Christians were emptying the Roman temples already in 112AD according to Pliny the Younger whose letter to the emperor Trajan is posted in full above in this thread.
Did Jesus Die On The Cross?
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
- Status
Yes .. yes.
They must have been Catholics, naturally
Leave it ! We'll have to agree to differ.
I don't believe that you categorically know WHAT early Christians believed ..
As I have said so many times, it's an assumption. You assume that "your lot" were the majority.
Have a good evening
How do you get that? The Catholic Church came unto being much later, I believe? The first pope? I don't know? They were obviously not a Jewish Yeshua cult. And they were emptying the Roman temples long before Constantine
Last edited:
The point is that Pliny's letter explains in quite good detail exactly what they did believe.Yes .. yes.
They must have been Catholics, naturally
Leave it ! We'll have to agree to differ.
I don't believe that you categorically know WHAT early Christians believed ..
As I have said so many times, it's an assumption. You assume that "your lot" were the majority.
Have a good evening
Duh ..
Like most other surviving ancient texts, Pliny’s letters survive only through copies made hundreds of years later, which differ slightly in their readings from each other.
-wiki-
Have a good evening
Are you disputing them? On what (scholarly) basis do you dispute the (copies of) correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the emperor Trajan?Duh ..
Like most other surviving ancient texts, Pliny’s letters survive only through copies made hundreds of years later, which differ slightly in their readings from each other.
-wiki-
Have a good evening
Last edited:
I don't think that it is disputed that Christians have always revered Jesus..
What IS disputed, is whether the majority believed in his divinity as well as him being the Messiah..
..even if they did, that does NOT mean that they all thought that he was divine.
You seem to be hung up about it. I suppose it's only natural.
You WANT it to be true [ to "prove" his divinity ], whether he really did die or not.
..anyway .. enjoy
Last edited:
I think I've asked this before.
Why did the Father not send 'his son' before? What sense is there that he sent prophets [ as wholly men ] to all others before Jesus, emphasising strictly One God?
Why did the Father not send 'his son' before? What sense is there that he sent prophets [ as wholly men ] to all others before Jesus, emphasising strictly One God?
Not at all..
Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202) was the first to argue that his "orthodox" position was the same faith that Jesus gave to the apostles.
Irenaeus' opponents, however, claimed to have received secret teachings from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known.
Ha ha..
.. could that be that Jesus told them that there would be another prophet after him, and that he didn't die on the cross
Of course it could. Orthodox Christianity evolved over centuries. Many documents/texts were lost during the era of certain rulers.
The Nag Hamedi library is an example.
It is not "a certainty" that Orthodox Christianity is the truth, that is for SURE.
Naturally, most Christians believe that it is. There is no hard evidence to prove it.
There was too much political wrangling, as you know.
eg. Those who possessed writings of Arius were sentenced to death
Arianism has been called the most challenging heresy in the history of the Church.
Naturally, those who agree with Arius, consider the term "Arianism" as a misnomer,
as they believe that it is much closer to the truth than classical trinitarianism, and
that Arius was not the originator of his views.
Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202) was the first to argue that his "orthodox" position was the same faith that Jesus gave to the apostles.
Irenaeus' opponents, however, claimed to have received secret teachings from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known.
Ha ha..
.. could that be that Jesus told them that there would be another prophet after him, and that he didn't die on the cross
Of course it could. Orthodox Christianity evolved over centuries. Many documents/texts were lost during the era of certain rulers.
The Nag Hamedi library is an example.
It is not "a certainty" that Orthodox Christianity is the truth, that is for SURE.
Naturally, most Christians believe that it is. There is no hard evidence to prove it.
There was too much political wrangling, as you know.
eg. Those who possessed writings of Arius were sentenced to death
Arianism has been called the most challenging heresy in the history of the Church.
Naturally, those who agree with Arius, consider the term "Arianism" as a misnomer,
as they believe that it is much closer to the truth than classical trinitarianism, and
that Arius was not the originator of his views.
Last edited:
Modern professional historians, familiar with the phenomenon of on-going historical revisionism, allow new findings and ideas into their interpretations of "what happened", and scholars versed in the study of texts (however sacred) see all narrators as potentially unreliable and all accounts—especially edited accounts—as potentially historically incomplete, biased by times and circumstances.
-wiki-
The so-called "New Testament" is a collection of texts with an agenda.
The Catholic church promotes a belief in the inerrancy of church-fathers. That is a belief and not a fact.
-wiki-
The so-called "New Testament" is a collection of texts with an agenda.
The Catholic church promotes a belief in the inerrancy of church-fathers. That is a belief and not a fact.
Some people believe Moses was on magic mushrooms. One conspiracy theory is as good as another, imo.
Why don't you start a new thread -- or new threads--to discuss all the red herrings you keep trying to introduce here?
Why don't you start a new thread -- or new threads--to discuss all the red herrings you keep trying to introduce here?
No thankyou
We discussed the so-called Arian controversy last year.
You stick to your Christology and belief about church-fathers, and deny the possibility that non-canonical texts might be reliable.
You asked me about non-canonical texts that deny the significance of Jesus' apparent death/resurrection.
All you want to do is dismiss them though .. you aren't really interested .. you think that the Qur'an [ God ] is wrong.
@muhammad_isa
But there aren't any non-cannonical texts disputing the death on the cross, except for a single gobblegook passage from some obscure gnostic document, which could mean almost anything one wants it to mean.
Yes: I think the Quran is wrong on the point of Jesus's death on the cross. Have to work now
But there aren't any non-cannonical texts disputing the death on the cross, except for a single gobblegook passage from some obscure gnostic document, which could mean almost anything one wants it to mean.
Yes: I think the Quran is wrong on the point of Jesus's death on the cross. Have to work now
I doubt that very much..
Anything that you don't agree with must be "gnostic" .. sneaky .. mix up truth and falsehood to confuse everybofy .. that's what happened.
Take Jesus, and bend the truth and start a new Roman religion .. divide and rule .. the oldest trick in the book.
..in any case, you make it all about whether Jesus actually died or not.
More to the point, what SIGNIFICANCE does Jesus dying hold .. and why?
Does Jesus dying on the cross prove he is divine? If so, why?
Last edited:
Ah, I see where you are mistaken.
We are guided by Paul, as we are by the Gospels, as we are by Scripture and Tradition.
I think you'd be surprised how many Catholics have no particular liking for St Paul, indeed my mother was not a fan. He certainly wasn't an easy fellow to get on with, but I don't think he was as ever bad as he is sometimes painted ... rather, he was human.
Insight, yes, innovation, no, I don't think so.
Modern Jewish scholarship actually defends Paul as one who believed in the promises made to Israel, and that in the End Time, the Gentiles would be brought into the fold, as it were. St Paul's bringing Gentiles into the Faith was thus not innovation per se – again, Jewish scholarship shows us that the barrier between Gentile and Jew was a lot more porous and fluid than we had imagined – Paul saw this as entirely consonant with the unfolding of Jewish salvation history.
Peter saw the baptism of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10) by the Holy Spirit, and this sequence includes the dream-vision of Peter that shows him the banquet laid with all manner of things to eat. Peter says: "Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean. And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common." (Acts 10:14-15) and later talking to Cornelius he says "You know it is unlawful for a man that is a Jew, to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28).
+++
But that's not what is believed, it's a straw-man fallacy.
It's a fine line though, isn't it..
..so it is "an insight" that Paul apparently started a tradition of the Eucharist.
Of course, you will say that JESUS commanded it and Christians have always observed it,
but that is only a belief. The first mention of it is by Paul.
I have nothing against him. I just don't think that he had so much knowledge [ about Jesus ] than the disciples.
He was NOT a true disciple .. but many treat him as if he was.
Not completely, but I agree that Catholics still adhere to the moral values in the OT.
Many Protestants don't though.
- Status