Quoting Jesus

[Gordon]

You continually ignore the first three hundred years of Christianity Gordon. Why do you keep doing this?
It looks suspiciously like it's inconvenient for your argument.

I'm not ignoring it: by drawing specific attention to its adoption by those exercising political power in the 4th century I'm recognising a change in the fortunes of Christianity in terms of its survival.

Try reading what I wrote and not what you'd like me to have said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not ignoring it: by drawing specific attention to its adoption by those exercising political power in the 4th century I'm recognising a change in the fortunes of Christianity in terms of its survival.

Try reading what I wrote and not what you'd like me to have said.

Change in fortune? In what way was the Christianity of the first three century on the way out?
How can its transmogrification into a state religion where one is a Christian for reasons to do with state citizenship be referred to as survival?

I pose these as questions in the general category of asking you to justify your theory that Constantine was instrumental in the survival of Christianity.

[Gordon]

Change in fortune? In what way was the Christianity of the first three century on the way out?
How can its transmogrification into a state religion where one is a Christian for reasons to do with state citizenship be referred to as survival?

I pose these as questions in the general category of asking you to justify your theory that Constantine was instrumental in the survival of Christianity.

I never said that Christianity was 'on the way out' prior to the 4th century, so another of your endless straw men.

I'd have thought any idea, from among competing ideas, that became the subject of considerable government support would see it as good fortune: so in the 4th century Christianity benefited in a way that the the pagan alternatives didn't, which is perhaps why there aren't too many Temples of Apollo/Jupiter/Neptune etc in regular use down your way (or mine for that matter).

The later Roman Emperors, with the notable exception of Julian the Apostate, certainly gave Christianity a leg up and Constantine was a key player: after all, iirc, it was he who called the First Council of Nicea which was (and still is) fairly influential on Christian theology ('Nicene Creed', setting the date of Easter etc).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said that Christianity was 'on the way out' prior to the 4th century, so another of your endless straw men.

I'd have thought any idea, from among competing ideas, that became the subject of considerable government support would see it as good fortune: so in the 4th century Christianity benefited in a way that the the pagan alternatives didn't, which is perhaps why there aren't too many Temples of Apollo/Jupiter/Neptune etc in regular use down your way (or mine for that matter).

The later Roman Emperors, with the notable exception of Julian the Apostate, certainly gave Christianity a leg up and Constantine was a key player: after all, iirc, it was he who called the First Council of Nicea which was (and still is) fairly influential on Christian theology ('Nicene Creed', setting the date of Easter etc).

Alas even the numerous temples to Bacchus are declining numerically down our way.

The point I am making is that a religion of personal conviction rather than a state religion of social camouflage existed successfully in the three centuries prior to the Roman Empire and survived it thereafter.

I think there is a thread in New Atheism where it's cognoscenti see Nicea as the birth of Christianity
Not so I'm afraid but I can see how a modern conception of society which revolves round state permission and sanction might make that assumption.

[Gordon]

Alas even the numerous temples to Bacchus are declining numerically down our way.

The point I am making is that a religion of personal conviction rather than a state religion of social camouflage existed successfully in the three centuries prior to the Roman Empire and survived it thereafter.

So, are you saying the changes to Christianity in the 4th century, such as the Council of Nicea, had no effect: Christianity today is as it was prior to the 4th century?

I think there is a thread in New Atheism where it's cognoscenti see Nicea as the birth of Christianity
Not so I'm afraid but I can see how a modern conception of society which revolves round state permission and sanction might make that assumption.

Can you? That's nice for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, are you saying the changes to Christianity in the 4th century, such as the Council of Nicea, had no effect: Christianity today is as it was prior to the 4th century?

For many yes and let's not forget what is in the Nicenes wasn't  exactly invented in pre or apres council recreation. These ideas had been doing the rounds.

I think you follow a rather Thomas Carlyle view of History.

[Gordon]

For many yes and let's not forget what is in the Nicenes wasn't  exactly invented in pre or apres council recreation. These ideas had been doing the rounds.

Perhaps some of your fellow Christians could comment on your theological insights: intrigued about the 'recreation'.

I think you follow a rather Thomas Carlyle view of History.

Do you really think so!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps some of your fellow Christians could comment on your theological insights: intrigued about the 'recreation'.

My reading is that ecumenical councils were a bit like Party conferences with recreational time in between meetings.

Arians and athanasians would have existed before and after Nicea.

[Gordon]

My reading is that ecumenical councils were a bit like Party conferences with recreational time in between meetings.

Arians and athanasians would have existed before and after Nicea.

How does your 'reading' fit with other theological views?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does your 'reading' fit with other theological views?

There is zero theological content in the idea that people at a conference have recreational time.

[Gordon]

There is zero theological content in the idea that people at a conference have recreational time.

Super; so this will be you evading yet again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Super; so this will be you evading yet again.

Evading what......you asked me what other theological views were on people at the council of Nicaea having recreational time........... what has theology got to do with recreational time?

[Gordon]

Evading what......you asked me what other theological views were on people at the council of Nicaea having recreational time........... what has theology got to do with recreational time?

Trying reading my posts again, Vald.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trying reading my posts again, Vald.

I would but since I believe you to be mind gaming now I shan't if it's all the same to you

[Gordon]

I would but since I believe you to be mind gaming now I shan't if it's all the same to you

More evading: so to refresh your memory: you said this;

My reading is that ecumenical councils were a bit like Party conferences with recreational time in between meetings.

Arians and athanasians would have existed before and after Nicea.

I replied:

How does your 'reading' fit with other theological views?

I didn't specify whether any other theological views might be ancient or current, or somewhere in between, and my question seems a reasonable one which you seem either unable or disinclined to answer.

Which is it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More evading: so to refresh your memory: you said this;

I replied:

I didn't specify whether any other theological views might be ancient or current, or somewhere in between, and my question seems a reasonable one which you seem either unable or disinclined to answer.

Which is it?

Once again what the various Bishops did when they were not theologising is not a matter of theology.
What I am saying is that Arianism and athanasianism were not made up at Nicaea. And that's it.

That is my reading.

By theological views then. Do you mean those of certain Jesus mythers who believe that Christianity was invented at Nicea.

My view contradicts theirs which is in effect a Dan Brown type conspiracy of recent fabrication.

If you agree with it then please render it in the beautiful antitheist baritone quality of your best typing finger.

[Gordon]

Once again what the various Bishops did when they were not theologising is not a matter of theology.
What I am saying is that Arianism and athanasianism were not made up at Nicaea. And that's it.

That is my reading.

By theological views then. Do you mean those of certain Jesus mythers who believe that Christianity was invented at Nicea.

My view contradicts theirs which is in effect a Dan Brown type conspiracy of recent fabrication.

If you agree with it then please render it in the beautiful antitheist baritone quality of your best typing finger.

Don't be silly Vlad: I simply asked if your 'reading', which went: 'My reading is that ecumenical councils were a bit like Party conferences with recreational time in between meetings.

Arians and athanasians would have existed before and after Nicea.'

... fit with other theological views.

My views are neither here nor there - so stop evading.

[Owlswing]

Q2C

You are proving my point - you are NOT disccussing/debating anything! You are making statements without the slightest factual backing.

The earliest known writings on Christ are dated at least 30 years after his death.

FFS - even the sainted four gospels don't agree on what happened and what was said!

[Owlswing]

The new testament was written in Greek

From The New Bible society

However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Q2C


The earliest known writings on Christ are dated at least 30 years after his death.

Which is like expressing doubts if someone wrote about 1987.
Are you serious?

[floo]

Which is like expressing doubts if someone wrote about 1987.
Are you serious?

Could you quote something word for word which someone said 30 years ago or even last week, I know I couldn't?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could you quote something word for word which someone said 30 years ago or even last week, I know I couldn't?

Yes. But also I need only convey the sense. And Let's remember Jesus quotes in early Christian documents are a fraction or highlights.

I can't see you applying these sentiments to other documents and so I have to ask you whether you are serious.

[Gordon]

Which is like expressing doubts if someone wrote about 1987.
Are you serious?

The official report of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 noted that some of the police accounts made at the time contained outright lies - confirming that witness accounts, even comparatively recent ones where the witnesses were known to have been on the scene, aren't necessarily true.

[Owlswing]

Yes. But also I need only convey the sense. And Let's remember Jesus quotes in early Christian documents are a fraction or highlights.

WRONG WRONG WROING!


According to the Christian Church the BIble is a record of EXACTLY what Christ said not a synopsis or an edited version!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

WRONG WRONG WROING!


According to the Christian Church the BIble is a record of EXACTLY what Christ said not a synopsis or an edited version!

The desperation of losing the argument.
1. Biblical chapter and verse for what you are saying.
2.Are you actually serious about the  unreliability of everything written retrospectively about 1987? You did express doubts because the earliest Christian literature being written 30 years after Christ.
3. If you are going to introduce some kind of statute of limitations on this do so uniformly.