The Council of Jerusalem 50 C.E.; did this really happen?

[Drich]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='312313' dateline='1342712570']
[quote]Fails to explain why the ones who were allegedly there would give a rat's ass.[/quote]Maybe that is why the letters containing the passages that contained references to circumcision were directed toward the gentiles, Acts 15, Gal 2, Col 3.

[quote]But in 50 AD you have yet to show that such a clamor existed.[/quote]Look at the book of Galations. The first few chapters were of sucha 'clamor.'

[quote] As has been noted, ad nauseam, not a single Greco-Roman or Jewish writer living at the time has anything to say about your godboy and his magic tricks. In fact, when xtians DO reach the point of being noticed, middle second century AD, we DO see those writers ( Celsus, Lucian) start to comment on them.[/quote]So the works of Paul do not count in this assertion? Wasn't he to be considered to be both? Besides who else besides paul could speak with any authority of Christ? For if anything was said, it would be quickly over turned by the words of the Apstoles.

[quote]So centuries later the problem allegedly addressed at this supposed "Council" was still growing.[/quote]Maybe this is where you are confused. I am not vouching for any consule. I am simply pointing to the message Paul wrote/taught that said council has taken credit for.
[quote]
I am telling you. The whole story and this phony church history which was later concocted is bullshit. [/quote]Very plausiable. They could have taken the works of one apstole and assimlated it into a body of work they wished to be apart of.

[quote]Wrong. Marcion issued a canon in the mid 2d century which contained one gospel - probably Luke although it had not been named at that point - and 10 of "Paul's" so-called epistles although later church thugs destroyed Marcion's bible so we don't know what any of these documents may have said. Variants of this shit were floating around, though.[/quote]Which means nothing with out "Proof." For there were many 'books and bibles floating around even in the 1st century. None of which means a pile of beans to anyone except to those who worshiped under those books.

[quote]Actually, the doctrine of Apostolic Authority came to be defined by the church late in the 2d century....hence Irenaeas attaching the names which your so-called gospels go by today. [/quote]Actually no. The fact that the apstoles had the power and authority to dictate church doctrine in the 1st century puts their recognised authority back about 100 years or so. The 2nd century is when the offical doctrine was given a birthday. For it was Paul's need to claim Apostolic authority in the first chapter of Gal that made this authority known and respected.

[quote]Actually He did when He rewrote or reinterperted 1 Cor 15:50.[/quote]
Simply put if Justin wrote a commentary redesignating the meaning of 1 Cor 15:50 (which Paul wrote) that means He heard of the apstole in whom He had decided to correct. To me it seems as if Justin had issue with the Gospel Paul was teaching (at least apart of it) and was trying to usurpt Paul's legacy.

[quote]I'll bet Justin never heard of the Council of Jerusalem, either.[/quote]Probably not.

[quote]As xtianity evolved into the church-based 'department of motor vehicles'-style bureaucratic pile of shit that it remains any number of its early writers were declared heretics - the great Origen who lived a century after Justin was also tossed out on his less-than-holy ass by later church leaders who found his doctrines no longer consistent with what they wanted to push on the public as "true." [/quote] Seriously? Christ being the Son of God is kinda the corner stone of this religious expression. If one does not believe in the deity of Christ then by defination he can not be a Christian.

[quote]But in the middle 2d century, Justin was a real celebrity and his First Apology was addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius himself. [/quote]So what? Who care how popular he was? Joseph Smith was very popular in the early to mid 19th century and today He has one of his deciples running for president of this nation! Subsequently he too (orginally) denied the deity of Christ. Christianity is not a popularity contest. It seems the more popular a certain aspect of christian religion becomes the less christian it actually is.

[quote]You should read Ehrman's Lost Christianities and learn some stuff about how your bullshit evolved ( oops, there's that word again!).[/quote] there is a reason for the word 'lost" to appear in that title.


[quote]You have drunk so deeply of the jesus Kool-Aid that you will never find anything "odd" about the crock of shit story you have been sold.[/quote]I believe the oppsite to be true. I have studied the word so intently very little 'church history' gets a pass, for the fact that it is church history. That is why I carfully worded my orginal response to this thread to support the biblically supported doctrine and not the 'history' of how that doctrine came to be.

[KichigaiNeko]

Min - Slapped again!!

[Ziploc Surprise]

(Min) You have drunk so deeply of the jesus Kool-Aid that you will never find anything "odd" about the crock of shit story you have been sold.

(Drich) I believe the oppsite to be true. I have studied the word so intently very little 'church history' gets a pass, for the fact that it is church history. That is why I carfully worded my orginal response to this thread to support the biblically supported doctrine and not the 'history' of how that doctrine came to be.

@ Drich. So you're saying that you're willing to ignore any facts that get in the way of the bullshit doctrine you believe in. Drink up there buddy.

When I was a Christian I always wondered "If the church has such a glorious history, as it says it has, then why don't they teach it?" Yeah, they will suggest "Foxes book of Martyrs" and a general smattering of the daily life of an average Christian in Roman times but, aside from that little bit, there was always a big blank in the history.

[Drich]

When I was a Christian I always wondered "If the church has such a glorious history, as it says it has, then why don't they teach it?"

Because not one single expression of Christianity IS Indeed The Chruch. The Church Exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it.

[Ziploc Surprise]

When I was a Christian I always wondered "If the church has such a glorious history, as it says it has, then why don't they teach it?"

Because not one single expression of Christianity IS Indeed The Chruch. The Church Exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it.

This statement makes no sense because we are talking about the origins of Christianity. All expressions of Christianity had a common origin (generally speaking) we are talking about this common origin. We are talking about the beginnings not the end. The origins are not the final results. Why you bring up the final results, I don't know, perhaps it is to confuse people.

Now I'll be a bit more specific about Church history. What is usually taught in most modern protestant churches is that god divinely inspired a small group of people to write the Bible. Some magic is involved here because somehow these people manage to write down the very words of god (I won't mention the problems with this because that's an argument for another thread). Anyway, the belief was that it was perfect from the start. Then people began to fuck things up and nasty horrible heretics sprang up to lead people astray so clarification of what the Bible means to say was important. Over time more fuck ups and heretics happened so more clarification of what the pure holy blah, blah, word of god meant was necessary. During this time the Christians were persecuted horribly. I should point out that most churches actually skip the fuck ups and heretics but don't usually ignore the persecution part. Feelings of persecution and the possible threat of it happening again unify people so it's a good brainwashing tactic.

It is also taught that most churches were home churches , this is taught to encourage modern congregations to have things called home groups. Modern churches are quite large. Home groups are a way to make large churches feel less cavernous; more intimate. Really it's just about money. The more suckers...I mean people in your congregation, the bigger the money funnel is and the more money the pastor makes. Also, if the church get's really large the pastor can write books, get them published and make more money. He might also get big enough to get on tv. Then the bucks roll in.

Anyway, back to the bullshit history they teach in modern protestant churches. Sometime after Constantine the church morphs into the RCC. And the church goes into a thousand year slip into idolatry which the reformation finally saved us from praise Jebus god almighty (sorry, I couldn't avoid the sarcasm here). The Devil then tried a new tactic which was to divide god's people hence the huge numbers of denominations that sprung up during and after the reformation and to this present day. Then sometime at some starting point in the 20th century we finally started to get it right. We are going back to the original interpretation of the Bible, there will be a revival because of this, All the churches will unite and become just like our denomination (fill in the blank for who "our" denomination would be") Jesus is cuming soon blah blah blah.

Note that I don't believe the bullshit above. Note that I've seriously over simplified things. Note that none of this matters because it is all bullshit that will change as it suits Christianity in the future. More importantly also note that I'm aware that what they teach in churches and what really happened are two different things. Also note that I'm aware that the RCC tells a different story. I wrote what I wrote to explain what I meant when, in my original post, I said they don't teach much church history in church. They don't teach much about the origins of Christianity because every denomination, and the RCC, have something to hide.

[Polaris]

It most likely happened, but it was probably much smaller than scholars described it later on. Probably just a few men in a basement.

[Drich]

[quote='Ziploc Surprise' pid='313251' dateline='1342827951']
[quote]This statement makes no sense because we are talking about the origins of Christianity.[/quote]You maybe. I have said over and over that my observations were made from a biblical perspective. That Paul provides a seperation from Christianity and judaism. It does not identify the orgins of this resolution. Ie: "The consule of Jerusalem."

[quote] All expressions of Christianity had a common origin (generally speaking)[/quote] Yes Christ. Even in the first century, that is where the common grounds end.

[quote]we are talking about this common origin.[/quote]Again no 'we' are not. For you are trying to introduce non-scriptural 'facts' into the orgins of the Church.

[quote] We are talking about the beginnings not the end. The origins are not the final results. Why you bring up the final results, I don't know, perhaps it is to confuse people.[/quote]The final results? as in the only part of what you have posted, That is apart of the record the bible keeps?

If you or anyone is lost then i welcome the oppertunity to answer your honest questions.

[quote]Now I'll be a bit more specific about Church history. What is usually taught in most modern protestant churches is that god divinely inspired a small group of people to write the Bible. Some magic is involved here because somehow these people manage to write down the very words of god (I won't mention the problems with this because that's an argument for another thread). Anyway, the belief was that it was perfect from the start. Then people began to fuck things up and nasty horrible heretics sprang up to lead people astray so clarification of what the Bible means to say was important. Over time more fuck ups and heretics happened so more clarification of what the pure holy blah, blah, word of god meant was necessary. During this time the Christians were persecuted horribly. I should point out that most churches actually skip the fuck ups and heretics but don't usually ignore the persecution part. Feelings of persecution and the possible threat of it happening again unify people so it's a good brainwashing tactic.[/quote] So? then we are to include all writing on christ simply because the age of a text? what would be the criteria for a canocial book be in your opinion?


[quote] It is also taught that most churches were home churches , this is taught to encourage modern congregations to have things called home groups. [/quote] because we know the first century had resources like the modern equilvant and they were setting up the modern church to make even more money....
-or-
Most first century churches were indeed held in peoples houses because There Were No Other Places To Hold A Gathering Of Believers!

[quote]Modern churches are quite large. Home groups are a way to make large churches feel less cavernous; more intimate.[/quote]Yes, so people can do what it is I have done for you all. Given you an oppertunity to get answers that you couldn't or wouldn't get on your own.

[quote] Really it's just about money.[/quote] Yes because I am making tons of money from my efforts here...

[quote] The more suckers...I mean people in your congregation, the bigger the money funnel is and the more money the pastor makes. [/quote]-Or- The more the Home groups, the more likly people split off the main church and start their own.

[quote]Also, if the church get's really large the pastor can write books, get them published and make more money. He might also get big enough to get on tv. Then the bucks roll in.[/quote]This is true. many are in it for the money, and little else. On the other hand many more take that money and roll it into the ministry.

[quote]The Devil then tried a new tactic which was to divide god's people hence the huge numbers of denominations that sprung up during and after the reformation and to this present day. [/quote]Then the Devil is a complete idiot. For the Church was 'splintered' from the beginning. Each one of the Books written to a specific Church addressed very different set problems. What do the Apstoles do? Do they establish one set of rules and regulations establishing one unified church like God did for the Jews? (Their only understanding of organized religion) No. they foster and nurture each expression of Christianity, because they know True Christianity is not about one set of rules. Rather Christ established a free form worship. Meaning we have only two commands, and the rest (so long as it did not cause your brother to stumble in their own faith) was up to the indivisual to worship as their gifts and understandings would allow. Now that means because we are al alittle different our perfered worship may all be a little different.

(Read my thread on denominations for a more detailed explaination.)

God even goes so far as to Identify the 12 main or parent forms of Christianity and describes them not only by location but by their leading attributes of worship.

[quote]Then sometime at some starting point in the 20th century we finally started to get it right. We are going back to the original interpretation of the Bible, there will be a revival because of this, All the churches will unite and become just like our denomination (fill in the blank for who "our" denomination would be") Jesus is cuming soon blah blah blah.[/quote]no. "One body many parts." Do you know what this means? Do you know the passage and where this comes from? If yes then you know that "The Church" By defination can not all worship under one 'denominational rule.'

[quote]Note that I don't believe the bullshit above. Note that I've seriously over simplified things. Note that none of this matters because it is all bullshit that will change as it suits Christianity in the future. More importantly also note that I'm aware that what they teach in churches and what really happened are two different things. [/quote]Perhaps you should 'note' that it may have been a while since you been to a church that does not think Christ revolves around them or what they believe. Seriously, if this is your legitmate understanding of christianity then perhaps you should take an honest look at biblical Christianity, because Biblical Christianity is truly nothing like what you have described or seem to understand.

[quote] Also note that I'm aware that the RCC tells a different story. I wrote what I wrote to explain what I meant when, in my original post, I said they don't teach much church history in church. They don't teach much about the origins of Christianity because every denomination, and the RCC, have something to hide.[/quote]
and maybe now you have enough information to understand why i said "not one single expression of Christianity IS Indeed The Chruch. The Church Exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it."

In that The church exists only because of the attonement Christ offers, despite our best efforts to form 'religions/expressions of christianity' to worship Him. And not because of it.

[Ziploc Surprise]

[quote='Drich' pid='313310' dateline='1342836248']
[quote='Ziploc Surprise' pid='313251' dateline='1342827951']

[quote]we are talking about this common origin.[/quote][quote]Again no 'we' are not. For you are trying to introduce non-scriptural 'facts' into the orgins of the Church.[/quote]Since when is scripture fact? The Bible as history has been debunked over and over again in this forum. Isn't this thread another debunking thread?

[quote] We are talking about the beginnings not the end. The origins are not the final results. Why you bring up the final results, I don't know, perhaps it is to confuse people.[/quote][quote]The final results? as in the only part of what you have posted, That is apart of the record the bible keeps?[/quote] I was talking about wondering why they didn't teach church history. Then you replied "Because not one single expression of Christianity IS Indeed The Chruch. The Church Exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it." The term "church history applied to all forms of Christianity from it's origins down to the many expressions we have today." It could also be called the history of Christianity. This is something you should already know. If you've spent any time reading church history books you would be familiar with the word usage. The word usage is also obvious.

The expressions of Christianity we have today are the results of the development of doctrine over the centuries with some new ideas put in the mix. The expressions we have today are as of this moment the final results. These will continue to grow in the future but right now they are the result of what has been. Church doctrine developes over time.

To answer your statement "The church exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it." This is a usage of the word "religious" that those on this forum might not be used to. It could be the topic of another thread. Generally speaking though it is a word to goad people into a more experiential form of religious practice and out of older traditions. It is a tactic used more by evangelicals. Basically what they are trying to do is get people to give up old bullshit for the bullshit fed to them by the pastor. They give the word religious a negative, stuffy, old, connotation and make you feel good about not getting rid of (what they define as) old religious ideas. The experiential part is to distract people while you fuck them. Make them feel so good they don't realize that it's bullshit. It's good to try to make people feel good about giving you money. Again this is a problem of what the pastor is telling you and what he is really doing. It's just another mind control tactic. Thats the story behind your usage of the word "religious".

As for the statement "The church exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it." No this is not true. The church (Christianity) exists because of the religious efforts of man. That is to say that church doctrine exists because of the efforts of man in rewriting docrtrine to (sort of) fit the times. In this case the "religious efforts" that allow the church to exist would be things like brainwashing, enforcement behavior, squelching of science, and enforcement of orthodoxy.

[quote]Now I'll be a bit more specific about Church history. What is usually taught in most modern protestant churches is that god divinely inspired a small group of people to write the Bible. Some magic is involved here because somehow these people manage to write down the very words of god (I won't mention the problems with this because that's an argument for another thread). Anyway, the belief was that it was perfect from the start. Then people began to fuck things up and nasty horrible heretics sprang up to lead people astray so clarification of what the Bible means to say was important. Over time more fuck ups and heretics happened so more clarification of what the pure holy blah, blah, word of god meant was necessary. During this time the Christians were persecuted horribly. I should point out that most churches actually skip the fuck ups and heretics but don't usually ignore the persecution part. Feelings of persecution and the possible threat of it happening again unify people so it's a good brainwashing tactic.[/quote] [quote]So? then we are to include all writing on christ simply because the age of a text? what would be the criteria for a canocial book be in your opinion?[/quote]

I just told you what the criteria for a canonical book is. As the doctrine states (my paraphrase) "god divinely inspired a small group of people to write the Bible. Some magic is involved here because somehow these people manage to write down the very words of god". I didn't go further into this because you, as a Christian are supposed to know what constitutes scripture (supposedly the very words of god) and what constitutes writings about god (not the very words of god). As the doctrine goes only those inspired by god or anointed specifically to write scripture can write scripture. This is why authorship of the Bible is so important. You've got to pin the book on the author so to speak. As the bullshit doctrine goes they have various bullshit ways to prove via scripture that the people they have pinned books to (the people whom they say are the authors of the books, like for example Moses for the first 5 books of the Bible and Paul for his letters) were anointed by god specifically to write scripture. Conveniently after Paul and John God didn't anoint anyone else to write (btw this bullshit doctrine assumes that the disciples of Jesus themselves wrote the gospels, it assumes a bunch of other things but I won't get into that it's too numerous to deal with). when people conveniently stopped getting anointed to write scripture the cannon was closed. You, as a Christian are supposed to know this therefore your question "So? then we are to include all writing on christ simply because the age of a text? what would be the criteria for a canocial book be in your opinion?" in response to my initial explanation of what makes for scripture implies that you don't know this. Why do you argue about stuff you don't know about. Do you like the sound your voice makes when you talk out your ass? Yes, I'm being rude because it looks like I'm being sucked into yet another pointless, time wasting, argument with you.

[quote] It is also taught that most churches were home churches , this is taught to encourage modern congregations to have things called home groups. [/quote] because we know the first century had resources like the modern equilvant and they were setting up the modern church to make even more money....
-or-
[quote]Most first century churches were indeed held in peoples houses because There Were No Other Places To Hold A Gathering Of Believers![/quote] I know this. And you know that if I know that the early church met in homes that I also know why they met in homes so mentioning it is stupid. Your statement was a ploy to circumvent why I mentioned the modern church mentioned why the early church met in homes and to try to make me look stupid. As I said before the reason why the crap about the early churches meeting in homes is pushed in modern churches is to justify home groups in modern churches. home groups in modern churches make a very large church still seem intimate. It is so that pastors can have large churches. Large churches rake in large amounts of money. As I said before, it's about the money. Keep on topic please.

[quote]Modern churches are quite large. Home groups are a way to make large churches feel less cavernous; more intimate.[/quote]Yes, so people can do what it is I have done for you all. Given you an oppertunity to get answers that you couldn't or wouldn't get on your own.

[quote] Really it's just about money.[/quote] [quote]Yes because I am making tons of money from my efforts here... [/quote] I was talking about the pastors and why they preach things. Why you personally are debating on an atheist forum is a different thing all together. Don't mix things. Stay with the topic.

[quote] The more suckers...I mean people in your congregation, the bigger the money funnel is and the more money the pastor makes. [/quote][quote]-Or- The more the Home groups, the more likly people split off the main church and start their own.[/quote] That's the fear, it's unjustified though. Churches usually keep close eyes on their home groups and Bible studies. Even then it's not so easy to get a bunch of people to split off and start their own church, it does not happen every day at a church.

[quote]Then sometime at some starting point in the 20th century we finally started to get it right. We are going back to the original interpretation of the Bible, there will be a revival because of this, All the churches will unite and become just like our denomination (fill in the blank for who "our" denomination would be") Jesus is cuming soon blah blah blah.[/quote][quote]no. "One body many parts." Do you know what this means? Do you know the passage and where this comes from? If yes then you know that "The Church" By defination can not all worship under one 'denominational rule.'[/quote]Oh, the lovely "One body many parts" bullshit. For anyone on this forum who's lucky enough not to be familiar with this in practice it means "You can express your Christianity a bit differently, and we encourage this, but go to far and there will be consequences." What is said and and how it is practiced (what is done) are two different things.

Also, even though many churches are drifting towards non denominationalism non denominationalism is, in practice, an expression of Christianity. What they believe in and how they practice are similar enough to be grouped into a denomination even though they say they aren't a denomination.

[quote]Note that I don't believe the bullshit above. Note that I've seriously over simplified things. Note that none of this matters because it is all bullshit that will change as it suits Christianity in the future. More importantly also note that I'm aware that what they teach in churches and what really happened are two different things. [/quote][quote]Perhaps you should 'note' that it may have been a while since you been to a church that does not think Christ revolves around them or what they believe. Seriously, if this is your legitmate understanding of christianity then perhaps you should take an honest look at biblical Christianity, because Biblical Christianity is truly nothing like what you have described or seem to understand.[/quote]I've was a Christian for 30 years. I've traveled a lot and have been to many many different churches and denominations. I know what they mean when they say "Biblical Christianity". I've heard so many expressions of this. Bullshit is still bullshit no matter what the bull ate.


[quote] Also note that I'm aware that the RCC tells a different story. I wrote what I wrote to explain what I meant when, in my original post, I said they don't teach much church history in church. They don't teach much about the origins of Christianity because every denomination, and the RCC, have something to hide.[/quote]
[quote]and maybe now you have enough information to understand why i said "not one single expression of Christianity IS Indeed The Chruch. The Church Exists despite the religious efforts of man, not because of it."[/quote] If you were following along, and it seems as if you haven't been doing this, the "something they have to hide" is the fact that the history that modern churches try to feed their congregations is different than what actually happened. The modern churches don't want people finding out the truth. They don't want people to read Bart Ehrman and other's like him.


Debating with you is time consuming, exhausting and useless.

I'm going to find a nice wall to bang my head against now but before I go, thank you min, and other's for providing information. You've done a lot to answer my question.

[Drich]

Debating with you is time consuming, exhausting and useless.

I'm going to find a nice wall to bang my head against now but before I go, thank you min, and other's for providing information. You've done a lot to answer my question.

So do you want me respond or not? I am not looking to 'provoke you to wrath.'

[Ziploc Surprise]

Debating with you is time consuming, exhausting and useless.

I'm going to find a nice wall to bang my head against now but before I go, thank you min, and other's for providing information. You've done a lot to answer my question.

So do you want me respond or not? I am not looking to 'provoke you to wrath.'

If you responded like you have in the past, with red herrings, half truths, misquotes, gloss overs and just general poor reading comprehension skills I don't see much point in it....unless you get some sort of thrill out of this sort of crap then well I guess you'll do what you'll do.