Was Christianity Exposed?

Greetings jar,Oh,
you don't believe that old chestnut, about the Council of Nicea choosing the books of the bible, do you ?They didn't,
check Roger's useful page -
The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the BibleIasion

Actaully I was refering more to the basic foundations that went into the Creed. While many parts of the creed had appeared as early as 312, it was not until the Cauncil that the basic tenets of Christiantity were finally codified. However, the makeup of the official books of the Bible continued for some time. Even today there are questions about much that is included in the apocraphia and whether it should be included.It is also interesting to note, as with the publication of the BCP and the later KJV, much of the driving force was political in nature as well as religious.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Greetings,purpledawn : "But his claims about the messiah should not contradict the Jewish teachings."I don't think Paul says anything about a Messiah as such - his Iesous Christos is some sort of spiritual entity. No direct contradiction there.However, there WAS plenty of criticism and disagreement from Jews and other groups, as shown below ...purpledawn : "Did the Jews feel that his teachings contradicted theirs?"Well, it does seems that Paul was at odds with the Jewish wing of his sect (according to his letters and Acts).But we don't have any Jewish view of Paul (AFAIK), or the very earliest Christianity either.Philo says nothing, even though a direct contemporary.Josephus says nothing about Paul.Late in the first century Christianity split from Judaism - although we know few details (Gamaliel instituted cursing of the "Minim".)Justin, mid 2nd century, records an argument with the Jew Trypho (perhaps Rabbi Tarphon, just after the Bar Kochba rebellion) who criticises Christian beliefs.The 2nd century saw many doubters and disagrements, including the Gnostics who argued Jesus was a phantom, Tatian compared the Gospels to Greek myths (presumably in response to criticism), and Minucius Felix who denied Christians believed in the crucifixion or the incarnation.Celsus makes his critique of the Gospels as Myths just after they rose to prominance - late 2nd century.Tertullian in early 3rd century, wrote that Sadducees doubted the resurrection :
“Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.”Also about 3rd century, stories sprang up in the Talmud which denigrated Jesus - though vague and conflicting. Origen shows knowledge of one of these stories in early 2nd century (son of soldier Panthera.)(This was the pereiod when Porphyry attacked the evangelists as "inventors, not historians".)This is a record of division and disagreemnt from almost the earliest days (with the very earliest phase being un-noticed by Jew or pagan.) However it is true that no early critic specifically claimed Jesus did not exist.See details -
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipIasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 05-23-2004 09:06 AM

quote:

---

his Iesous Christos is some sort of spiritual entity. No direct contradiction there.

---

Was the Jewish Messiah supposed to me spiritual?The OT doesn't seem to depict the "annointed one" as a spiritual being from what I've read.It is interesting that there was criticism and disagreement even through the 3rd century. So the apologetic claim that no one complained is unfounded.Gives me more to think about. Thanks

Greetings

quote:

---

"Was the Jewish Messiah supposed to me spiritual? "

---

No.
Thats the point.
I don't think that Paul's spiritual being Iesous Christos has much to do with the Jewish Messiah at all.Paul makes one unclear reference to Jesus being "seed of David", but apart from that makes no direct Messianic claims that I can see.Only later was Jesus considered to be all-at-once :
* Son-of-god
* Messiah
* LogosIasion

quote:

---

So here is a man in my own country claiming great battles that could be checked out. Did anyone check out his claims and if yes, what was found. If his claims are totally false, why did the religion continue. Did the local Christians go against John Smith?

​

Because quite frankly, if this John Smith got away with it in the early 1800s, then why wouldn't it be possible for first century writers to get away with it.

---

I think you have demonstrated quite nicely the dirty little (not so) secret about religious dogma: it doesn't matter if something actually happened, so long as it is in print and somebody says it happened, then it is true.Heck why go back to the book of Mormon and Maroni the angel? Just pick up your free copy of Dianetics. How could anyone belive that engram garbage? Well they do, because it's in print and L. Ron said so.As has been mentioned, Christian tenets, the NT, the OT, all were challenged and called into question constantly until Constantine legitimized Christianity.So yes, Christianity, and every other religion, with the possible exception of Ardism has been exposed, and continues to be exposed, but to no avail. Faith bridges all gaps.This message has been edited by custard, 05-26-2004 08:39 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 05-26-2004 08:40 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 05-26-2004 08:13 PM

Fascinating!When the rose colored glasses fall off, it is amazing what you can see. Scary sometimes!What is Ardism? I have heard about Dianetics, but never bothered to find out any more about it. I guess I've never been miserable enough.Thanks for the reply. This thread has been very informative.Have a great day!

I really want to thank you, AdminBrian, for a push in the right direction. I immediately found a site by M D Magee that I have long hoped to find in the mire of biblical/historical rants and ravings. It is the first view that I have been exposed to that is comprehensive, objective, and, most important, it is comprehensible. Not that I accept every single word as 'gospel', but it finally lets me see a picture of the historical and archeological developements across the entire biblical landscape from a scientific viewpoint, unmuddled with religious agenda, and unencumbered by the vitriolics of debate. It reminds me of the magazine, "Scientific American", as it is understandable to non-specialists, without pandering to 'punters'. Ha! Now I know what a punter is, and have comprehended more terminology in the last few hours than in the past several weeks. Excuse the side-track, purpledawn.This message has been edited by mogur, 05-26-2004 09:04 PM

Earl Dougherty's JESUS PUZZLE which is available to read on his website (just google on Jesus Puzzle) does a good job of showing how complex the religious scene was in the Roman empire. There were a lot of different interpretations of Christianity and they were mixed up with other religions of saviours such as Mithras.When Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion the leaders began to consolodate power and for over a thousand years thereafter managed to effectively suppress most other religions in their realm. The romans seemed to be in comparison a model of religious tolerance. I don't find anything in the bible that supports religious tolerance hence much of the warfare and persecutions amongs Christians and Jews and Muslims. The priests can get far more vicious than say, Bill Gates, when enforcing their monopoly.peace,
lfen