dzheremi
Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
- Aug 27, 2014
- 13,618
- 13,801
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
Again, the historical record as we have it seems to point to a Babylonian origin of the 7 day week. There's nothing that says that this excludes it having been adopted by the Jews -- in fact, that itself seems pretty likely given that the Jews were present in Babylon since the aftermath of the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 BC, and it is the Babylonian exile which is often argued to be the impetus for the compilation of the Torah in the first place (including by professors at Utah State University, interestingly enough), so it would not be at all surprising if it were to show some Babylonian influences.
As far this proving that He is somehow 'inside time', sure. That's as not-revolutionary as saying He is inside His creation by virtue of being described as enlightening the firmament by placing the stars in the sky or some such similar thing. It entirely depends on what you mean when you use such language. In neither case does things being written down in this way determine (for Christians, anyway) some sort of principle regarding God's physical location or physical dimensions (read: saying He places the stars in the sky does not mean that He has hands and is physically moving some 'star material' or whatever to a place in the sky with those big God-hands; that may be how Mormons consider it appropriate to talk about God, but I think most mature Christians understand the use of metaphor and analogy). By the same token, the designation of a 7 day 'week' in which God works and rests in the text of Genesis does not need to be understood literally to mean "seven consecutive 24-hour days" like we understand our weeks to be on a modern calendar. This is why I referenced 2 Peter and Psalm 90, since they both do away with the idea that such limitations apply to God, Who is infinite.
Good for those specific black people then, I guess. My only point is that it is really not good to condemn or talk badly about other churches and certainly about all of the rest of Christianity as though it was so racist when your religion took a much longer time than most others to grasp the basic fact that there's nothing a black person is 'not worthy' of or to be kept from on account of their blackness. And if we look at it historically, there is a case to be made that no mainstream Christian Church prior to the beginning of European colonialism (which only began around 1500 AD) showed any evidence of using the Bible or Christianity more generally to enforce racist prohibitions on black people being in the Church at every level (people may have been racist in other ways, as in the case of St. Moses in Egypt that I believe I mentioned earlier, but oddly it did not stop them from also recognizing black saints, being shepherded by black priests and bishops, etc.; recall that the Kingdom of Axum in what is today Ethiopia and Eritrea was converted to Christianity in the time of King 'Ezana in c. 330 AD, which was approximately twelve centuries before Europeans would begin showing up in Africa with the idea that they can take these 'primitive' peoples' land and goods, or convert them to their religion/church by force...a goal which brought the Italians only ruin when they tried it in Ethiopia not once but twice, first at Adwa in the 1890s and again in the 1930s under Mussolini. Hmm.)
Hence, again, it can't be used as evidence of a worldwide apostasy! It was written to specific churches in Asia, about issues they were having at those specific locations. As you have rightly surmised, if there were similar problems at other places, they wouldn't come up until later, since it took a while for Christianity to be defused outside of the Mediterranean -- though not as long as some people might think. A lot depended on how close these other places were to the then-centers of Christianity. This is why Christianity was present in what is now Iraq before it was anywhere in Northern Europe. The 2nd century presence of Christianity in Hatra (180 miles NE of Baghdad, in the Nineveh governate), confirmed through a collection of crosses found there (see al-Aswad in The Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 14, 2014, 79-89) predates the religion's verifiable arrival in Britain sometime in the 4th century (e.g., the presence of a British delegation at the Council of Rimini in 353), in Scotland and Ireland a little while later in the 4th century, etc.
So you're right in so far as this scripture is concerned (as obviously Iraq is not Turkey or Syria, though they are all at least part of Mesopotamia), but "a little beyond" needs to be qualified by establishing when you are establishing your cutoff line for what counts in terms of the spread of the religion.
How?
The seven churches of Asia were literally seven different churches in Asia Minor. They're all relatively close together in one corner of what is now Turkey. That's what the "Asia" means in this context -- Asia Minor, not all of Asia.
Heck, places elsewhere on the other side of the of Asia that we know had Christian churches by that time like Galatia (remember St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians?) are not warned in St. John's Revelation. Neither was Antioch, the place where Jesus' followers were first called Christians.
Where's your worldwide apostasy now? It can't even be shown to be present in other regions that are right next to the one that is actually receiving the attention in the scripture you are using to supposedly prove your point!
Corinth is a place, and Diotrephes is a person. What are you even trying to say here?
No there really can't be. Again, you're ignoring every place that isn't warned in St. John's Revelation. What about them? And I didn't even mention the other places where Christianity was in the first century (i.e., contemporaneous with the writing of Revelation), like Alexandria in Egypt, or India. What about them? What about Cyprus? There are an awful lot of places that aren't addressed directly in this warning.
Can you tell me what this has to do with with anything in my reply?
I'm not going anywhere with you or your religion.
I'm already well aware of Christianity, thank you.
Upvote
0
It seems like that should be the last thing they'd want to do, but then as an organization they've always been more about PR than INRI.
