Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-22-2019 1:20 AM
149 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 148 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,770 Year: 2,807/19,786 Month: 889/1,918 Week: 176/301 Day: 1/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean?
candle2
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 76 of 88 (847453)
01-22-2019 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by LamarkNewAge
01-22-2019 12:58 AM


Re: Please clarify your interpretation of Jesus' position on hand washing.
Some use Mark 7 and Matthew 15 in an attempt to undermine God's order in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 against eating unclean animals

The fact is that Jesus (as the Logos) created everything that exists in the universe. This includes both clean and unclean meat.

The issue in these chapters is "unwashed hands," not unclean meat.

Hand washing was a tradition of the Pharisees. It was ceremonially done in a prescribed manner that had nothing to do with sanitation.

Jesus knows the importance of good hygieneore than any of us. But this was about a ritual, nothing more.

The Pharisees also had restrictions placed on the Sabbath, which were nothingore than worthless traditions.

For example, they were not allowed to spit on dirt because it was considered tilling. If a lamp was not lit before the Sabbath began it had to remain out. And vice-versa.

The Pharisees were lunatics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-22-2019 12:58 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2019 7:56 AM candle2 has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1367
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 77 of 88 (847463)
01-23-2019 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by candle2
01-22-2019 7:25 PM


Re: Please clarify your interpretation of Jesus' position on hand washing.
quote:

Some use Mark 7 and Matthew 15 in an attempt to undermine God's order in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 against eating unclean animals

More like 99% of Christians, not "some".

Scholars see a difference between the 2 chapters.

quote:

The issue in these chapters is "unwashed hands," not unclean meat.

Mark 7 is about unclean meat (perhaps not Matthew 15).

quote:

Hand washing was a tradition of the Pharisees. It was ceremonially done in a prescribed manner that had nothing to do with sanitation.

You don't know that, and, frankly, nobody does.

quote:

Jesus knows the importance of good hygiene more than any of us.

Aside from your churched claims, what is your proof?

quote:

The Pharisees also had restrictions placed on the Sabbath, which were nothing more than worthless traditions.

Actually, those traditions were based on the entire 2nd-Temple Jewish community seriously and honestly coming to terms with how to implement the Law of Moses (and that was based on precedents from the Solomonic Temple period). The Torah doesn't tell people how to implement the commands.

I will have to point out that the Pharisees cared 1 million times more about the Biblical text than any Christian today (and perhaps more so than the vast majority of Jews today as well).

The Rabbinical traditions came from a community with integrity.

Sincere and genuine.

The real deal.

The real thing.

quote:

For example, they were not allowed to spit on dirt because it was considered tilling. If a lamp was not lit before the Sabbath began it had to remain out. And vice-versa.

The Pharisees were lunatics.


Show me the rabbinical judgments (quote them, and then quote the commentary)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by candle2, posted 01-22-2019 7:25 PM candle2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by candle2, posted 01-23-2019 1:17 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
candle2
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 78 of 88 (847467)
01-23-2019 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Tangle
01-21-2019 2:25 PM


Re: What Would Jesus Declare In 2019?
Absolutely Dr. S was shocked. She was stunned beyond belief, which is why she ran so many tests on the fossil.

Eventually (after denying what she was observing time and time and time again) she was forced to admit her findings.

The evolutionist community was also forced to admit that soft tissue was present in the fossil.

But, instead of utilizing common sense and admitting the obvious (that the fossil was just a few thousand years old), they come up with explanations that make them look stupid.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Also, coal formations found in Rock strata, dated (by these same fools) to be hundreds of millions of year old, contained significant amount of Carbon-14.

Isn't it telling that these same fools date Rock strata by the fossil found in them, and they date the fossil by the rocks they are found in. Talk about circular reasoning.

I agree, as you say, that these are exciting findings, but the excitement is for creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 01-21-2019 2:25 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tangle, posted 01-23-2019 1:17 PM candle2 has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16147
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 79 of 88 (847468)
01-23-2019 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phat
01-22-2019 2:46 PM


Re: A Cult Is A Cult
Phat writes:

You cant reframe subjective experience for others...


Sure I can. I can frame it with reality.

Phat writes:

...nor can you predict the results of their belief...


Sure I can. I can predict, with confidence that Faith will not be raptured any time soon.

Phat writes:

But jusy because it works for you to say that God is fiction does not mean that your conclusion becomes global reality.


It has nothing to do with what "works for me". Reality is what it is. You don't get to have your own private reality.

And even if there is a real God somewhere, your God IS fiction.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 01-22-2019 2:46 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 01-23-2019 11:52 AM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12049
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 80 of 88 (847473)
01-23-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by ringo
01-23-2019 11:04 AM


Re: A Cult Is A Cult
This video showed a thoughtful point of view very similar to your own. The argument is sound and logical. I dont agree with it but am beginning to understand the logic and reasoning which led you to your chosen conclusions. We truly become the decisions we make. We are not mere logs floating downstream. We can choose to attempt fighting our way upstream in order to spawn new ideas and creativity. I just get offended when you call it fantasy. On my mind you have no business there.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 01-23-2019 11:04 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 01-23-2019 12:01 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16147
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 81 of 88 (847474)
01-23-2019 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Phat
01-23-2019 11:52 AM


Re: A Cult Is A Cult
Phat writes:

I just get offended when you call it fantasy. On my mind you have no business there.


It is my business to tell you that 2+2=4 and if you claim that 2+2=5 it is my business to tell you that that is fantasy.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 01-23-2019 11:52 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 01-23-2019 3:29 PM ringo has responded

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 82 of 88 (847483)
01-23-2019 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2019 7:56 AM


Re: Please clarify your interpretation of Jesus' position on hand washing.
I agree that more than ninety percent of Christians believe it is acceptable to God for them toeat contaminated/polluted meat.

But, like it states in Matthew 24:5 Satan deceives the many, not the few. And Rev. 12:9 states that Satan deceives the whole world.

The percentage that believes a certain way means absolutely nothing. The majority used to believe that slavery was a good thing.

Christ's Church is pictured as a small flock, often persecuted, and never large and politically powerful.

Mat. 7-13 says that wide and broad is the way that leads to destruction, any many (not the few) take this path.

Mark 7:1-5 makes it absolutely clear that the theme is "unwashed hands." If Jesus had told the Pharisees that He had made a terrible mistake in Lev 11 & Deut 14 where He had condemned the eating of unclean animals they would have stoned Him.

For the Pharisees it was about ritual purity. In their beady little minds it wasn't about love.

It has been awhile since I've looked over my notes about activities prohibited by the Pharisees on the Sabbath, but when given the opportunity I will do so

Right off my head you might check thenazarene.com or www.angelfire.com.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2019 7:56 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2019 5:56 PM candle2 has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6618
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 83 of 88 (847484)
01-23-2019 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by candle2
01-23-2019 10:42 AM


Re: What Would Jesus Declare In 2019?
candle2 writes:

Absolutely Dr. S was shocked. She was stunned beyond belief,

Crap, provide your evidence.

which is why she ran so many tests on the fossil.

She ran so many tests because it was a totally new and unexpected discovery. It's what science does when it gets surprising results, it tests them, and re-tests them. A scientist's career depends on it.

Eventually (after denying what she was observing time and time and time again) she was forced to admit her findings.

Eventually after convincing herself that the findings were correct, she published her results and laid herself open to the entire scientific community proving her wrong. Like ALL scientists she would have been utterly overjoyed when she made the discovery and was proven correct. It will be the highlight of her scientific career.

The evolutionist community was also forced to admit that soft tissue was present in the fossil.

It sure was - it was repeatable evidence.

But, instead of utilizing common sense and admitting the obvious (that the fossil was just a few thousand years old), they come up with explanations that make them look stupid.

Woah there boy! The evidence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones does not conflict with the age of dinosaurs. That evidence is different and comprehensive. You didn't read the explanation of why the soft tissue survived did you?

Also, coal formations found in Rock strata, dated (by these same fools) to be hundreds of millions of year old, contained significant amount of Carbon-14.

Isn't it telling that these same fools date Rock strata by the fossil found in them, and they date the fossil by the rocks they are found in. Talk about circular reasoning.

This has also been refuted many, many times and I'm not doing it again here as you're using these old nonsenses to cover for your continued lack of answers on the thread your posting in which is about contaminated food. If you wish to talk about it, open another thread and we'll put you straight.

In the meantime, stick to the subject here and provide your evidence for the claim that our food is contaminated.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by candle2, posted 01-23-2019 10:42 AM candle2 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12049
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 84 of 88 (847531)
01-23-2019 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
01-23-2019 12:01 PM


Re: A Cult Is A Cult
ringo writes:

It is my business to tell you that 2+2=4 and if you claim that 2+2=5 it is my business to tell you that that is fantasy.

Your error is in assuming that existence of God can be disproven mathematically. Neither of us will win that one, despite our claims.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 01-23-2019 12:01 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 01-23-2019 3:32 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16147
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 85 of 88 (847536)
01-23-2019 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Phat
01-23-2019 3:29 PM


Re: A Cult Is A Cult
Phat writes:

Your error is in assuming that existence of God can be disproven mathematically.


I didn't do that.

I made a distinction between reality and fantasy. Unless you can prove that God is a reality - and you can't - He is a fantasy.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 01-23-2019 3:29 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1367
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 86 of 88 (847571)
01-23-2019 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by candle2
01-23-2019 1:17 PM


Your PROOF: Jesus' position on hand washing, pork THEN the Rabbinical/Mosaic reasons.
You said this:

quote:

Hand washing was a tradition of the Pharisees. It was ceremonially done in a prescribed manner that had nothing to do with sanitation.

Jesus knows the importance of good hygieneore than any of us. But this was about a ritual, nothing more.


quote:

For the Pharisees it was about ritual purity. In their beady little minds it wasn't about love.


I am asking for proof.

Your bare web address for a modern religion (1911 origin) is a joke.

I am talking about the claims you made about the very strict 1st century followers of the Torah: The Pharisees.

You keep saying that the pork issue was about health (with ZERO evidence), yet you deny the hand washing was about health.

I haven't found any evidence to back up your (very contradictory) claims.

The pork ban had 0% to do with health.

However:

The various hand washing rules might possibly have some health-related components.

Here is one translation of rabbinical food rules WHICH MIGHT RELATE TO HEALTH.

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tosefta )

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannaim )

Jacob Neusner has had questions raised about his translations.

quote:

Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism, The, Volume One: Introduction ...
By Jacob Neusner
2000

p.73

T. 5:8 One should not take a bite from a piece [of bread] and return it to the [common] plate, on account of mortal danger [to others who may thereby be infected by communicable diseases].


Here is another from sefaria.org, with actual rabbinical text parallel.

https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Berakhot.5?lang=bi

quote:

A person should not take a bite from a piece [of bread] and then put it back into the [common] dish [with bread], because of danger.

The relevant part is the end: בקערה מפני סכנת נפשות.

In the dish IS בקערה

from the face or to keep away IS מפני

danger or mortal danger IS סכנת

of souls or lives IS נפשות

QUESTION

How can you contradict yourself, and say the food rules in the first-century TRADITIONS aren't (at all?) about health , when it comes to the people who followed the LAW OF MOSES (strictly as a way of life), yet you claim that the original LAW OF MOSES was all about health - when it came to the parts that involved food?

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by candle2, posted 01-23-2019 1:17 PM candle2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by candle2, posted 01-24-2019 7:16 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
candle2
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 87 of 88 (847603)
01-24-2019 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by LamarkNewAge
01-23-2019 5:56 PM


Re: Your PROOF: Jesus' position on hand washing, pork THEN the Rabbinical/Mosaic reasons.
Are you accusing Jesus of disobeying Himself by not washing His hands before eating? If there was a command from heaven that one must wash his hands before eating, it would have come from Jesus.

Jesus is the member of the God family that created everything. John 1:3,10 ; Eph 3:9 ; Col 1:16.

John 1:18 states that no man has seen God (the Father) at any time (not Abraham nor Moses). The Son hath declared Him.

John 17:26 Jesus said about His Father "And I have declared (Gnorizo--made known) Him.

Jesus, in stunning clarity, in John 5:37 states that no one has heard the Father's voice at any time.

Again, in John 6:46 Jesus makes it clear that no man had ever seen the Father.

In Exodus 24:9-11 seventy elders of Israel saw God (Jesus).

In Exodus 33:18-23 Moses was allowed to see the backside of God (Jesus) in all His glory.

There are numerous instances in the OO in which men have either seen God or heard Him speak, but it wasn't the Father. It was Jesus.

In Exodus 13:21-22 we see that God went before the Israelites in a cloud.

Now read 1Cor.10:1-4. Jesus was the member of the God family who was in the cloud.

When Moses asked God (Ex. 3:14) how to answer the Israelites when they asked who had sent him Jesus answered him "l AM that I AM. I AM has sent me."

When confronted by the Pharisees in John 8:52-59 they said that He was not yet 50 years old, so how could He possibly know Abraham.

He answered..."before Abraham was, I AM." They tried to stone Him because they understood what this implied.

When the guards came to arrest Jesus in John 18:1-6, He asked them whom they were seeking. They replied Jesus of Nazareth. When Jesus answered "I AM," (He is in italics. It was added by the translators) they went backwards and fell to the ground.

Jesus referred to Himself as I AM:
The bread of light;
The light of the world;
The door;
Good shepherd;
The way, truth, and the light;
Etc.....

In the OT God referred to Himself the same way.

In John 20:2 Thomas on seeing Jesus' scars cried out, "my Lord and my God."

The first "face to face" contact that we will have with the Father is after the Great White Throne Judgement.

Mark 7 is simply a tradition of the Pharisees involving not only hands but pots, cups, tables, and brasen vessels. It was a ritualistic washing.

In verses 7-8, Jesus condemns them for their tradition, which He calls "tradition of men."

When Jesus declared some animals unfit for human consumption, He didn't make a mistake that He have to later correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-23-2019 5:56 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-24-2019 10:37 PM candle2 has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1367
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 88 of 88 (847665)
01-24-2019 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by candle2
01-24-2019 7:16 AM


I see the Roman Empire laws (Council of Nicaea especially) are taking over the topic.
I was attempting to have a discussion, based on the views of Jewish and Christian folks IN THE FIRST CENTURY.

Since the 4th century Roman Empire impositions keep coming up, it needs to be shown that this Roman Empire theology was not 1st century theology at all (the Council of Nicea actually added new twists and turns that didn't even exist in the second century - to make the issue of the mutant Jesus being "God" IN ADDITION TO JEHOVAH somehow compatible with monotheism), but a doctrine imposed by the Roman Empire.

I just got a book, from a great scholar, about Augustine, and by coincidence I found a good online review that describes the book's description of the legal situation in the Roman Empire AFTER IT RE FOUND NICAEA in 379-381.

quote:

The last written words of Augustine, of the five million surviving from his pen, are these, addressed to the "Pelagian" Julian of Eclanum (c. Iul. Imp. 6.41): "When you deny the evil of the things that are evil and do not connect their origin to the sin of the first man, you don't make them not be evil. But by believing that their evil nature makes them coeternal with the eternal good, you are blindly and detestably supporting the Manichees, and there's no point to your attacking them, because in reality you are their wretched supporter." In their grinding, wearying slanging match, Augustine was returning the compliment: Julian had claimed that Augustine was still spouting Manichean doctrine.

....

BeDuhn is also excellent on context in an important way: by showing how ignorant Augustine himself was of the context within which his story played out. BeDuhn emphasizes the creation of "Nicene" and "Catholic" Christianity in 379-381 CE and following, when Theodosius came to the throne. The emperor's church made the surprising choice of going back to the Nicene formulation that had been all but abandoned, even by Constantine, and using it to create an approved form of Christianity that passed under what was now a brand name of "Catholic." The word had been a generic creed word for a long time, but from the 380s forward, perhaps drawing on usage already coming into play in Africa to differentiate Caecilianists from Donatists, it appears as a label for the kind of Christianity that emperors could approve of. That relaunched brand of Christianity, so to speak, was what Augustine stumbled upon in Milan.2

The "early" Augustine, the one, that is, already baptized and writing Christian books, was still woefully ignorant. He got to be who he was by going off by himself, first to Cassiciacum, then Tagaste, without a teacher, without a library, without guidance. He made stuff up. As late as 391, when he was being press-ganged into ordination, there is no sign that he knew much about going to church or even that he had been to church at all since his baptism. He was entirely obtuse on resurrection. Christ for the becoming-Catholic Augustine is not a redeemer or an atoner, but an awakener and informer. Other surprises lay ahead for Augustine the cleric: miracles, infant baptism, millennial expectations. He swallowed most of them.

Perhaps the most important new argument in BeDuhn and one that will be tested intensely is his claim that Augustine in the early 380s really did have good reason to leave Africa, one step ahead of the law. The standing position on this issue has been that he left two years or so ahead of a crackdown on Manichees, that his enemies claimed he had been fleeing that suppression, but that Augustine was really just innocent and lucky. BeDuhn discounts innocence and luck (1.135ff, 1.218ff). There was a new law of 383 threatening increased pursuit of Manichees. Augustine could not have foreseen that this law would not be enforced in Africa until the proconsul Messianus did so in 386. When Augustine left Africa, he did so as a Manichee and lived with Manichees in Rome into 384. BeDuhn shows that when the crackdown came in Africa, Augustine was indeed named, so he reads the 386/87 winter's retreat to Cassiciacum (and the resignation from his public position) as at least in part motivated by a desire to lay low. A public amnesty from Theodosius in January 387 was followed by Augustine's reappearance in Milan a month or two later as a baptismal candidate. The evidence for this argument is thinner than one could wish and the attachment to Augustine's saintly honesty is so intense among many readers that there will be fierce resistance. I accept that the departure from Africa was motivated as BeDuhn says and take under consideration the remainder of the argument.

....

The great set piece in the second volume is his discussion of the debate in 392 with Fortunatus the Manichee (2.122ff). In 392, we still have the Augustine who makes stuff up. He went after Fortunatus in a public debate arguing on grounds of reason, but promptly had his head handed to him on the first day of debate on grounds of scripture. BeDuhn is lucid and even funny on the "all-nighter" Augustine had to pull between days of the debate just to rescue something from scripture to come back with. He pulled it off about as well as the best student papers written during all-nighters do. The debate ended messily. Fortunatus, BeDuhn argues, was happy to have made his point and escape arrest. Augustine wrote it up and crowed victory. But this was the day that started the turn towards what emerged a few years later as his distinctive, pessimistic reading of Paul. BeDuhn 2.163: "Hence, he may have been the last one to recognize the degree to which he gradually reconstructed Fortunatus's reading of Paul and made himself vulnerable to the charge of leading the Catholic Church in Africa in a Manichaean direction." The things Julian of Eclanum would later attack in Augustine as Manichean do not go back to his Manichean days, but result from focusing his attention and defending his position from this moment in 392. His firmly orthodox Christianity was shaped, defensively, in a way that would do as much justice as he felt he had to do to the Manichee position. That accommodation would baffle those who did not have Augustine's Manichee past and would read to them as simple Manicheism. They were not as wrong as Augustine would like to think.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2014/2014-05-53.html


Roman Empire Catholic Christianity has been imposed, and ardent defenders of the popular religion (like Faith) will keep on telling us that their Roman Empire "Christianity" is somehow based on the teachings of the Semites like Jesus, James, Paul, Peter, etc., and they will strongly deny/ignore the European government invention of their faith.

Faith, additionally, denies that the Roman Empire persecuted non-Nicaean Christians.

The facts speak otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by candle2, posted 01-24-2019 7:16 AM candle2 has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019