Christianity before Constantine
Dale Kelly
phenomena. Many cultures seek God to send a savior of manking, a messiah
or Christ. Constantine's answer to his subjects seeking alternative
leaders was to say the savior has died, there is only one savior, and
only he can return and save the earth. Notice that the symbol of the
modern day Christian religion, the symbol Constantine perpetuated, is the
cross Jesus died on. A symbol of the threat of death towards all messiahs.
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Slouch
What do you think will happen?
1) Religions all wind up confined to reservations like Native Americans.
2) Religions evolve to become cultural talismans/furniture (as in Japan?)
3) Religious wars send civilization back into the dark ages.
4) Other
Wakboth
> Christianity dates far back before Jesus and is not just a Jewish
> phenomena.
Go away, will you? You know nothing, understand nothing, and yet keep
babbling.
-- Wakboth
Spencer 忽帕
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
Indeed. The world religion we know as Chritianity is the result of
Constantine making it the state religion of Rome.
In his vision of the Cross inthe sky he identified The Son of God with the
Sun and the cult of Sol Invictus.
BTW what is this Son of Man we hear of?
Of all the world religions Xtianity is the only one I would describe as
fake.
--
The Ven. S. Spindrift Primate in Anglia CoE PoE Authodox Catoholic
Blazin...@b.mail.sonic.net
As I understand it, Jesus wasn't a 'Christian' per se, his little band
of merry men saw themselves as a reform movement of Judaism. After
Jesus' death, Christianity was very diverse, with different groups
believing widely different things about the nature of God and Jesus,
and what Jesus' teachings meant. Paul took the faith to pagans (which
the people who were with Jesus perhaps never meant to do), and in
doing so changed a lot of the concepts and traditions to make t hem
more comfortable to pagans. When Constantine converted, the New
Testament was canonized and the teachings and beliefs of one
particular group of Christians was enshrined as the 'official' version
of Christianity.
But many other religious traditions had 'crucified saviors', it is a
very common theme throughout history. Christians can see this as
'foreshadowing'.
ML
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:35:06 -0500, Dale Kelly
>
And Jesus took psychedelic trips. Constantine did not.
And Jesus knew how to listen to his broccoli.
Bloopen...@juno.com
> As I understand it, Jesus wasn't a 'Christian' per se, his little band
> of merry men saw themselves as a reform movement of Judaism. After
> Jesus' death, Christianity was very diverse, with different groups
> believing widely different things about the nature of God and Jesus,
> and what Jesus' teachings meant. Paul took the faith to pagans (which
> the people who were with Jesus perhaps never meant to do), and in
> doing so changed a lot of the concepts and traditions to make t hem
> more comfortable to pagans. When Constantine converted, the New
> Testament was canonized and the teachings and beliefs of one
> particular group of Christians was enshrined as the 'official' version
> of Christianity.
Yeah, there are a lot of Christian scholars who dispute various
aspects of the historical analysis you are relating here. Then again,
the academic reputation of these scholars seems to be about one notch
above that of creationists.
skyeyes
> 1) Religions all wind up confined to reservations like Native Americans.
Native Americans - one of whom is a sister of mine, and another of
whom I'm dating - are *not* "confined" to reservations. They can come
and go as they please.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Spencer 忽帕
"ML" <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
That's 3 unsupported claims you make. Please cite chapter and verse or
preferably historical evidence.
Constantine's vision off a cross in the sky was probably an after image from
staring at the sun.
Unfortunately I ate my broccoli today before you reminded me to listen and
the music from the radio drowned out any message the vegetable may have had
for me.
ML
> "ML" <mary.egret1...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
I love you.
Walter Bushell
Blazin...@b.mail.sonic.net wrote:
> As I understand it, Jesus wasn't a 'Christian' per se,
For example, there is no record of Him accepting Himself as His own
personal Savior.
John Wilkins
Nor was He baptised in His Own Name. Nor did He accept the Nicene Creed.
And He didn't go to Church on Sundays.
I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't Christian, which explains the disparity
between His behaviour and that of the Christians.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Throwback
> Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > In article <v757239k1e1cvkc5t2ffrh48l1bkh75...@4ax.com>,
> > Blazing.La...@b.mail.sonic.net wrote:
>
> > > As I understand it, Jesus wasn't a 'Christian' per se,
>
> > For example, there is no record of Him accepting Himself as His own
> > personal Savior.
>
> Nor was He baptised in His Own Name.
I am pretty sure there is a recorded instance of his baptism.
John Wilkins
No shit? John Baptist said to Jesus "I baptise thee in the name of the
Ftaher, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?
Can you give me a cite for that?
Throwback
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 11:41 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <v757239k1e1cvkc5t2ffrh48l1bkh75...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Blazing.La...@b.mail.sonic.net wrote:
>
> > > > > As I understand it, Jesus wasn't a 'Christian' per se,
>
> > > > For example, there is no record of Him accepting Himself as His own
> > > > personal Savior.
>
> > > Nor was He baptised in His Own Name.
>
> > I am pretty sure there is a recorded instance of his baptism.
>
> No shit? John Baptist said to Jesus "I baptise thee in the name of the
> Ftaher, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?
>
> Can you give me a cite for that?
This is what I said:
I am pretty sure there is a recorded instance of his baptism.
Here is your cite:
Bloopen...@juno.com
Yeah, there is. See Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:1-11; Luke 3:21-22. He was
baptized by John the Baptist, a fellow preacher. As for accepting
himself as his own savior, well, according the Christian theology, he
wouldn't need to. He's sinless and needs no salvation. But that leads
us to the rub. I've seen various non-Christian sources (i.e., Gerd
Luedemann) claim that the record of Jesus' baptism was an
embarrassment to the early church, since you're supposed to be
baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Hence, Jesus must have had
sins. And this (so they say) is why the Gospel of John, the last
gospel to be written, simply omits his baptism entirely, even though
it discusses John the Baptist (see John 1:19-42),
John Wilkins
And this is what *I* said:
"Nor was He baptised in His Own Name". Look up a few lines...
ayer...@hotmail.com
the word christain first came to be after jesus, in antioch when saul
was teaching in antioch. acts 11:25,26
Throwback
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 9:31 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 16, 11:41 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <v757239k1e1cvkc5t2ffrh48l1bkh75...@4ax.com>,
> > > > > > Blazing.La...@b.mail.sonic.net wrote:
>
> > > > > > > As I understand it, Jesus wasn't a 'Christian' per se,
>
> > > > > > For example, there is no record of Him accepting Himself as His own
> > > > > > personal Savior.
>
> > > > > Nor was He baptised in His Own Name.
>
> > > > I am pretty sure there is a recorded instance of his baptism.
>
> > > No shit? John Baptist said to Jesus "I baptise thee in the name of the
> > > Ftaher, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?
>
> > > Can you give me a cite for that?
>
> > This is what I said:
>
> > I am pretty sure there is a recorded instance of his baptism.
>
> > Here is your cite:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus
>
> And this is what *I* said:
>
> "Nor was He baptised in His Own Name". Look up a few lines...
Since the father son and holy spirit are present in the scriptual
record, the recorded baptism of jesus is probably where the
"I baptise thee in the name of the
> > > Ftaher, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
comes from ...
Bloopen...@juno.com
Good catch, but the actual phrase "Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit" explicitly appears in Matthew 28:19. The actual doctrine of
the Trinity is, however, never formally laid out in scripture.
Throwback
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html
"It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a
copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. How
this was preserved and handed down we do not know. In fact, it does
not matter. It exists and that is proof enough that God wanted it
preserved. There have been many attempts to destroy the crediability
of this very valuable Hebrew Gospel for obvious reasons. It is the
only existing manuscript that proves Matthew 28:19 did not originally
contain the trinitarian baptismal formula."
That passage was added, presumably by a corrupt priest ...
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 11:41 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <v757239k1e1cvkc5t2ffrh48l1bkh75...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Blazing.La...@b.mail.sonic.net wrote:
> > >
> > > > > As I understand it, Jesus wasn't a 'Christian' per se,
> > >
> > > > For example, there is no record of Him accepting Himself as His own
> > > > personal Savior.
> > >
> > > Nor was He baptised in His Own Name.
> >
> > I am pretty sure there is a recorded instance of his baptism.
>
> No shit? John Baptist said to Jesus "I baptise thee in the name of the
> Ftaher, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?
>
> Can you give me a cite for that?
That would be. "The Father, YourSelf, and the Holy Spirit".
Walter Bushell
Bloopen...@juno.com wrote:
> Yeah, there is. See Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:1-11; Luke 3:21-22. He was
> baptized by John the Baptist, a fellow preacher. As for accepting
> himself as his own savior, well, according the Christian theology, he
> wouldn't need to. He's sinless and needs no salvation.
But that reason he doesn't need to be a Christian either. But not having
sins calls his humanity into question. Besides as the Boss's son, he is
not a good example for the rest of us, as anyone who had to work along
side the boss's son knows.
Anyway the real story of the woman taken in adultery
After Jesus speaks his famous line and old woman steps out of the crowd
and throws a stone.
"Mother! Some times you tick[1] me off!"
[1] Some sources use a synonym for urine here.
Bloopen...@juno.com
Possible, I suppose. I doubt that apologist is eager to swallow other
modern trends in Biblical criticism.
AC
rappoccio
Didn't you read "The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood
Pal"? John the Baptist baptized everyone to remove their sins,
obviously. When Jesus was underwater, God said "And this is my son,
with whom I am well pleased". Jesus didn't hear it because he was
under water. Don't worry. Biff filled him in.
JennyB
>
> Yeah, there is. See Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:1-11; Luke 3:21-22. He was
> baptized by John the Baptist, a fellow preacher. As for accepting
> himself as his own savior, well, according the Christian theology, he
> wouldn't need to. He's sinless and needs no salvation. But that leads
> us to the rub. I've seen various non-Christian sources (i.e., Gerd
> Luedemann) claim that the record of Jesus' baptism was an
> embarrassment to the early church, since you're supposed to be
> baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Hence, Jesus must have had
> sins. And this (so they say) is why the Gospel of John, the last
> gospel to be written, simply omits his baptism entirely, even though
> it discusses John the Baptist (see John 1:19-42),
Which rather argues against the O.P.'s original thesis that
Constantine created Christianity in six days.
It wasn't evilutionists that put that fossil there.
Cory Albrecht
> Yeah, there is. See Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:1-11; Luke 3:21-22. He was
> baptized by John the Baptist, a fellow preacher. As for accepting
> himself as his own savior, well, according the Christian theology, he
> wouldn't need to. He's sinless and needs no salvation. But that leads
> us to the rub. I've seen various non-Christian sources (i.e., Gerd
> Luedemann) claim that the record of Jesus' baptism was an
> embarrassment to the early church, since you're supposed to be
> baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. Hence, Jesus must have had
> sins. And this (so they say) is why the Gospel of John, the last
> gospel to be written, simply omits his baptism entirely, even though
> it discusses John the Baptist (see John 1:19-42),
An interesting corollary is the Temptation of Jesus, that bit where
Jesus spends 40 days in the desert, fasting, and Satan comes to him and
tempts him. You must be hungry, why don't you turn that rock into some
bread? Here, I'll put you in charge over all the kingdoms of the Earth.
A lot of Christians just gloss over that story. "Pffft! Jesus couldn't
have any temptations - he's too holy!" However, that misses the entire
point of the story. For something to truly be a temptation it means it
has to be something that, at some level, truly appeals to you and which
makes you pause and actually consider following through on it and then
to struggle to not do so. Otherwise it's just a silly, meaningless offer
with no significance.
Similarly, what Satan suggested to Jesus had to have struck at the core
of Jesus' being and Jesus had to have considered taking him up on it for
those suggestions to actually be temptations.
Bloopen...@juno.com
wrote:
Interesting thoughts. One problem I can see with these skeptical
propositions, though. Both the baptism and the temptation still
involve supernatural events (specifically apparitions of God's spirit
and of Satan, respectively). Skeptics do not believe in supernatural
causation, however. So these stories must have been invented. But
doesn't it seem odd that the early church would invent embarrassing
miracles?
Walter Bushell
Bloopen...@juno.com wrote:
One thinks of the adaptionist line of thought, whenin Jesus was human
and adapted as Son. There are strong remnants in the Gospels. The
drawback of the Eternally Divine Son is precisely, He is just too
perfect and so far beyond humanity as to be useless as a bridge. There
were many strands of thought in the early days.
Walter Bushell
rappoccio <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ahd the part about "This day I have begoten thee'. And we lost those
passages where Jesus carves birds out of wood and they fly away.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> ... the Temptation of Jesus, For something to truly be a
> temptation it means it has to be something that, at some level,
> truly appeals to you and which makes you pause and actually
> consider following through on it and then to struggle to not do
> so. Otherwise it's just a silly, meaningless offer with no
> significance.
Many years ago, somebody castigated me because I had merely thought
about doing something bad and decided not to do it. I was told, by
that Christian, that to think about sinning is just as much sin as
actually doing it. Apparently that person didn't have the foggiest
idea about the true meaning you've explained so nicely in the
quoted passage above. I wish I had known about it myself at the
time, so I could have verbally slapped her down as hard as she
deserved. Instead, she got a free pass, because of my ignorance.
There was a StarTrek-TNG episode "Tapestry" that dealt with the
aftereffects of one change early in life, how your whole life after
that goes differently. I wonder how my life would have been
different now if I had known enough to be able to talk back to the
Christians who were harassing me so much when I was young,
including that thinkOfSin=actuallySin hypocrite.
By the way, how long did it take Constantine to brainstorm the
Roman Catholic Official Religion? Somebody cited six days,
presumably as a joke. How long really? (As another joke, let me
guess: 40 days and 40 nights, an interval of time that occurred
more than once in the Bible.)
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Both the baptism and the temptation still involve supernatural
> events (specifically apparitions of God's spirit and of Satan,
> respectively). Skeptics do not believe in supernatural causation,
> however. So these stories must have been invented. But doesn't it
> seem odd that the early church would invent embarrassing miracles?
Nixon orchestrated the breakin at Watergate, not realizing it was a
big political mistake. Once he realized the trouble he had gotten
himself and his friends in, he executed a cover-up, which including
arranging to delete 17 minutes from the audio tape of the planning
of the event. Apparently it took him only a few weeks to come to
that realization and institute the cover-up.
GWBush makes gaffes all the time, and most of the time *never*
realizes he'd said anything wrong. Four years after totally
screwing up "intelligence" about WMD in Iraq, he still doesn't
understand the problem, and perhaps he never will, he's such a
dunce. Just today he said that he wishes that the lives of
Americans were a straight line from birth to death, another
horribly stupid gaffe (see the thread I started on that topic to a
couple newsgroups). I don't believe he'll ever realize that was a
mistake either.
Perhaps the early Christians (the direct disciples of Jesus) were
of intermediate intelligence between GWBush and Nixon, whereby it
would take them thirty or fourty years but at least finally they'd
realize their mistake and finally start the cover-up for their
gaffe. (They overlooked the chance that somebody might find all the
older books, with the gaffe, and compile a set of 'Gospels',
whereby the single book with the gaffe expunged did hardly any good
against the three books with the gaffe restored. But that may have
been a reasonable chance to take, given the poor system of
preservation of manuscripts and total lack of mass-printing of
backup copies.)
Of course most run-of-the-mill Christians are even stupider than
GWBush, not realizing their mistake (in believing the fairy tale of
the "Books of Moses") not just for their whole lifetime, but over
multiple generations. The religious leaders have been running a
con. They are criminals. They get profit from their crime. In fact
they get their whole living from that crime. But regular Christians
who give money to churches, to support the church-leader criminals,
are just plain stupid suckers, generation after generation after
generation, giving and giving, but never getting anything of value
back from the churches except maybe some token of value nowhere
near what they paid for it.
Jenny Brien
"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:rem-2007...@yahoo.com...
> Many years ago, somebody castigated me because I had merely thought
> about doing something bad and decided not to do it. I was told, by
> that Christian, that to think about sinning is just as much sin as
> actually doing it. Apparently that person didn't have the foggiest
> idea about the true meaning you've explained so nicely in the
> quoted passage above. I wish I had known about it myself at the
> time, so I could have verbally slapped her down as hard as she
> deserved. Instead, she got a free pass, because of my ignorance.
>
In a way, you were both right. Of course everyone is tempted, and that is
not sin. But to actively and willingly think about sinning /is/ sinful, even
if you don't actually do anything. As Jesus said "The man who looks at a
woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his
heart." That doesn't mean that sexual attraction is sinful (though too many
have interpreted that way) but we all know guys whose attitude is "Hey, just
looking! No harm in looking, is there?" And you know that they consider
themselves virtuous for doing no more, so they continue "just looking" so
that they can continue to feel virtuous... until the day that circumstances
change and they decide the rewards of action outweigh those of feeling
virtuous.
Blake said, "Sooner murder a child in its cradle than nurse unacted
desires." If your desires are good, then act on them, if not, then stop
nursing them. Murder is considered more evil than manslaughter, because of
the premeditation involved. So premeditation of evil, even of unacted evil,
is itself sinful, or at best extremely inadvisable.
>
> By the way, how long did it take Constantine to brainstorm the
> Roman Catholic Official Religion? Somebody cited six days,
> presumably as a joke. How long really? (As another joke, let me
> guess: 40 days and 40 nights, an interval of time that occurred
> more than once in the Bible.)
>
Yes, that was my little joke. I'm sorry you didn't see the point in it. I'm
drawing a parallel between YEC and conspiracy theories of New Testament
Origins.
Constantine didn't create Christianity de novo. All he did was give it
official recognition and try to get some agreement as to what it actually
was. The Council of Nicea could only to select the most commonly used and
generally reputable writings. By then it had been evolving for 300 years and
there were some pretty strange mutations. To their credit they did not try
to write a harmonisation (you can just imagine the outcry from the different
churches throughout the Empire about interference with "their" gospel). So
we are left with four Gospels that have a lot of contradictions - the
'fossils' I referred to, a number of letters that were written for
particular (now largely forgotten) circumstances, and a prophetic vision
that almost didn't make it into the canon at all.
There is no reason to believe that any of this was first written any later
than the dates that modern Bible scholarship ascribes to them - c.50-60 A.D.
for the earliest letters, at most 110 A.D. for the latest - 20 to 80 years
after the Crucifixion. Put it this way. If you were writing about some
events that happened between 1920 and 1980, you might expect to be able to
put together a good account from those who had lived through them, or their
descendants, even if you had no documentary evidence. Of course you would
make mistakes, and have a bias according to your particular world-view, and
three other people writing the samestory would contradict you in many
points. That's exactly what you do find in the Gospels.
Why should anyone suppose they are *not* about a preacher and healer called
Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified around 33 A.D., and whose followers
believed he had risen from the dead? As for the idea of the original poster
that "Christianity dates far back before Jesus and is not just a Jewish
phenomena. Many cultures seek God to send a savior of mankind, a
messiah or Christ," could someone please supply some convincing
pre-Christian archetypes? Yes, I know about the Golden Bough, and how some
of those images were incorporated into the later Jesus myth (using that word
as in "Elvis Presley myth"), but it doesn't work as an origin. The New
Testament is much more Jewish in its imagery and structure than even the
Christians of Constantine's time realised.
I believe in the Gospel story precisely because it is ramshackle and
contradictory. A conspiracy of mythmakers would have done a much neater job.
Bloopen...@juno.com
wrote:
> > From: Cory Albrecht <coryalbrecht+n...@hotmail.com>
> > ... the Temptation of Jesus, For something to truly be a
> > temptation it means it has to be something that, at some level,
> > truly appeals to you and which makes you pause and actually
> > consider following through on it and then to struggle to not do
> > so. Otherwise it's just a silly, meaningless offer with no
> > significance.
>
> Many years ago, somebody castigated me because I had merely thought
> about doing something bad and decided not to do it. I was told, by
> that Christian, that to think about sinning is just as much sin as
> actually doing it. Apparently that person didn't have the foggiest
> idea about the true meaning you've explained so nicely in the
> quoted passage above. I wish I had known about it myself at the
> time, so I could have verbally slapped her down as hard as she
> deserved. Instead, she got a free pass, because of my ignorance.
>
Ah, yes. I've been exposed to that line of thinking, too. Whatever it
is usually involves sex. Matthew 5:27-28 says "Whoever looks at a
woman in lust [i.e., coveting] has already committed adultery with her
in his heart." Okay, what's lust? A strong vein of Christian thought
holds that a mere sexual fantasy in an unmarried person would qualify
as lust. They don't think it's "mere," though. The preachers insist
that sexual fantasy will start you down a slippery slope leading to
getting a girl pregnant. And then there could be an abortion, the most
horrific act imaginable. I think to myself, "Speak for yourself."
> There was a StarTrek-TNG episode "Tapestry" that dealt with the
> aftereffects of one change early in life, how your whole life after
> that goes differently. I wonder how my life would have been
> different now if I had known enough to be able to talk back to the
> Christians who were harassing me so much when I was young,
> including that thinkOfSin=actuallySin hypocrite.
>
> By the way, how long did it take Constantine to brainstorm the
> Roman Catholic Official Religion? Somebody cited six days,
> presumably as a joke. How long really? (As another joke, let me
> guess: 40 days and 40 nights, an interval of time that occurred
> more than once in the Bible.)
Several centuries at least. Of course the RCC claims that it can be
traced back to Peter's confession of faith. Clear signs of Catholicism
can be found in the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians (c. 95
AD, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html) and the seven
epistles of St. Ignatius (c. 110 AD, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html).
Martin Hutton
I've never understood how that story got to be recorded
as a third person narrative. Did Jesus take a break and
come back to his disciples and say, "Wow, I've just spent
40 days in the desert..." and proceed to tell the entire
tale in excrutiating detail?
--
Martin Hutton
ML
Thank you, I love the Gospel According to Biff. You have a great mind!
Walter Bushell
"Jenny Brien" <jenn...@figuk.plus.com> wrote:
> Constantine didn't create Christianity de novo.
Well, of course not. Neither did St. Paul (assorted mystery religions),
or Jesus (most of whose ethical teaching were common in the Pharisee
tradition of his time), for that matter. (By the Way: the books of the
so called New Testament are to be read as intensely Jewish works.)
They were all derivative works, back to before Gilgamesh.
But by favoring one particular stream of Christianity over all the
others and other religions and philosophies, Constantine changed
Christianity forever.
>All he did was give it official recognition and try to get some
>agreement as to what it actually was.
Yep, the difference between fresh food and canned food right there. Just
a matter of life and death. And the Emperor got to stick his hand up the
rectum of the Church and override any decisions.
>By then it had been evolving for 300 years and there were some pretty
strange mutations.
Which were the mutations and which were valid interpretations for the
situation?
>To their credit they did not try to write a harmonisation (you can
>just imagine the outcry from the different churches throughout the
Empire about interference with "their" gospel).
But they did suppress the Arian "heresy". This latter came back to bite
them with the rise of Islam, the areas that favored a more unified Deity
were receptive to Islam.
The Deity is ineffable and hence any attempt to eff the Deity _must_
take allowance for cultural differences. Otherwise, the religious
followers are just forced into the wasteland.
Walter Bushell
"Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> I've never understood how that story got to be recorded
> as a third person narrative. Did Jesus take a break and
> come back to his disciples and say, "Wow, I've just spent
> 40 days in the desert..." and proceed to tell the entire
> tale in excrutiating detail?
They got the detail from a Buddhist monk, who being a Buddhist would
never lie. So the story must be true.
Walter Bushell
> Perhaps the early Christians (the direct disciples of Jesus) were
> of intermediate intelligence between GWBush and Nixon, whereby it
> would take them thirty or fourty years but at least finally they'd
> realize their mistake and finally start the cover-up for their
> gaffe. (They overlooked the chance that somebody might find all the
> older books, with the gaffe, and compile a set of 'Gospels',
> whereby the single book with the gaffe expunged did hardly any good
> against the three books with the gaffe restored. But that may have
> been a reasonable chance to take, given the poor system of
> preservation of manuscripts and total lack of mass-printing of
> backup copies.)
There were all kinds of texts written at various times and written down
form memories of story tellers over a period of years and inspired
additions at each step of the way. Historical accuracy was not a value.
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
> Christianity dates far back before Jesus and is not just a Jewish
> or Christ. Constantine's answer to his subjects seeking alternative
> leaders was to say the savior has died, there is only one savior, and
> only he can return and save the earth. Notice that the symbol of the
> modern day Christian religion, the symbol Constantine perpetuated, is the
> cross Jesus died on. A symbol of the threat of death towards all messiahs.
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Yes indeed -- ain't it a slap on the ass - how religous fables get so
twisted
about with so little real effort involved.
The Merry Prankster Pope - Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
> > Christianity dates far back before Jesus and is not just a Jewish
> > phenomena. Many cultures seek God to send a savior of manking, a messiah
> > or Christ. Constantine's answer to his subjects seeking alternative
> > leaders was to say the savior has died, there is only one savior, and
> > only he can return and save the earth. Notice that the symbol of the
> > modern day Christian religion, the symbol Constantine perpetuated, is the
> > cross Jesus died on. A symbol of the threat of death towards all messiahs.
>
>
> 1) Religions all wind up confined to reservations like Native Americans.
> 2) Religions evolve to become cultural talismans/furniture (as in Japan?)
> 3) Religious wars send civilization back into the dark ages.
> 4) Other
Four most surely 4. Soon, all the really good people will be beamed
to the
original holding center - where all their wishes will be granted
forever. That's
the same galactic area where all the wizards go on vacation.
Martin Hutton
Well, that certainly explains it to my satisfaction :-P
Thanks.
--
Martin Hutton
john vermeer
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
> > Christianity dates far back before Jesus and is not just a Jewish
> > phenomena. Many cultures seek God to send a savior of manking, a messiah
> > or Christ. Constantine's answer to his subjects seeking alternative
> > leaders was to say the savior has died, there is only one savior, and
> > only he can return and save the earth. Notice that the symbol of the
> > modern day Christian religion, the symbol Constantine perpetuated, is the
> > cross Jesus died on. A symbol of the threat of death towards all messiahs.
>
> What do you think will happen?
>
> 1) Religions all wind up confined to reservations like Native Americans.
> 2) Religions evolve to become cultural talismans/furniture (as in Japan?)
> 3) Religious wars send civilization back into the dark ages.
> 4) Other
Only evolution knows.
It created religion in people's mind in the first place.
Walter Bushell
"Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
> On 18-Apr-2007, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <f05bco$rtt$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> > "Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I've never understood how that story got to be recorded
> > > as a third person narrative. Did Jesus take a break and
> > > come back to his disciples and say, "Wow, I've just spent
> > > 40 days in the desert..." and proceed to tell the entire
> > > tale in excrutiating detail?
> >
> > They got the detail from a Buddhist monk, who being a Buddhist would
> > never lie. So the story must be true.
>
> Well, that certainly explains it to my satisfaction :-P
>
> Thanks.
You have to admit the explanation could be true, except the Buddhist
told it about the Buddha Gautama. We know there were Buddhist
missonaries in Egypt in the 1st Century.
Bloopen...@juno.com
> In article <f06ios$4k...@news.datemas.de>,
> "Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 18-Apr-2007, Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <f05bco$rt...@news.datemas.de>,
> > > "Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I've never understood how that story got to be recorded
> > > > as a third person narrative. Did Jesus take a break and
> > > > come back to his disciples and say, "Wow, I've just spent
> > > > 40 days in the desert..." and proceed to tell the entire
> > > > tale in excrutiating detail?
>
> > > They got the detail from a Buddhist monk, who being a Buddhist would
> > > never lie. So the story must be true.
>
> > Well, that certainly explains it to my satisfaction :-P
>
> > Thanks.
>
> You have to admit the explanation could be true, except the Buddhist
> told it about the Buddha Gautama. We know there were Buddhist
> missonaries in Egypt in the 1st Century.
Cite please? I'm interested to hear about this.
Spencer 忽帕
"john vermeer" <john.v...@casema.nl> wrote in message
news:1176951045.4...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
People persist in making statements like this, attributing human qualities
to evolution or science.
Evolution does not know anything: people know things. The same goes for
science and scientists.
"Man is the mind of evolution becoming conscious of itself.”
I prefer the term "evolutionary process" in such a context.
| It created religion in people's mind in the first place.
Again, evolution does not create. The word means unfolding. People create.
--
Let us reject the cowardly instincts of the Bio-Luddites and embrace
the technology by which to correct the design faults imposed on us by
nature.
Conscious Evolution
http://www.euvolution.com/
Fold Thyself.
Walter Bushell
Bloopen...@juno.com wrote:
You will recall that there was _extensive_ trade between the Med and
India at the time, and that (according to Scripture) the Holy Family had
to flee to Egypt.
+"Buddhist" +"1st century" +egypt
Bloopen...@juno.com
> In article <1176988516.286407.282...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Interesting. This page in particular http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/buddha.html.
Some of the similarities they point out seem like they could
conceivably be coincidences though, particularly the aphorisms. On the
other hand, the part at the bottom about 500 Indian Brahmas spoken
about in the Coptic text of I Cor. is pretty neat.
Throwback
> > > You have to admit the explanation could be true, except the Buddhist
> > > told it about the Buddha Gautama. We know there were Buddhist
> > > missonaries in Egypt in the 1st Century.
>
> > Cite please? I'm interested to hear about this.
>
> You will recall that there was _extensive_ trade between the Med and
> India at the time
I heard they found cocaine in Egyptian mummies.
Don't know if that's true or not.
Bloopen...@juno.com
Hmmm. Some German archaeologists indeed claim to have found new-world
cocaine on old-world, but their views have not been taken seriously.
See http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010126.html.
Throwback
"The controversy began in the early 1990s, when a team of German
researchers published a couple short papers claiming they'd found
significant traces of cocaine, nicotine, and "hashish" in several
Egyptian mummies, some of which were more than 3,000 years old. The
papers offered a provocative insight into the personal habits of the
idle rich in ancient times (conclusion: things haven't changed much in
3,000 years). Just one problem: in pre-Columbian times, so far as we
know, tobacco and coca grew only in the Americas, and there was no
trade between the Old World and New.
That was the first mummy..
"In 1995 another much longer article appeared in a German scholarly
journal. (Different set of authors, although one individual, Franz
Parsche, was listed as a coauthor for all three pieces.) The article
was mostly about evidence of pulmonary bleeding in a 3,000-year-old
Egyptian mummy, but briefly mentioned that an analysis had found
significant traces of cocaine, nicotine, and THC. Again, no
acknowledgment that there was anything out of the ordinary about this,
nor was there any attempt to counter previous criticisms.
That was the second mummy.
"A British TV studio put together a documentary on the Germans' work,
focusing on one of the investigators, a forensic toxicologist named
Svetla Balabanova. Balabanova told interviewers that she initially
hadn't believed the results either, that she'd had them checked by
other labs, and so on. The TV guys also talked to respected British
Egyptologist Rosalie David, who vouched for the authenticity of the
Egyptian mummies (since the owners refused to show them to her, this
wasn't altogether convincing). She also tested some other Egyptian
mummies and, to her surprise, found traces of nicotine.
And here was a documentary.
Martin Hutton
Did they go around door-to-door in pairs asking if
one had Buddha in one's heart?
It's a shame they weren't more successful...if a civilisation
is to be stuck with a religion Buddhism seems to be the least
bad.
--
Martin Hutton
John Wilkins
Ernest Major
<j.wil...@uq.edu.au> writes
>Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 11:29 pm, Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > You have to admit the explanation could be true, except the Buddhist
>> > > > told it about the Buddha Gautama. We know there were Buddhist
>> > > > missonaries in Egypt in the 1st Century.
>> >
>> > > Cite please? I'm interested to hear about this.
>> >
>> > You will recall that there was _extensive_ trade between the Med and
>> > India at the time
>>
>> I heard they found cocaine in Egyptian mummies.
>> Don't know if that's true or not.
>
>It came from an Old World plant.
Do you have a URL for that? I've suspected that this might be the case -
both Nicotiana and Erythroxylon have Old World species, but I've never
seen the case made.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Wilkins
I chased it up about a year ago and found a site that gave credible
information, but I can't recall where I got it now.
Throwback
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 11:29 pm, Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to admit the explanation could be true, except the Buddhist
> > > > > told it about the Buddha Gautama. We know there were Buddhist
> > > > > missonaries in Egypt in the 1st Century.
>
> > > > Cite please? I'm interested to hear about this.
>
> > > You will recall that there was _extensive_ trade between the Med and
> > > India at the time
>
> > I heard they found cocaine in Egyptian mummies.
> > Don't know if that's true or not.
>
> It came from an Old World plant.
Bullshit.
Codebreaker
> Christianity dates far back before Jesus and is not just a Jewish
> phenomena. Many cultures seek God to send a savior of manking, a messiah
> or Christ. Constantine's answer to his subjects seeking alternative
> leaders was to say the savior has died, there is only one savior, and
> only he can return and save the earth. Notice that the symbol of the
> modern day Christian religion, the symbol Constantine perpetuated, is the
> cross Jesus died on. A symbol of the threat of death towards all messiahs.
>
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
why don't you just shut up If you don't know what you are talking
about?
SeppoP
What are you whining, "codebreaker"? He is your kissing cousin in the basket-case dept. afterall.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Desertphile
wrote:
So the CIA existed way back then? Wow.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Throwback
> On 20 Apr 2007 07:12:56 -0700, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 11:29 pm, Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to admit the explanation could be true, except the Buddhist
> > > > > told it about the Buddha Gautama. We know there were Buddhist
> > > > > missonaries in Egypt in the 1st Century.
>
> > > > Cite please? I'm interested to hear about this.
>
> > > You will recall that there was _extensive_ trade between the Med and
> > > India at the time
> > I heard they found cocaine in Egyptian mummies.
> > Don't know if that's true or not.
>
> So the CIA existed way back then? Wow.
Good one.
But I am sure people knew what a boat was back then for
sure ...
Tohu...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who told you that I was a Jehova Witness?????
Roger Pearse
> "Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <rem6...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:rem-2007...@yahoo.com...
> > Many years ago, somebody castigated me because I had merely thought
> > about doing something bad and decided not to do it.
Had you expressed a 'racist' or other politically incorrect thought,
you'd be lucky to be merely 'castigated', tho, wouldn't you?
> Constantine didn't create Christianity de novo. All he did was give it
> official recognition and try to get some agreement as to what it actually
> was.
Actually Constantine avoided being drawn into church disputes, unlike
his successors, so this attributes to him much more action than is
really the case. What Christianity was was not in dispute, tho.
> The Council ofNiceacould only to select the most commonly used and
> generally reputable writings.
This idea is a myth, tho. The council had no involvement in the canon
of scripture.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
Tertullian ca. 200 is using pretty much the same "Novum
Testamentum" (his phrase, in fact) as we do; final agreement had to
await legalisation, when people could get together and thrash out the
last couple of books.
> Why should anyone suppose they are *not* about a preacher and healer called
> Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified around 33 A.D., and whose followers
> believed he had risen from the dead?
I agree. Whether Christianity is true or not, it almost certainly
arose with a charismatic chap with a beard standing on a soapbox
saying "follow me." Most movements do. (Apparently the soapbox is
optional, but the beard is compulsory).
All the best,
Roger Pearse
SeppoP
Where did I say that you or Dale are Jehova Witlesses? You are both pig-ignorant taliban fuckwits.
AC
Indeed. You're way too insane for them.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Tohu...@hotmail.com
Thank you your compliment... I love to be called ignorant by Chimps.
Their sense
of reality is poor. So is their judgement
Tohu...@hotmail.com
C'est toi qui le dis...
But let assume that JW found me to be insane...
why would that affect me?
Here are people who think that Jesus was the Son of God
yet attack others who claim him as God.
Do you think that such a person understand fully the Bible?
Once you call Jesus the Son of God, you have already
broken Moses Law, therefore the only alternative for you
is to go all way with Paul and proclaim him as the Only God
as he did in his epistle to the Philippians. Otherwise
You can do as the Muslims do, stick to the Moses Law
and call him Prophet instead of Son Of God as Son Of God
is the door to Paul's doctrines.
I bet JW did not think of that. This is why their reasoning
is crooked. En somme. they don't know what they are talking about.
WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK ?
>
> --
> Aaron Clausen
> mightymartia...@gmail.com- Hide quoted text -
JennyB
> On 18 Apr, 15:15, "Jenny Brien" <jenni...@figuk.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > The Council ofNiceacould only to select the most commonly used and
> > generally reputable writings.
>
> This idea is a myth, tho. The council had no involvement in the canon
> of scripture.
>
> http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
>
> Tertullian ca. 200 is using pretty much the same "Novum
> Testamentum" (his phrase, in fact) as we do; final agreement had to
> await legalisation, when people could get together and thrash out the
> last couple of books.
Thank you for pointing that out. It's a lazy bit of shorthand that I
shall not use in future. It only strengthens my original point that
the New Testament is not a fictional creation but a evolution of the
meaning given to the historical life and crucifixion of Jesus of
Nazareth. The Resurrection is a matter of faith rather than history,
but any credible explanation of why the belief arose must start with
the situation as it was on the first Easter Sabbath.
>
> > Why should anyone suppose they are *not* about a preacher and healer called
> > Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified around 33 A.D., and whose followers
> > believed he had risen from the dead?
>
> I agree. Whether Christianity is true or not, it almost certainly
> arose with a charismatic chap with a beard standing on a soapbox
> saying "follow me." Most movements do. (Apparently the soapbox is
> optional, but the beard is compulsory).
>
Unlike the Old Testament, there is no mention of beards in the New.