Catholics Don't Exemplify Christianity...

[Vandalshandle]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be his Father in Heaven, or God of Abraham,, but please twist my words to fit your agenda...

Are you sure about that?

"25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30, NIV)

Seriously, before you guys go saying stuff about what the Bible says, you really might want to read it first. Jesus H. Christ on His cross.

He never states that he is God, not even this verse, it only confirms that he and his Father are in consensus...
I have read the Bible many times and studied all religions of the Earth by humans since history can recall them....I do not need your attempts at berating to suffice for my knowledge or the lack of you willingness to share without cynicism...

"I and the father are one" is not stating that He and God are one? That's something Guno would come up with. That's beyond incredible.

Actually, Jesus was wrong. He and God were three,

 

[BluePhantom]

I think that the Aztecs had it right. Their god required hundreds of thousands of hearts to be ripped out of living people, in order for the sun to rise every morning. And, it is an undeniable fact that the sun DID rise every morning.

Or eclipses....if there was an eclipse and a demon was eating the sun just sacrifice a virgin as quickly as possible. Worked every single time.

 

[Moonglow]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be his Father in Heaven, or God of Abraham,, but please twist my words to fit your agenda...

Are you sure about that?

"25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30, NIV)

Seriously, before you guys go saying stuff about what the Bible says, you really might want to read it first. Jesus H. Christ on His cross.

He never states that he is God, not even this verse, it only confirms that he and his Father are in consensus...
I have read the Bible many times and studied all religions of the Earth by humans since history can recall them....I do not need your attempts at berating to suffice for my knowledge or the lack of you willingness to share without cynicism...

"I and the father are one" is not stating that He and God are one? That's something Guno would come up with. That's beyond incredible.

Actually, Jesus was wrong. He and God were three,

As long as they get the senior discount is what is most im[important...

 

[Disir]

I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

If you are so versed you would be able to reference said materials instead of speaking in generalities. If you are referring to compiling the cannon that just means that what was decided to be included in the bible. It doesn't mean they wrote it.

Ok. Let's roll. The bible and the NT is best viewed as an argument. One side of an argument.

Hit philosophy first. You want to read up on stoicism. It's going to explain a lot later on down the road.
Stoicism - By Branch Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

And neoplatonism
Neo-Platonism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is Plotinus
Plotinus Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Note the difference between the above and this Catholic entry
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Neo-Platonism

The last school was not just "shut down"; it was brutal. Plotinus predates Christianity and he was a native of Egypt who then went to Alexandria. The total Greek city but we can discount him.

And Aristotle.

And Galen
Galen Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you are lost on the whole Greek/Egypt/Alexandria thing then pick up a book or two on the Hellenistic Period or even the Ptolemaic dynasty. Or just remember Greek before Roman.
World History Timeline Hellenistic Period

First your old testament is a translation of the Septuagint. Koine Greek. The order of books in your old testament is different and some were discarded. Seventy Jewish scholars allegedly translated the Torah into Koine Greek sponsored by Ptolemy II in Alexandria. Be careful because the Septuagint is the name for the first translation. Total Greek city.

The alleged big JC dies in roughly 35 CE. The first copy of anything pertaining to him surfaces in 55 CE from Paul. People like to read the Pauline letters as a testament of some sorts. It is not. You need to read them as an argument usually with his name attached for authenticity. Snippets are inserted later.

Then you have what is called the Jewish Revolt between 66-70CE. One of the best books available to get an idea of what was happening as far as social unrest is Bandits, Prophet's and Messiahs by Richard A. Horsley. This is important because your first gospel appears either during or directly afterwards.......Mark in 70 CE, Matthew written in 85 CE, Luke in about 95 CE, John is written about 110 CE. It's why people refer to it as wartime literature.

Even so there was no concise little writings and no organization so just anybody could profess to be Christian and they could do it anyway they wanted. Everybody nods heads and says, Yes, it was an oral history.

Enter Montanus. Pentecostals love Montanus.
Montanism religion Britannica.com
Early Christian History Heresies Montanism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Montanists

There is something mentioned in the Britannica site not mentioned in the following site (Peter Kirby) or in the Catholic site. Montanus decided that the second coming was imminent and happening in Phrygia. Like tomorrow in a village called Pepuza. That ticked off several Bishops.

I tried to hunt down a map but this is a verbal description of a location.
Pepuza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ok, I'm going to take a break. If you want to me to go on then say so.

Wow Dsir....I have to say, that's a damned impressive list of big words. I am impressed, being educated on such matters myself, that another poster has an understanding of stoicism and Platonism / neo-platonism etc. You are talking right up my alley. I am curious though. How does having an understanding of these things establish your claim that the early Church was Catholic?

As I posted above, the proto-Catholics won out over the other sects and became the dominant form of Christianity, but understanding Platonism does nothing to establish your claim. In fact it kind of goes against it, because the things you are referring to are Greco-Roman and Christianity did not become "Romanized" until later. The original form would have been the one advanced by Peter and the other Disciples. Surely you are not suggesting that Peter, a peasant from Galilee who according to Acts was "agrammatoi" or "illiterate/unlearned", would be familiar with Platonic thought.

Are you sure you are not just throwing out a lot of terms to make yourself appear intellectually superior and distract from your original statement?

Nope. Hide and watch.

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

 

[BluePhantom]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be his Father in Heaven, or God of Abraham,, but please twist my words to fit your agenda...

Are you sure about that?

"25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30, NIV)

Seriously, before you guys go saying stuff about what the Bible says, you really might want to read it first. Jesus H. Christ on His cross.

He never states that he is God, not even this verse, it only confirms that he and his Father are in consensus...
I have read the Bible many times and studied all religions of the Earth by humans since history can recall them....I do not need your attempts at berating to suffice for my knowledge or the lack of you willingness to share without cynicism...

"I and the father are one" is not stating that He and God are one? That's something Guno would come up with. That's beyond incredible.

Actually, Jesus was wrong. He and God were three,

Well that came later.

 

[Moonglow]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be his Father in Heaven, or God of Abraham,, but please twist my words to fit your agenda...

Are you sure about that?

"25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30, NIV)

Seriously, before you guys go saying stuff about what the Bible says, you really might want to read it first. Jesus H. Christ on His cross.

He never states that he is God, not even this verse, it only confirms that he and his Father are in consensus...
I have read the Bible many times and studied all religions of the Earth by humans since history can recall them....I do not need your attempts at berating to suffice for my knowledge or the lack of you willingness to share without cynicism...

"I and the father are one" is not stating that He and God are one? That's something Guno would come up with. That's beyond incredible.

Hardly when he is discussing policy...

 

[Vandalshandle]

Jesus was actually quite confused. He called himself the "Son of man", and then says that his father was god. Kinda reminds me of Trump.....

 

[BluePhantom]

If you are so versed you would be able to reference said materials instead of speaking in generalities. If you are referring to compiling the cannon that just means that what was decided to be included in the bible. It doesn't mean they wrote it.

Ok. Let's roll. The bible and the NT is best viewed as an argument. One side of an argument.

Hit philosophy first. You want to read up on stoicism. It's going to explain a lot later on down the road.
Stoicism - By Branch Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

And neoplatonism
Neo-Platonism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is Plotinus
Plotinus Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Note the difference between the above and this Catholic entry
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Neo-Platonism

The last school was not just "shut down"; it was brutal. Plotinus predates Christianity and he was a native of Egypt who then went to Alexandria. The total Greek city but we can discount him.

And Aristotle.

And Galen
Galen Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you are lost on the whole Greek/Egypt/Alexandria thing then pick up a book or two on the Hellenistic Period or even the Ptolemaic dynasty. Or just remember Greek before Roman.
World History Timeline Hellenistic Period

First your old testament is a translation of the Septuagint. Koine Greek. The order of books in your old testament is different and some were discarded. Seventy Jewish scholars allegedly translated the Torah into Koine Greek sponsored by Ptolemy II in Alexandria. Be careful because the Septuagint is the name for the first translation. Total Greek city.

The alleged big JC dies in roughly 35 CE. The first copy of anything pertaining to him surfaces in 55 CE from Paul. People like to read the Pauline letters as a testament of some sorts. It is not. You need to read them as an argument usually with his name attached for authenticity. Snippets are inserted later.

Then you have what is called the Jewish Revolt between 66-70CE. One of the best books available to get an idea of what was happening as far as social unrest is Bandits, Prophet's and Messiahs by Richard A. Horsley. This is important because your first gospel appears either during or directly afterwards.......Mark in 70 CE, Matthew written in 85 CE, Luke in about 95 CE, John is written about 110 CE. It's why people refer to it as wartime literature.

Even so there was no concise little writings and no organization so just anybody could profess to be Christian and they could do it anyway they wanted. Everybody nods heads and says, Yes, it was an oral history.

Enter Montanus. Pentecostals love Montanus.
Montanism religion Britannica.com
Early Christian History Heresies Montanism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Montanists

There is something mentioned in the Britannica site not mentioned in the following site (Peter Kirby) or in the Catholic site. Montanus decided that the second coming was imminent and happening in Phrygia. Like tomorrow in a village called Pepuza. That ticked off several Bishops.

I tried to hunt down a map but this is a verbal description of a location.
Pepuza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ok, I'm going to take a break. If you want to me to go on then say so.

Wow Dsir....I have to say, that's a damned impressive list of big words. I am impressed, being educated on such matters myself, that another poster has an understanding of stoicism and Platonism / neo-platonism etc. You are talking right up my alley. I am curious though. How does having an understanding of these things establish your claim that the early Church was Catholic?

As I posted above, the proto-Catholics won out over the other sects and became the dominant form of Christianity, but understanding Platonism does nothing to establish your claim. In fact it kind of goes against it, because the things you are referring to are Greco-Roman and Christianity did not become "Romanized" until later. The original form would have been the one advanced by Peter and the other Disciples. Surely you are not suggesting that Peter, a peasant from Galilee who according to Acts was "agrammatoi" or "illiterate/unlearned", would be familiar with Platonic thought.

Are you sure you are not just throwing out a lot of terms to make yourself appear intellectually superior and distract from your original statement?

Nope. Hide and watch.

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

 

[BluePhantom]

Jesus was actually quite confused. He called himself the "Son of man", and then says that his father was god. Kinda reminds me of Trump.....

I get that you are making a joke..it's actually a good one, but you realize that in antiquity the Son of God was thought to be a human figure while the Son of Man was a divine figure right? We think of it in opposite terms today, but that's not how they saw it in antiquity

 

[Vandalshandle]

Jesus was actually quite confused. He called himself the "Son of man", and then says that his father was god. Kinda reminds me of Trump.....

I get that you are making a joke..it's actually a good one, but you realize that in antiquity the Son of God was thought to be a human figure while the Son of Man was a divine figure right? We think of it in opposite terms today, but that's not how they saw it in antiquity

Absolutely, and East was West, and West was East....(I think).

 

[Disir]

Ok. Let's roll. The bible and the NT is best viewed as an argument. One side of an argument.

Hit philosophy first. You want to read up on stoicism. It's going to explain a lot later on down the road.
Stoicism - By Branch Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

And neoplatonism
Neo-Platonism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is Plotinus
Plotinus Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Note the difference between the above and this Catholic entry
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Neo-Platonism

The last school was not just "shut down"; it was brutal. Plotinus predates Christianity and he was a native of Egypt who then went to Alexandria. The total Greek city but we can discount him.

And Aristotle.

And Galen
Galen Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you are lost on the whole Greek/Egypt/Alexandria thing then pick up a book or two on the Hellenistic Period or even the Ptolemaic dynasty. Or just remember Greek before Roman.
World History Timeline Hellenistic Period

First your old testament is a translation of the Septuagint. Koine Greek. The order of books in your old testament is different and some were discarded. Seventy Jewish scholars allegedly translated the Torah into Koine Greek sponsored by Ptolemy II in Alexandria. Be careful because the Septuagint is the name for the first translation. Total Greek city.

The alleged big JC dies in roughly 35 CE. The first copy of anything pertaining to him surfaces in 55 CE from Paul. People like to read the Pauline letters as a testament of some sorts. It is not. You need to read them as an argument usually with his name attached for authenticity. Snippets are inserted later.

Then you have what is called the Jewish Revolt between 66-70CE. One of the best books available to get an idea of what was happening as far as social unrest is Bandits, Prophet's and Messiahs by Richard A. Horsley. This is important because your first gospel appears either during or directly afterwards.......Mark in 70 CE, Matthew written in 85 CE, Luke in about 95 CE, John is written about 110 CE. It's why people refer to it as wartime literature.

Even so there was no concise little writings and no organization so just anybody could profess to be Christian and they could do it anyway they wanted. Everybody nods heads and says, Yes, it was an oral history.

Enter Montanus. Pentecostals love Montanus.
Montanism religion Britannica.com
Early Christian History Heresies Montanism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Montanists

There is something mentioned in the Britannica site not mentioned in the following site (Peter Kirby) or in the Catholic site. Montanus decided that the second coming was imminent and happening in Phrygia. Like tomorrow in a village called Pepuza. That ticked off several Bishops.

I tried to hunt down a map but this is a verbal description of a location.
Pepuza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ok, I'm going to take a break. If you want to me to go on then say so.

Wow Dsir....I have to say, that's a damned impressive list of big words. I am impressed, being educated on such matters myself, that another poster has an understanding of stoicism and Platonism / neo-platonism etc. You are talking right up my alley. I am curious though. How does having an understanding of these things establish your claim that the early Church was Catholic?

As I posted above, the proto-Catholics won out over the other sects and became the dominant form of Christianity, but understanding Platonism does nothing to establish your claim. In fact it kind of goes against it, because the things you are referring to are Greco-Roman and Christianity did not become "Romanized" until later. The original form would have been the one advanced by Peter and the other Disciples. Surely you are not suggesting that Peter, a peasant from Galilee who according to Acts was "agrammatoi" or "illiterate/unlearned", would be familiar with Platonic thought.

Are you sure you are not just throwing out a lot of terms to make yourself appear intellectually superior and distract from your original statement?

Nope. Hide and watch.

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

 

[BluePhantom]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be his Father in Heaven, or God of Abraham,, but please twist my words to fit your agenda...

Are you sure about that?

"25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30, NIV)

Seriously, before you guys go saying stuff about what the Bible says, you really might want to read it first. Jesus H. Christ on His cross.

He never states that he is God, not even this verse, it only confirms that he and his Father are in consensus...
I have read the Bible many times and studied all religions of the Earth by humans since history can recall them....I do not need your attempts at berating to suffice for my knowledge or the lack of you willingness to share without cynicism...

"I and the father are one" is not stating that He and God are one? That's something Guno would come up with. That's beyond incredible.

Ok let's read it in Greek. "ΕΓΩ ΚΑΙ Ο ΠΑΤΗΡ ΕΝ ΕΣΜΕΝ"..."ego kai ho pater hen esmen" ."I and my Father one are"......you know...."I and my Father are one". how else can you read it? Come on, man. It says the same thing in Greek as it does in English

 

[BluePhantom]

Wow Dsir....I have to say, that's a damned impressive list of big words. I am impressed, being educated on such matters myself, that another poster has an understanding of stoicism and Platonism / neo-platonism etc. You are talking right up my alley. I am curious though. How does having an understanding of these things establish your claim that the early Church was Catholic?

As I posted above, the proto-Catholics won out over the other sects and became the dominant form of Christianity, but understanding Platonism does nothing to establish your claim. In fact it kind of goes against it, because the things you are referring to are Greco-Roman and Christianity did not become "Romanized" until later. The original form would have been the one advanced by Peter and the other Disciples. Surely you are not suggesting that Peter, a peasant from Galilee who according to Acts was "agrammatoi" or "illiterate/unlearned", would be familiar with Platonic thought.

Are you sure you are not just throwing out a lot of terms to make yourself appear intellectually superior and distract from your original statement?

Nope. Hide and watch.

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

And what I am referring to and what sparked the debate with Trinity was your statement that

Actually the early church was Catholic. That will require picking up a book outside of the bible.

So not only were you talking down to her and being arrogant, if you had half the education you profess to have you would know that your statement is wrong and you would stop trying to defend your erroneous comment. The early Church was a kaleidoscope of tons of viewpoints. Catholicism didn't even exist as a recognized faith until around the time of Constantine and only because Constantine endorsed it. The early Church was not Catholic. The early Church was a mess and the viewpoint that would eventually evolve into Catholicism was one of a myriad of different opinions.

 

[TrinityPower]

If you are so versed you would be able to reference said materials instead of speaking in generalities. If you are referring to compiling the cannon that just means that what was decided to be included in the bible. It doesn't mean they wrote it.

Ok. Let's roll. The bible and the NT is best viewed as an argument. One side of an argument.

Hit philosophy first. You want to read up on stoicism. It's going to explain a lot later on down the road.
Stoicism - By Branch Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

And neoplatonism
Neo-Platonism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is Plotinus
Plotinus Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Note the difference between the above and this Catholic entry
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Neo-Platonism

The last school was not just "shut down"; it was brutal. Plotinus predates Christianity and he was a native of Egypt who then went to Alexandria. The total Greek city but we can discount him.

And Aristotle.

And Galen
Galen Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you are lost on the whole Greek/Egypt/Alexandria thing then pick up a book or two on the Hellenistic Period or even the Ptolemaic dynasty. Or just remember Greek before Roman.
World History Timeline Hellenistic Period

First your old testament is a translation of the Septuagint. Koine Greek. The order of books in your old testament is different and some were discarded. Seventy Jewish scholars allegedly translated the Torah into Koine Greek sponsored by Ptolemy II in Alexandria. Be careful because the Septuagint is the name for the first translation. Total Greek city.

The alleged big JC dies in roughly 35 CE. The first copy of anything pertaining to him surfaces in 55 CE from Paul. People like to read the Pauline letters as a testament of some sorts. It is not. You need to read them as an argument usually with his name attached for authenticity. Snippets are inserted later.

Then you have what is called the Jewish Revolt between 66-70CE. One of the best books available to get an idea of what was happening as far as social unrest is Bandits, Prophet's and Messiahs by Richard A. Horsley. This is important because your first gospel appears either during or directly afterwards.......Mark in 70 CE, Matthew written in 85 CE, Luke in about 95 CE, John is written about 110 CE. It's why people refer to it as wartime literature.

Even so there was no concise little writings and no organization so just anybody could profess to be Christian and they could do it anyway they wanted. Everybody nods heads and says, Yes, it was an oral history.

Enter Montanus. Pentecostals love Montanus.
Montanism religion Britannica.com
Early Christian History Heresies Montanism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Montanists

There is something mentioned in the Britannica site not mentioned in the following site (Peter Kirby) or in the Catholic site. Montanus decided that the second coming was imminent and happening in Phrygia. Like tomorrow in a village called Pepuza. That ticked off several Bishops.

I tried to hunt down a map but this is a verbal description of a location.
Pepuza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ok, I'm going to take a break. If you want to me to go on then say so.

Wow Dsir....I have to say, that's a damned impressive list of big words. I am impressed, being educated on such matters myself, that another poster has an understanding of stoicism and Platonism / neo-platonism etc. You are talking right up my alley. I am curious though. How does having an understanding of these things establish your claim that the early Church was Catholic?

As I posted above, the proto-Catholics won out over the other sects and became the dominant form of Christianity, but understanding Platonism does nothing to establish your claim. In fact it kind of goes against it, because the things you are referring to are Greco-Roman and Christianity did not become "Romanized" until later. The original form would have been the one advanced by Peter and the other Disciples. Surely you are not suggesting that Peter, a peasant from Galilee who according to Acts was "agrammatoi" or "illiterate/unlearned", would be familiar with Platonic thought.

Are you sure you are not just throwing out a lot of terms to make yourself appear intellectually superior and distract from your original statement?

Nope. Hide and watch.

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

BluePhantom did a very good job to answer and explain

 

[Disir]

Nope. Hide and watch.

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

And what I am referring to and what sparked the debate with Trinity was your statement that

Actually the early church was Catholic. That will require picking up a book outside of the bible.

So not only were you talking down to her and being arrogant, if you had half the education you profess to have you would know that your statement is wrong and you would stop trying to defend your erroneous comment. The early Church was a kaleidoscope of tons of viewpoints. Catholicism didn't even exist as a recognized faith until around the time of Constantine and only because Constantine endorsed it. The early Church was not Catholic. The early Church was a mess and the viewpoint that would eventually evolve into Catholicism was one of a myriad of different opinions.

I don't give a flip if you think it was arrogant.

And ya, the early church was Catholic and you do need to read outside of the bible for it. You don't need to name it, you can read it as foundational.
And ya, Stoicism led to Christian asceticism.

If by mess you really meant power hungry individuals then you might be on target.

 

[TrinityPower]

Wow Dsir....I have to say, that's a damned impressive list of big words. I am impressed, being educated on such matters myself, that another poster has an understanding of stoicism and Platonism / neo-platonism etc. You are talking right up my alley. I am curious though. How does having an understanding of these things establish your claim that the early Church was Catholic?

As I posted above, the proto-Catholics won out over the other sects and became the dominant form of Christianity, but understanding Platonism does nothing to establish your claim. In fact it kind of goes against it, because the things you are referring to are Greco-Roman and Christianity did not become "Romanized" until later. The original form would have been the one advanced by Peter and the other Disciples. Surely you are not suggesting that Peter, a peasant from Galilee who according to Acts was "agrammatoi" or "illiterate/unlearned", would be familiar with Platonic thought.

Are you sure you are not just throwing out a lot of terms to make yourself appear intellectually superior and distract from your original statement?

Nope. Hide and watch.

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

I didn't say that the Catholic Church didn't choose the books the books that would be included. I said that the Catholic Church did not exist in the early church. The early church spoken of in Acts was roughly the first 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Again someone who assumes behind the avatar is some dumb broad. I would suggest that you might spend more time reading the bible carefully. As for the links you posted... They did not establish that there was a "catholic" church. As Blue explained that distinction didn't happen til much later

 

[Disir]

Nope. Hide and watch.

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

I didn't say that the Catholic Church didn't choose the books the books that would be included. I said that the Catholic Church did not exist in the early church. The early church spoken of in Acts was roughly the first 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Again someone who assumes behind the avatar is some dumb broad. I would suggest that you might spend more time reading the bible carefully. As for the links you posted... They did not establish that there was a "catholic" church. As Blue explained that distinction didn't happen til much later

Ignatius of Antioch first to use Catholic. First one to start pulling writings together. Bishop allegedly acquired position from Peter. Said Peter removed himself to Rome. I suggest you pick up books outside of the bible.

 

[Disir]

And have some virgin Mary. Mistranslated by Jerome.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html

 

[TrinityPower]

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

You don't need to be afraid. I'm simply not getting into a pissing contest with you and the question that was posed to me I am answering. The individual that I am responding to is an adult and I absolutely refuse to talk down to her/him. I will not over simplify it. Now, if the response is ok then I will continue to lay it out. If the answer is no, I'm all good, then I will devote my attention to you. And you should go back and read what I wrote and what I responded to.

Well but actually you did talk down to her, didn't you? You know...you started tossing out a bunch of stuff that really has nothing to do with establishing the historical principle that was the catalyst for the argument. My assumption is that by throwing out all these elevated concepts you were attempting to establish yourself as far more educated, and frankly that may be the case. But none of it has anything to do with your initial statement (which I strongly suspect you know is not accurate). So you are talking down to her aren't you?

I told her/him that he/she needed to stop reading the bible and read the history outside of it.

This is my statement:
I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

I stand by that.

So, I'm thinking you're jelly.

I didn't say that the Catholic Church didn't choose the books the books that would be included. I said that the Catholic Church did not exist in the early church. The early church spoken of in Acts was roughly the first 30 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Again someone who assumes behind the avatar is some dumb broad. I would suggest that you might spend more time reading the bible carefully. As for the links you posted... They did not establish that there was a "catholic" church. As Blue explained that distinction didn't happen til much later

Ignatius of Antioch first to use Catholic. First one to start pulling writings together. Bishop allegedly acquired position from Peter. Said Peter removed himself to Rome. I suggest you pick up books outside of the bible.

Ignatius of Antioch (Ancient Greek: Ἰγνάτιος Ἀντιοχείας, Ignátios Antiokheías; ad c. 35 or 50 – 98 to 117[1])
This guy wasn't even born during the time of Acts which was roughly the first 30 years after the crucifixion which is the early church.
The years following Jesus until the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles is called the Apostolic Age.[20] The Christian Church came fully into being on Pentecost when, according to scriptural accounts, the apostles received the Holy Spirit and emerged from hiding following the death and resurrection of Jesus to preach and spread his message.[21][22] The apostolic period produced writings attributed to the direct followers of Jesus Christ and is traditionally associated with the apostles and apostolic times. This age is the foundation upon which the entire church's history is founded.[23] Though congregations met in the houses of these followers of Jesus Christ, this Apostolic Congregation, also called the "Primitive Church", was the community led by Jesus' apostles and, it would seem, his relatives.[24]

 

[TrinityPower]

And have some virgin Mary. Mistranslated by Jerome.
NPNF2-06. Jerome The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

So what is exactly is your point with this?