(February 22, 2013 at 4:57 am)Confused Ape Wrote:

(February 22, 2013 at 12:18 am)Minimalist Wrote: I suspect none. At least none who would be recognizable as xtians in the 2'd-4th centuries.

I think it's common knowledge that Christianity developed over the centuries. What point are you trying to make here?

What Minimalist might be suggested is that during the first 2-3 centuries, the Christian communities grew up as autonomous fifedomes. And so while area "A" might teach that Jesus was a supernatual being who was never born, a 2 day donky ride to another community, "B" might be teaching that Jesus was a human being, a son of God like Hercules. And travelling betweein "A" and "B" would show wide degrees of seperation of theological thought.

It would only be with Constantine that all of this would change, a unification, and so someone who believed that Jesus was akin to Hercules would be hard pressed to relate to the Christianity that came after Constantine (which Emperor Julian, who came after him, tried to dismantle, but failed. All hail Zeus!).


I would also suggest that if a Jew today could get on a Tardis and whoosh himself to the time of King David (when there also was no temple), that it would be a completely foreign Judaism in most cases (today, he would probably be seen as a zealot who took on all kinds of non-Jewish traditions). Never mind that the Hebrew would be different, but they still might be able to communicate.

If this is not what Minimalist was inferring, I apologize.

(February 22, 2013 at 5:30 am)EGross Wrote: What Minimalist might be suggested is that during the first 2-3 centuries, the Christian communities grew up as autonomous fifedomes.

It would only be with Constantine that all of this would change, a unification, and so someone who believed that Jesus was akin to Hercules would be hard pressed to relate to the Christianity that came after Constantine (which Emperor Julian, who came after him, tried to dismantle, but failed. All hail Zeus!).

Pagan Romans wouldn't have bothered to study the differences in beliefs that the various Christian sects had. They would have just called all followers of these sects Christians the same as we refer to all followers of today's 40,000 different denominations as Christians.

It's unlikely that there were a lot of different sects in Nero's day because Christianity hadn't been around for long. I don't think early Christianity being different from later Christianity is a good reason to suspect there were no Christians at all in Nero's Rome.

Eusebius was probably going on the assumption that all Christian martrys in the past followed his version of Christianity. Eusebius Doctrine

Quote:From a dogmatic point of view, Eusebius stands entirely upon the shoulders of Origen. Like Origen, he started from the fundamental thought of the absolute sovereignty (monarchia) of God.

Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persons of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God

Theodosius made Nicene Christianity the official state religion in AD 380.

Quote:which affirmed the prevailing view that Jesus, the Son, was equal to the Father, one with the Father, and of the same substance (homoousios in Greek).

Eusebius (who died AD 339) would probably have had a fit if he'd discovered what some of his early Christian martyrs had really believed. He'd probably have had another fit if he'd heard that his version of Christianity wasn't going to be adopted as the official Roman religion. I don't think anyone would argue that Eusebius wasn't a Christian because his views about the Son differed to what was going to develop into modern Roman Catholicism, though.

(February 22, 2013 at 5:30 am)EGross Wrote: I would also suggest that if a Jew today could get on a Tardis and whoosh himself to the time of King David (when there also was no temple), that it would be a completely foreign Judaism in most cases (today, he would probably be seen as a zealot who took on all kinds of non-Jewish traditions). Never mind that the Hebrew would be different, but they still might be able to communicate.

The TARDIS has a telepathic translation circuit so travellers would be able to communicate. A modern Jew would be able to learn the differences and see that David's kingdom wasn't as great as tradition makes it out to be.

Quote:The evidence from surface surveys indicates that Judah at the time of David was a small tribal kingdom.[19] The Bronze and Iron Age remains of the City of David, the original urban core of Jerusalem identified with the reigns of David and Solomon, were investigated extensively in the 1970s and 1980s under the direction of Yigal Shiloh of the Hebrew University, but failed to discover significant evidence of occupation during the 10th century BCE,[20] In 2005 Eilat Mazar reported the discovery of a Large Stone Structure which she claimed was David's palace,[21] but the site is contaminated and cannot be accurately dated.[22]

(February 22, 2013 at 7:09 am)Confused Ape Wrote:

(February 22, 2013 at 5:30 am)EGross Wrote: What Minimalist might be suggested is that during the first 2-3 centuries, the Christian communities grew up as autonomous fifedomes.

It would only be with Constantine that all of this would change, a unification, and so someone who believed that Jesus was akin to Hercules would be hard pressed to relate to the Christianity that came after Constantine (which Emperor Julian, who came after him, tried to dismantle, but failed. All hail Zeus!).

Pagan Romans wouldn't have bothered to study the differences in beliefs that the various Christian sects had. They would have just called all followers of these sects Christians the same as we refer to all followers of today's 40,000 different denominations as Christians.

It's unlikely that there were a lot of different sects in Nero's day because Christianity hadn't been around for long. I don't think early Christianity being different from later Christianity is a good reason to suspect there were no Christians at all in Nero's Rome.

Ah, good point. Although, you do have Pauls Epistles where chastises the leaders of other groups for contaminating their teachings by using Jewish symbolism. So we know that, if you hold these were written by Paul, there was some variations going on. If not, we can hold that it was at a later time.

(February 22, 2013 at 7:09 am)Confused Ape Wrote:

(February 22, 2013 at 5:30 am)EGross Wrote: I would also suggest that if a Jew today could get on a Tardis and whoosh himself to the time of King David (when there also was no temple), that it would be a completely foreign Judaism in most cases (today, he would probably be seen as a zealot who took on all kinds of non-Jewish traditions). Never mind that the Hebrew would be different, but they still might be able to communicate.

The TARDIS has a telepathic translation circuit so travellers would be able to communicate.

You get a thumbs up for that one!

(February 22, 2013 at 7:09 am)Confused Ape Wrote: A modern Jew would be able to learn the differences and see that David's kingdom wasn't as great as tradition makes it out to be.

If you walk through the "City of David" Archeological site, you get the see how crude the place really was. They did, however, have what appeared to have a stone toilet with a run-off! If I were a king, I would certainly have wanted one of those! They also found the tunnels as described when they needed to escape through an aqueduct system. But being 6' tall, I had to duck just about everywhere I went.

The big time was during Solomon, when he put people into slavery, taxed them to death, was the richest man in the world ruling over the poorest. The place was supposedly magnificent then. And the Jewish sages, to speak of his end saying in a Midrash: "He left his throne to wander through his kingdom, and in his place sat a demon." - Meaning, he sure wasn't what he started out to be.

(February 22, 2013 at 7:43 am)EGross Wrote: Ah, good point. Although, you do have Pauls Epistles where chastises the leaders of other groups for contaminating their teachings by using Jewish symbolism. So we know that, if you hold these were written by Paul, there was some variations going on. If not, we can hold that it was at a later time.

Another good point. Paul didn't approve of what was going on in Corinth but I don't know if he ever said what he thought of the Roman version of Christianity. His Letter To The Romans is the last letter in the series.

Quote:At the time when he wrote Romans, Paul had never visited Rome, although Chapter 16 of Romans does indicate that he had acquaintances there.

We don't know the details of what the Roman Christians believed at the time but it's unlikely that there was more than one group in the city.

(February 22, 2013 at 7:43 am)EGross Wrote: They did, however, have what appeared to have a stone toilet with a run-off! If I were a king, I would certainly have wanted one of those!

That was luxury for those days. I've found a photograph of one along with the information that four have been discovered so far.

(February 22, 2013 at 7:43 am)EGross Wrote: The big time was during Solomon, when he put people into slavery, taxed them to death, was the richest man in the world ruling over the poorest. The place was supposedly magnificent then.

Maybe word of those stone toilets had got round.

(February 22, 2013 at 7:43 am)EGross Wrote: And the Jewish sages, to speak of his end saying in a Midrash: "He left his throne to wander through his kingdom, and in his place sat a demon." - Meaning, he sure wasn't what he started out to be.

Only a demon could cope with 700 wives and 300 concubines.

Yeah, it must have been tough - even if he chose 1 woman a day, that meant that she only had sex once every three years - but one would have expected tons of kids, which means he most likely wasn't that active with them, or was mostly shooting blanks.

(February 22, 2013 at 9:38 am)EGross Wrote: Yeah, it must have been tough - even if he chose 1 woman a day, that meant that she only had sex once every three years - but one would have expected tons of kids, which means he most likely wasn't that active with them, or was mostly shooting blanks.

According to the Ethiopian story of the Queen Of Sheba he preferred girls who were hard to get.

Quote:In this account King Solomon is said to have seduced the Queen of Sheba and sired her son, Menelik I, who would become the first Emperor of Ethiopia.

The narrative given in the Kebra Negast - which has no parallel in the Hebrew Biblical story - is that King Solomon invited the Queen of Sheba to a banquet, serving spicy food to induce her thirst, and inviting her to stay in his palace overnight. The Queen asked him to swear that he would not take her by force. He accepted upon the condition that she, in turn, would not take anything from his house by force. The Queen assured that she would not, slightly offended by the implication that she, a rich and powerful monarch, would engage in stealing. However, as she woke up in the middle of the night, she was very thirsty. Just as she reached for a jar of water placed close to her bed, King Solomon appeared, warning her that she was breaking her oath, water being the most valuable of all material possessions. Thus, while quenching her thirst, she set the king free from his promise and they spent the night together.

(February 22, 2013 at 2:12 am)EGross Wrote:

(February 22, 2013 at 1:31 am)ronedee Wrote: I said: "CONFIRMED"....and by atheistic doctor(s) (more than 2) actually rushing there to disprove God!

What I meant by anecdotal was that you did not personally speak to these 2 doctors, and sometimes these stories get reported with details that are lelft out or modified.

But let's say that somebody went into a state of mind, and they believed, and like countless others, partook of the magic waters where they have a wall of crutched hanging on the side where people left them and went running home.

And lets say that the doctors said that they didn't have an answer anymore than someone who spontaneously gets healed from some disease outside of those waters. They did not, one would hope, apply it to a supernatural being nor to the mystical properties of the water. Based on the details available to them, the were unable to provide an answer. They problably said that "we don't know", and the religious person says "God did it, praise the lord!". There is a distinct different in the application of reason here.

My ex-wife got into this program that says that your picture/photo is a reflection of your soul, so send them a picture of yourself, and for $2500 they will put it in an electromagnetic resonance generator to balance your internal elements to make you healthier. They even provided testomonials from people who would attest to the curing powers of having their picture magnitized. And there are people who do get better after spending the $2500 (one of the various reasons we divorced!). Why? Short of having all of the details of their before-and-after, all we are left with are speculations. Maybe God did it through the machine and sent her magic energy to make her feal better. Or maybe it was just her body doing what it can do.

I spent a few years learning magic. While I know the techniques, my patter was always forced. I am not a good performer. But I can go to a magic show and see the trick, and the problem of knowing the trick is that it just isn't as entertaining anymore. The kids in the audience are mezmerized. And some of the adults who watch who have no background in it know that it's a trick, but they just can't figure it out. Some of their ideas as to how it works ("I'll bet he used cold fire") were silly. But they know in their hearts that it isn't real magic, while the kids can sit there and believe that the lady did disappear.

But you are right, being like one of the kids, believing in the magic, is a more entertaining way to go. As to how the magic worked, I don't know.

Ok! But I am a realist in addition to being Christian. Some people (like children) just put out their hands and follow. I like to connect the dots.

I am somewhat educated as my family is, and surrounded by a few members that are atheist/agnostics. I get the benefit of ALL the arguments!

The biggest problem that confronts us is that we are not experts on every subject and know all the answers. And we only know what we are told about MANY things!

Heres the ultimate division: I don't have a problem believing in God. And, that He is the answer to everything! My father (waning as he ages) is
an atheist, and my kid brother an agnostic. They, on the other hand just have a [control problem]! Meaning they just can't believe.

I love them both dearly, and it's hard for any of us to bridge that division. Especially because it gets emotionally charged in debates.

But...I'll tell you this: We still love each other and respect each other as people. And in the end? That, and loving Him are all that God really wants from us!

So yes, there are things that we both don't see. And we "can" agree on that! It's just "what" it is that we can't see, that we are divided on.

Christians want to see God. Agnostics can't see God. Atheists won't see God.

(February 22, 2013 at 11:39 am)ronedee Wrote: . Atheists won't see God.

I met the Greek god, Apollo, in a dream. So, I've seen a deity but not the one you believe in.

(February 22, 2013 at 2:06 am)Justtristo Wrote: Your argument sounds quite plausible, however as I read the Pauline Epistltes and the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is clear they portray a Jesus who lived and died in the heavenly realms.

Which isn't as easy to relate to or spin a narrative about as a living breathing buddy jesus in the here and then. Some narrative structures are successful and the stories wrapped around them survive, some are not and they eventually stop being told. I wouldn't keep telling a story about a heavenly jesus and his magical realm for very long myself. Not alot of those heavenly realm stories are still making their way to any best seller list, know what I mean? Whens the last time you saw any anthology of myth top the charts? Is it really surprising that whatever the jesus narrative was once it's become what it is today? Especially in the light of how the rest of our fiction trended in the same time?

(February 22, 2013 at 11:39 am)ronedee Wrote: Christians want to see God. Agnostics can't see God. Atheists won't see God.

Why would atheists see what xtians can't, or won't, demonstrate? What's a non-religious word for someone who believes what they cannot know to be true?