronistic errors, geographical errors, legal errors, etc., etc, etc., another reason we know the Gospels were contemporary to the times they claim to describe.
Yet they do have anachronistic errors, geographical errors, legal errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OberonKing
Nobody has any proof that the 27 books adopted were faked; they were in use from early on, and many thousands of copies verify this, in several languages.
We have a lot of evidence many are later inventions, a lot of evidence several were faked, and evidence some of them were not used until the second century AD.
And you do not have thousands of copies until after the 12th century. You do not have 200 until the 8th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OberonKing
As Darrell Bock said, the orthodoxy was there from the beginning.
Let me guess, based on what the early Christians themselves said?
Indeed. One would have thought that with such a 'coherent' history, they would not have such a major theological differences such as Arianism and the trinity.
Yet they do have anachronistic errors, geographical errors, legal errors.
We have a lot of evidence many are later inventions, a lot of evidence several were faked, and evidence some of them were not used until the second century AD.
And you do not have thousands of copies until after the 12th century. You do not have 200 until the 8th century.
Let me guess, based on what the early Christians themselves said?
You have none of that, just a lot of silly claims from the likes of Urhman, , Freke, Gandy, and several other pretend 'scholars' who exhibit poor methodologies, specious claims, terminological fallacies, and then expand on them as if they were 'facts'.
Quote:
Yet they do have anachronistic errors, geographical errors, legal errors.
Rubbish. The culture, Jerusalem, and other places area all current with the times the oral teachings were written down, well before the fall of the Temple. Anyone who says different just has no credibility at all. Now run along and snivel to some mod again.
For a real historical study on the above, see Joachim Jeremia's Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus; not only is excellently documented, the bibliography alone is worth the money, pointing one to the more trustworthy and accurate contemporary sources of those times. I think there is even a free online copy somewhere on the net.
Last edited by OberonKing; 09-22-2018 at 05:00 AM..
You have none of that, just a lot of silly claims from the likes of Urhman, , Freke, Gandy, and several other pretend 'scholars' who exhibit poor methodologies, specious claims, terminological fallacies, and then expand on them as if they were 'facts'.
Rubbish. The culture, Jerusalem, and other places area all current with the times the oral teachings were written down, well before the fall of the Temple. Anyone who says different just has no credibility at all. Now run along and snivel to some mod again.
For a real historical study on the above, see Joachim Jeremia's Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus; not only is excellently documented, the bibliography alone is worth the money, pointing one to the more trustworthy and accurate contemporary sources of those times. I think there is even a free online copy somewhere on the net.
This is the second time that you are promoting that book...
Once again posting irrelevancies. Anyone can compile a list especially if some website has already done that for you.
Why not just read the material that he has provided?...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
