C*hristianity.... Origins?

[ChazakEmunah]

Okay, before I open my big mouth and get myself into trouble, I figured I'd better open a thread here.

So here's the deal. I'd like to hear from everyone here where they believe C*hristianity (AS WE KNOW IT TODAY) originated. I would like to see each person provide verifiable historical sources to support their position. Ie... Where do C*hristian beliefs come from?


As always, let's keep it nice and civil. :thumbsup:


*Oh, and yes I will be contributing my opinions as well. I just want to hear from others first.

[Tkjjc]

If the Bible counts as a historic source,,then this is the first mention of Christians

Acts 11
The Church at Antioch

19So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone.
20But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
21And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.
22The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.
23Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord;
24for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.
25And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul;
26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

[muffler dragon]

Okay, before I open my big mouth and get myself into trouble, I figured I'd better open a thread here.

So here's the deal. I'd like to hear from everyone here where they believe C*hristianity (as we know it today) originated. I would like to see each person provide verifiable historical sources to support their position.


As always, let's keep it nice and civil. :thumbsup:


*Oh, and yes I will be contributing my opinions as well. I just want to hear from others first.


The "where" is easy IMO: Judea.
The "how" and "why" is much more intriguing.

[ChazakEmunah]

If the Bible counts as a historic source,,then this is the first mention of Christians

Acts 11
The Church at Antioch

19So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone.
20But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
21And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.
22The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.
23Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord;
24for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.
25And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul;
26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.


That's good and all, but what I am looking for is the specific origins of C*hristianity and C*hristian practices as specifically stated by ancient and modern historians, not just the name or title "C*hristian."

[ChazakEmunah]

The "where" is easy IMO: Judea.
The "how" and "why" is much more intriguing.

Okay, that's a start. Now what historical evidence can you share that led you to this conclusion? {This is really what I want to see. Hard-core historical evidence for each person's position}

[muffler dragon]

Okay, that's a start. Now what historical evidence can you share that led you to this conclusion? {This is really want I see. Hard-core historical evidence for each person's position}

Hmmm... what source materials are acceptable?

[ChazakEmunah]

Hmmm... what source materials are acceptable?
Pretty much anything, so long the source has been/can be easily verified as a reliable one.

[BereanTodd]

The book of Acts gives it strait-forward. The Lord Yeshua ascended, the apostles were gifted with the Holy Spirit, and the church spread just as it was prophesied in Acts 1:8 - first in Yerushalayim, then in all of Judea and Summeria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Specifically spreading to Turkey, Greece and Rome through Paul, to Crete and northern Africa through Barnabas, etc, etc.

[mpossoff]

Hi I think you also need to look at outside sources besides out Bibles.

I read 'Restoration: Returning the Torah of God to the Disciples of Jesus' by Lancaster from FFOZ and in the beginning of the book he points out some very basic yet very important writings from other documents that shows how 'Christianity' came to be.

In short because I don't have the book with me know...

It's called anti-semetism. If I am correct it first started with the Sabbath. There was persecution with those who kept the Sabbath, both Jews and Gentiles. This appears to have started after the first generation of believers and the Apostle's died off. Paul warns us that this has already started that he see's it starting to happen, 'the mystery of lawlessness' best paraphrased as the mystery of Torahless.

What was the most interesting synopsis of the book was Luther. Luther thought that the Reformation movement would convert more Jews to Christianity. And as a reaction of Jews not converting to Christianity in writings he denounces the Jews and the synagogues.

I don't know if this is true or not but in the book it is said that Hitler was influenced by Luther as his writings were found in Hitler's headquarters or bunker. There were writing from Luther saying 'the synagogues should be burned down' and other writings in relation to anti-semetism as a reaction of Jews not converting to Christianity.

As Lancaster points out it was anti-semetism resulting in the mystery of lawlessness(Torahlessness)... "We don't need to do that 'Jewish stuff anymore'.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Hi I think you also need to look at outside sources besides out Bibles.

I read 'Restoration: Returning the Torah of God to the Disciples of Jesus' by Lancaster from FFOZ and in the beginning of the book he points out some very basic yet very important writings from other documents that shows how 'Christianity' came to be.

In short because I don't have the book with me know...

It's called anti-semetism. If I am correct it first started with the Sabbath. There was persecution with those who kept the Sabbath, both Jews and Gentiles. This appears to have started after the first generation of believers and the Apostle's died off. Paul warns us that this has already started that he see's it starting to happen, 'the mystery of lawlessness' best paraphrased as the mystery of Torahless.

What was the most interesting synopsis of the book was Luther. Luther thought that the Reformation movement would convert more Jews to Christianity. And as a reaction of Jews not converting to Christianity in writings he denounces the Jews and the synagogues.

I don't know if this is true or not but in the book it is said that Hitler was influenced by Luther as his writings were found in Hitler's headquarters or bunker. There were writing from Luther saying 'the synagogues should be burned down' and other writings in relation to anti-semetism as a reaction of Jews not converting to Christianity.

As Lancaster points out it was anti-semetism resulting in the mystery of lawlessness(Torahlessness)... "We don't need to do that 'Jewish stuff anymore'.

Marc
Finally! Someone who is willing to look outside the NT! You're on the right track Marc. Can you provide historical documentation to support your position?

Oh and yes, I've also read that Hitler (may his name and memory be blotted out) was influenced in part by Martin Luther.

[ChazakEmunah]

The book of Acts gives it strait-forward. The Lord Yeshua ascended, the apostles were gifted with the Holy Spirit, and the church spread just as it was prophesied in Acts 1:8 - first in Yerushalayim, then in all of Judea and Summeria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. Specifically spreading to Turkey, Greece and Rome through Paul, to Crete and northern Africa through Barnabas, etc, etc.
Again, this is good and all, but this does not give me what I am looking for. I want to see to historical documentation for the origins of C*hristianity and C*hristian practices.

[mpossoff]

Finally! Someone who is willing to look outside the NT! You're on the right track Marc. Can you provide historical documentation to support your position?

Oh and yes, I've also read that Hitler (may his name and memory be blotted out) was influenced in part by Martin Luther.

You see if we use Acts as a historical referance it stops in history. The Apostle's and early believers are still present. So you are not able to get a history on Christianity from scripture because it stops at a 'moment' in history.

Again what really opened my eyes is Paul's warning about the mystery of Torahlessness. And this seemed to take off starting at a 'moment' in history.

Well first the credit goes to Lancaster for providing the outside sources.

In the book Lancaster referances the writings with a short paragraph and or paraphrase.

Like I said I don't have the book with me because I did lend it to someone.

Possibly someone here as the book?

Marc

[BereanTodd]

Again, this is good and all, but this does not give me what I am looking for. I want to see to historical documentation for the origins of C*hristianity and C*hristian practices.

It IS the origins of Christianity, and Luke and his book of Acts are recognized as being of the highest order of historical accuracy.

Now if you want to discuss the origin of modern Christian forms of worship and practice, as it seems to me from your responses to some others, yes, starting in the late first century, and especially in the early/mid second, and again in the fourth around the time of Constantine there was a concerted effort to de-Judaize Christianity if you will. To remove any influence of Judaism whatsoever. I do not have time to provide references at this moment as I am late for work, but I will check back later and see where the thread has gone.

[ChazakEmunah]

It IS the origins of Christianity, and Luke and his book of Acts are recognized as being of the highest order of historical accuracy.
Okay, but all Acts tells me is that there were a group of people that came to be called C*hristians. Do you hold this to be THE origin of C*hristianity? Because I just don't see how it equates to C*hristian beliefs.

Perhaps I should have been more descriptive in my OP. I will edit it accordingly. I am looking for the origins of modern C*hristian beliefs. IE... C*hristianity.

Now if you want to discuss the origin of modern Christian forms of worship and practice, as it seems to me from your responses to some others, yes, starting in the late first century, and especially in the early/mid second, and again in the fourth around the time of Constantine there was a concerted effort to de-Judaize Christianity if you will. To remove any influence of Judaism whatsoever. I do not have time to provide references at this moment as I am late for work, but I will check back later and see where the thread has gone.
Okay, now we are getting on-track. If as you say, C*hristianity is Jewish in origin, I would like to see documentation to support your substation.


To All, this thread is about historical documentation. If you have it, or know how to research it, please post it.

[Steve Petersen]

Christianity 'as we know it today' didn't suddenly happen. It developed over time. Therefore I think you will find it nearly impossible to find a point in history where it became what it is, unless that point is 'Today.'

[ChazakEmunah]

Is it really that hard to do? All I'm asking is historical documentation for C*hristian beliefs. I know it's out there, I've read it. I just want to see if anyone else will take or has taken the initiative to read it too.

[simchat_torah]

Luke and his book of Acts are recognized as being of the highest order of historical accuracy.
By whom?

[simchat_torah]

Chazzak,

How about if I show you a mirror, eh? :)

To All, this thread is about historical documentation. If you have it, or know how to research it, please post it.
Could you do the same? Maybe post some of the documenation you are referring to, show us what you think are the origins?

thanks,
Yafet

[Steve Petersen]

http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Christianity-Antioch-Social-Scientific-Separation/dp/0415359597/ref=sr_1_4/105-4999735-6068456?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192140011&sr=1-4

[simchat_torah]

A much better (and very rare) book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Nazarene-Jewish-Christianity-Testament-Disappearance/dp/9652237981

[ChazakEmunah]

Chazzak,

How about if I show you a mirror, eh? :)


Could you do the same? Maybe post some of the documenation you are referring to, show us what you think are the origins?

thanks,
Yafet
No, no... Not a mirror.... It will crack! lol...

It's getting late, so how about I just tell you some of the sources I've used?

Eusebius, EH; James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue; H.J. Lawlor, Eusebiana, Essays on the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus; R. Hayam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity.

Those cover the actual origin of C*hristianity itself. I will post more later on the research I've conducted on C*hristian beliefs.

[debi b]

By golly i'm a thinkin all one needs to do is read some of the documents that the councils hammered out and one will get a pretty good idear of when things became written in stone.....

Other things like Christmas did not become accepted as a celebrated holiday in the good ol US of A until around the 1800's takes a bit more work ;)

The Reformation and the 1800s
During the Reformation, Protestants condemned Christmas celebration as "trappings of popery" and the "rags of the Beast". The Catholic Church responded by promoting the festival in an even more religiously oriented form. Following the Parliamentary victory over King Charles I during the English Civil War, England's Puritan rulers banned Christmas, in 1647. Pro-Christmas rioting broke out in several cities, and for several weeks Canterbury was controlled by the rioters, who decorated doorways with holly and shouted royalist slogans.[28] The Restoration of 1660 ended the ban, but most of the Anglican clergy still disapproved of Christmas celebrations, using Protestant arguments.

In Colonial America, the Puritans of New England disapproved of Christmas; its celebration was outlawed in Boston from 1659 to 1681. At the same time, Christian residents of Virginia and New York observed the holiday freely. Christmas fell out of favor in the United States after the American Revolution, when it was considered an English custom.

By the 1820s, sectarian tension in England had eased and British writers began to worry that Christmas was dying out. They imagined Tudor Christmas as a time of heartfelt celebration, and efforts were made to revive the holiday. Charles Dickens' book A Christmas Carol, published in 1843, played a major role in reinventing Christmas as a holiday emphasizing family, goodwill, and compassion over communal celebration and hedonistic excess.[29]

Interest in Christmas in America was revived in the 1820s...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Day#The_Reformation_and_the_1800s

[GerTzedek]

By golly i'm a thinkin all one needs to do is read some of the documents that the councils hammered out and one will get a pretty good idear of when things became written in stone.....

Other things like Christmas did not become accepted as a celebrated holiday in the good ol US of A until around the 1800's takes a bit more work ;)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Day#The_Reformation_and_the_1800s
As the secular and widely celebrated holiday? Yes, in the 1800's. But as a church feast day, Christ-Mass, or the Feast of the Nativity, has been around for ages. Basically many Reform churches avoided celebration of Christmas NOT because it was pagan, but because they tended to avoid everything "Catholic," even the good stuff. In the 1800's two works of literature were published which changed this forever. Correct me if I get this wrong. One was "The Night Before Christmas," which gave St Nicholaus his modern make-over. The other was Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol, which basically showed you up as the Scrooge you were if you couldn't bring yourself to enjoy the festivity of the holy day.

[mpossoff]

Here's a snippet:

Ignatius was considered to be an "auditor" and "disciple" of John. Ignatius pioneered the Greek-based Christian religion and was instrumental in the assimilation of paganism into early Christianity, packaging Christianity for a Greco-Roman Hellenic culture. Ignatius saw Jewish followers of Y'shua as nothing more than legalists and Judaizers. He despised the observance of Shabbat in favor of his Ishtar sunrise "Lord's day" Sun-Day teachings. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the Ignatian letters to modern Christian institutions. He was a key player in the development of the modern Christo-Pagan church, promoting the "infallibility of the church" and the "universal church". If there ever was a hierarchy loving "Christian" with a Hellenistic autocratic mindset, it was Ignatius who gave himself the nickname Theophoros (the God-bearer) and taught that deacons, presbyters and bishops were a separate category of people, high and lifted up, and infused with Jesus-like authority to be lords over people. Christians consider Ignatius as one of the all time biggest movers and shakers of the all-Gentile church. He strongly instructed that "without the bishop's supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted". He also believed Mary to be the eternal virgin mother of God.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Here's a snippet:



Marc
Well done Marc! Could you post the source for that?

[Steve Petersen]

Zetterholm really sets the table for this topic:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CPxeDHQv_9sC&dq=Magnus+Zetterholm&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fsourceid%3Dnavclient%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2007-33,GGLG:en%26q%3D%2522magnus%2Bzetterholm%253A&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1&cad=author-navigational

[français]

A man by the name of jesus was born from his jewish mom and a roman soldier. He was born out of wedlock.

He later went somewhere, who knows.. Some say india. Others say lebanon. Others say he stayed in palestine. Either way, for a lot of his life, he was a boring dude.

Had a hookup with a high jewish official. This gave him power. He claimed to be the Moshiach.

He gets crucified.

James leads the church for 40 years. We have little records of Jame sthough. So then there was probably a cover up by paul or something. he came, made up the ascension, made up the resserection, etc, and started the grassroots. steals pagan aspects from mithraism, and others. puts them all together and you have chrsitianity.

the poor, and slaves convert in the roman empire, because at that time it was actually a descent religion compared to others.

nero burns rome down while playing the violin, because of his mental problems. blames it on christians. christians heavily persecuted.

later on, constantine prays to all these different gods to ask for him to win a victory. he has a silly dream and puts a cross on the shileds. they win. he finds it some miracle.

then catholicism starts, an organized denomination.

that is my view!

*Disclaimer: I am by no means trying to be mwan, or offend anyone, nor am I trying to start an argument. Christianity is a great religion and I mean no disrespect.

[simchat_torah]

Chazzak, mind sharing with everyone where you think the origins of Xianity sprouted? (I have used the X so as not to offend you :) )

[ChazakEmunah]

Chazzak, mind sharing with everyone where you think the origins of Xianity sprouted? (I have used the X so as not to offend you :) )
The short answer? With Paul...


The long answer? I'll be back later with details.... :)

[ChazakEmunah]

Okay, now let me share with you all how I believe C*hristianity came into being.


Ever since the death of their Ribi in 33 CE (approx), the Netzarim had functioned as a legitmate sub-group of the P'rushim sect. Leadership was hereditary, therefore the head of their Beit Din was the Ribi's brother, Ya'akov. Some time around 50 CE, a man named Paul joined their group and was accepted as a leader. There was constant tension between Paul and the Netzarim leadership and he was reprimanded on two separate occasions.

Eventually, Ya'akov's influence grew, and he was perceived as a threat to the Tzadokim, so they had him killed in 63 CE. Around the same time, a person called Toveiut made a bid to become the next head of the Netzarim. It was rejected and they instead opted to follow the hereditary line. During this same period many people left the Netzarim and went of their own accord (not fled) to Pella, perhaps even following the one called Toveiut.

Around 98CE (approx) a non-Jewish man by the name of Ignatius became the leader of the Netzarim in Antioch (mostly non-Jewish Gerim). He openly taught against the Torah and all things Jewish. His opinions were widely accepted among the non-Jews. So much so, that when the Romans crushed the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135CE and forbid any Jew from setting foot in Yerushalayim, the fate of the Netzarim was sealed, and C*hristianity as we know it took root with the first non-Jewish "bishop."




*** Sources are listed in post #21***

[GerTzedek]

ChazaK:

While there is good information in what you wrote, I would not write off Ignatius so easily. He studied directly under the Apostle John, and according to Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) it was Peter himself who appointed Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch. Remember that ordinations were scarce -- the idea was to lay hands ONLY upon those who could be trusted to teach as they were taught.

[Steve Petersen]

ChazaK:

While there is good information in what you wrote, I would not write off Ignatius so easily. He studied directly under the Apostle John, and according to Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) it was Peter himself who appointed Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch. Remember that ordinations were scarce -- the idea was to lay hands ONLY upon those who could be trusted to teach as they were taught.

There is only church tradition to back this up. BTW, what was Ignatius' opinion about Torah? or Jews for that matter?

[Steve Petersen]

It is hard to believe that the guy who said this:

Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.... If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity — Ignatius to the Magnesians 8:1, 9:1-2, 10:3, Lightfoot translation

is a disciple of a disiple of the man who said this:

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

[ChazakEmunah]

It is hard to believe that the guy who said this:

Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.... If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity — Ignatius to the Magnesians 8:1, 9:1-2, 10:3, Lightfoot translation

is a disciple of a disiple of the man who said this:

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Thanks for the reference Steve! See, we can agree on some things. ;)

[ChazakEmunah]

ChazaK:

While there is good information in what you wrote, I would not write off Ignatius so easily. He studied directly under the Apostle John, and according to Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) it was Peter himself who appointed Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch. Remember that ordinations were scarce -- the idea was to lay hands ONLY upon those who could be trusted to teach as they were taught.
Ah, but have you ever read any of his works? His, and many of the "Church Fathers" are littered with miso-Judaic references. Steve posted a good example of what I'm talking about.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Okay, before I open my big mouth and get myself into trouble, I figured I'd better open a thread here.

So here's the deal. I'd like to hear from everyone here where they believe C*hristianity (AS WE KNOW IT TODAY) originated. I would like to see each person provide verifiable historical sources to support their position. Ie... Where do C*hristian beliefs come from?


As always, let's keep it nice and civil. :thumbsup:


*Oh, and yes I will be contributing my opinions as well. I just want to hear from others first. Christianity has it's origins in the Torah and books of the Prophets.

[ChazakEmunah]

Christianity has it's origins in the Torah and books of the Prophets.
That could not be farther from the truth. Have you had a chance to read through all 4 pages of this thread?

[visionary]

ChazaK:

While there is good information in what you wrote, I would not write off Ignatius so easily. He studied directly under the Apostle John, and according to Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) it was Peter himself who appointed Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch. Remember that ordinations were scarce -- the idea was to lay hands ONLY upon those who could be trusted to teach as they were taught.Antioch Bishop Ignatius is an interesting character.
Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.

More than one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers have given credence, though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the child whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm According to this article, he was the child on the savior's knee, remember now this is about 20 years before he was born that he did this.

[mpossoff]

ChazaK:

While there is good information in what you wrote, I would not write off Ignatius so easily. He studied directly under the Apostle John, and according to Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) it was Peter himself who appointed Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch. Remember that ordinations were scarce -- the idea was to lay hands ONLY upon those who could be trusted to teach as they were taught.

Ger let's go back in time. Antioch was a big city. You are a gentile and going to Antioch. Are you going to ask "What is the day of worship" or "Do we worship in a church or synagogue".

In the Apostolic scriptures it's 'ironic' the question of the Sabbath is never asked, never. Why?

Marc

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

It is hard to believe that the guy who said this:

Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.... If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity — Ignatius to the Magnesians 8:1, 9:1-2, 10:3, Lightfoot translation

is a disciple of a disiple of the man who said this:

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. In the bible the Lords day is Saturday, in the occult the lords day is Sunday. That is 'lord Satan;" Satan was also called Lord. I am not making this up, this is the truth. Yahshua's resurrection did not come about until after Sunday evening. Luke 23:55. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath s in obedience to the commandment. The word Sabbath should have been translated as a plurl, because that Saturday and Sunday were Holy days, and no work was to be done on those days. And that is according to scripture.

[visionary]

Christianity has it's origins in the Torah and books of the Prophets.
Some people actually believe those roots dried up and blew away when Judaism was separated from the faith. I am with you on this one.

[visionary]

In the bible the Lords day is Saturday, in the occult the lords day is Sunday. That is 'lord Satan;" Satan was also called Lord. I am not making this up, this is the truth. Yahshua's resurrection did not come about until after Sunday evening. Luke 23:55. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath s in obedience to the commandment. The word Sabbath should have been translated as a plurl, because that Saturday and Sunday were Holy days, and no work was to be done on those days. And that is according to scripture.So you are saying

Yeshua died on friday, Passover
Yeshua rested on Sabbath
Yeshua did not rise on first fruits but on monday??? "after sunday evening"

[mpossoff]

Some people actually believe those roots dried up and blew away when Judaism was separated from the faith. I am with you on this one.

It appears after the first believers and the Apostle's died off this started to happen. Paul refers this to the 'mystery of lawless'.

Sorry Contra I really want to believe but you can't negate this.

My question is what happened? It's simple logic to put the pieces together.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

It appears after the first believers and the Apostle's died off this started to happen. Paul refers this to the 'mystery of lawless'.

Sorry Contra I really want to believe but you can't negate this.

My question is what happened? It's simple logic to put the pieces together.

Marc
Already demonstrated. See post #30.

[mpossoff]

ChazaK:

While there is good information in what you wrote, I would not write off Ignatius so easily. He studied directly under the Apostle John, and according to Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) it was Peter himself who appointed Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch. Remember that ordinations were scarce -- the idea was to lay hands ONLY upon those who could be trusted to teach as they were taught.

Since Ignatius was trusted to teach as they were taught does that mean that he did.

What did he teach? Was it in line with the Peter?

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Some people actually believe those roots dried up and blew away when Judaism was separated from the faith. I am with you on this one.
It's easy to see really. Paul was instrumental in introducing Hellenism into the Netzarim community. And bit by bit those with a Hellenistic mindset separated themselves from those who were still observant. Eventually, the last vestiges of Judaism were removed, and all that was left was Hellenism.

[visionary]

It's easy to see really. Paul was instrumental in introducing Hellenism into the Netzarim community. And bit by bit those with a Hellenistic mindset separated themselves from those who were still observant. Eventually, the last vestiges of Judaism were removed, and all that was left was Hellenism.Why didn't James, Peter, or others when Paul arrived at Jerusalem confront him on this hellenism that you came he was bringing in. Why didn't they see it?

[mpossoff]

Why didn't James, Peter, or others when Paul arrived at Jerusalem confront him on this hellenism that you came he was bringing in. Why didn't they see it?

I agree. That was a 'little shot'. Unfortunately ChazakEmunah doesn't understand Paul but of course another topic.

Marc

[ChazakEmunah]

Why didn't James, Peter, or others when Paul arrived at Jerusalem confront him on this hellenism that you came he was bringing in. Why didn't they see it?
They did see it and he was reprimanded.... Twice. I would invite you to read the accounts of the interactions between Paul and the Netzarim leadership again. If you look very carefully, you will find what I am talking about.

[ChazakEmunah]

I agree. That was a 'little shot'. Unfortunately ChazakEmunah doesn't understand Paul but of course another topic.

I think the problem is that I understand him all too well. ;)

[visionary]

They did see it and he was reprimanded.... Twice. I would invite you to read the accounts of the interactions between Paul and the Netzarim leadership again. If you look very carefully, you will find what I am talking about.
You and I may be reading the same words but the meaning and the account understanding differ... will need your assistance to see where you see your view from.

[mpossoff]

I think the problem is that I understand him all too well. ;)

With all due respect in the other thread you didn't have any knowledge of the Greek(ergon nomos as an example) and the debate 'you must be circumcised....to be saved' you seemed to not address. And that, correct me if I'm wrong, that keeping the Torah one can earn justification(right standing before God).

Marc

[stone]

I was reading through an article just now, curious of the 1st christians question. Here is the article:

Researchers at the site say the church dates between the third and fourth centuries. The experts add that it likely predates the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, when Roman Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity across the Byzantine Empire.

Other experts question the date and significance of the find. Former Israel Antiquities Authority curator Joe Zias told the Associated Press there is no evidence that Christians built churches before the fourth century. Even if the date is correct, he said, the newly discovered building most likely wasn't used that early for religious purposes.


***

Well... a clip from the article.

The 1st paragraph mentions that in 325, Constantine legalized christianity across the Byzantine Empire. I'm sure there is plenty of evidence to support that statement, being that it comes from National Geographic.

The 2nd paragraph makes this statement:

Former Israel Antiquities Authority curator Joe Zias told the Associated Press there is no evidence that Christians built churches before the fourth century.


***

Human behavior doesn't really change, its recorded all throughout history and the scriptures. Men continue to make the same mistakes over and over. The point being, that if its illegal to be a christian, and illegal to be observant in worship, then you go underground.

Before christianity was legal, everything regarding it, would have been very secret, because your life depended on it. If anything was found, you were probably killed, and whatever you had in relation to christianity, destroyed.

So if, some antiquities guy says that there is no evidence of christians meeting in buildings.... as if they would not, I would say that the early christians were extremely intelligent in hiding themselves among wolves across the earth.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/photogalleries/oldest_church/photo4.html

[stone]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0720_050720_christianity.html

[TheRabbi]

Where did you guys get the term Netzarim?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

So you are saying

Yeshua died on friday, Passover
Yeshua rested on Sabbath
Yeshua did not rise on first fruits but on monday??? "after sunday evening"So you are saying

Yeshua died on friday, Passover
Yeshua rested on Sabbath
Yeshua did not rise on first fruits but on monday??? "after sunday evening"Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelTheeArchAngel
In the bible the Lords day is Saturday, in the occult the lords day is Sunday. That is 'lord Satan;" Satan was also called Lord. I am not making this up, this is the truth. Yahshua's resurrection did not come about until after Sunday evening. Luke 23:55. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. 56. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath s in obedience to the commandment. The word Sabbath should have been translated as a plurl, because that Saturday and Sunday were Holy days, and no work was to be done on those days. And that is according to scripture.

Yahshua arose 72 hours after his death on Friday, which means his ressurrection was after Sunday evening.

[ChazakEmunah]

You and I may be reading the same words but the meaning and the account understanding differ... will need your assistance to see where you see your view from.
Let's put it this way, Paul didn't travel all the way to Yerushalayim just because he felt like it. Considering the tension between him and the leadership, I believe he was recalled and asked to explain himself.

[ChazakEmunah]

With all due respect in the other thread you didn't have any knowledge of the Greek(ergon nomos as an example) and the debate 'you must be circumcised....to be saved' you seemed to not address. And that, correct me if I'm wrong, that keeping the Torah one can earn justification(right standing before God).

Marc
Marc, we talked about this in my Paul thread. Ergon nomos translates as works of the law, ie... halakha. Paul opposed halakha. That was the whole point of my thread. The debate about circumcision, while not part of that debate, was addressed. There's a lot of stuff in there you may have to sort through, but it's there. And yes, I also addressed the fact that the Torah teaches that one cannot obtain righteousness without observing the mitzvot. Further, I also addressed the fact that Paul taught contrary to this. So you might want to take a sec and go back through the thread, it's all there.

[DarkNLovely]

Any specifics you want to know about?

I would really recommend reading about the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Lot's of doctrines come from there. I don't really understand what it is the OP is looking for. If you read the councils, you will see they contradict Paul a lot and a lot of the NT in my opinion. Another problem is tat Christianity is different to different people so I would really have to know what you mean.

[DarkNLovely]

Another thing that I have not seen addressed is the persecution of Christians until the fourth century. When understanding this, and how the Jewish influence was greatly affected, it may be easier to understand why some doctrines seem to and do contradict the Torah and how Paul did not "start" the Christianity we see today.

[buzuxi02]

Early christians met at house-churches. This of course is not debated of the first century since house churches are mentioned numerous times in the NT.

As the Faith spread across the empire; House-churches were still the norm, unless a specific region where christians gathered were targeted for persecution. They would then meet secretly in catacombs and in the wilderness.

And yes there was much secrecy. Catacumens(potential converts) would be ushered away before the breaking of bread, they would not witness various prayers nor the ritual of the breaking of bread, catecumens needed to gain the trust of the christians before beig baptised. Persecuting authorities wanted to inflitrate church leadership and placing persecutors as catecumens was a tactic they employed. The secret nature of early christian worship was kept ironclad. The roman Pliny the Younger wondered whether christians were cannibals he didnt know wine was used.

Here is the oldest uncovered (house)church from Dura Europos Syria from 240 a.d., the link also has photos of an ornate synagogue from the same time and place:

Images in the Synagogue and Church at Dura Europos (http://www.philthompson.net/pages/icons/duraeuropos.html)

[vekarppe]

So here's the deal. I'd like to hear from everyone here where they believe C*hristianity (AS WE KNOW IT TODAY) originated.

Can you first clarify what do mean with the "Christianity as we know it today." What is your definition to that? Does it imply that original Christianity is forgotten or forsaken? Please let me know.

[Colabomb]

Acts 2

The Coming of the Holy Spirit

1When(A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26939A)) the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like(B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26940B)) a mighty rushing wind, and(C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26940C)) it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3And divided tongues(D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26941D)) as of fire appeared to them and rested[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#fen-ESV-26941a)] on each one of them. 4And they were all(E (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26942E)) filled with the Holy Spirit and began(F (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26942F)) to speak in other tongues(G (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26942G)) as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And(H (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26944H)) at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7And(I (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26945I)) they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking(J (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26945J)) Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and(K (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26947K)) Medes and(L (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26947L)) Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and(M (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26949M)) proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." 12And(N (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26950N)) all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13But others(O (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26951O)) mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."
Peter’s Sermon at Pentecost

14But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 15For these people are not drunk, as you suppose,(P (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26953P)) since it is only the third hour of the day. 16But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:
17(Q (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26955Q)) "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares,(R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26955R)) that I will pour out my Spirit(S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26955S)) on all flesh,and your sons and(T (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26955T)) your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18even on my male servants[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#fen-ESV-26956c)] and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and(U (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26956U)) they shall prophesy.
19And I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
20(V (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26958V)) the sun shall be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood,
before(W (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26958W)) the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
21And it shall come to pass that(X (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26959X)) everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' 22"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth,(Y (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26960Y)) a man attested to you by God(Z (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26960Z)) with(AA (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26960AA)) mighty works and wonders and signs that(AB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26960AB)) God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23this Jesus,(AC (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26961AC)) delivered up according to(AD (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26961AD)) the definite plan and(AE (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26961AE)) foreknowledge of God,(AF (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26961AF)) you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24(AG (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26962AG)) God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because(AH (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26962AH)) it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25For David says concerning him,

(AI (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26963AI)) "'I saw the Lord always before me,
for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;
26therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
my flesh also will dwell(AJ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26964AJ)) in hope.
27For you will not abandon my soul to(AK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26965AK)) Hades,
(AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26965AL)) or let your(AM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26965AM)) Holy One(AN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26965AN)) see corruption.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of gladness with your presence.'
29"Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about(AO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26967AO)) the patriarch David(AP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26967AP)) that he both died and(AQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26967AQ)) was buried, and(AR (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26967AR)) his tomb is with us to this day. 30(AS (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26968AS)) Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that(AT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26968AT)) God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that(AU (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26969AU)) he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus(AV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26970AV)) God raised up,(AW (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26970AW)) and of that we all are witnesses. 33(AX (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26971AX)) Being therefore(AY (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26971AY)) exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from(AZ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26971AZ)) the Father(BA (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26971BA)) the promise of the Holy Spirit,(BB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26971BB)) he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34For(BC (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26972BC)) David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

(BD (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26972BD)) "'The Lord said to my Lord,Sit at my right hand,
35until I make your enemies your footstool.'
36Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that(BE (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26974BE)) God has made him(BF (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26974BF)) both Lord and Christ, this Jesus(BG (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26974BG)) whom you crucified."
37Now when(BH (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26975BH)) they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers,(BI (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26975BI)) what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them,(BJ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26976BJ)) "Repent and(BK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26976BK)) be baptized every one of you(BL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26976BL)) in the name of Jesus Christ(BM (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26976BM)) for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive(BN (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26976BN)) the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For(BO (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26977BO)) the promise is for you and(BP (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26977BP)) for your children and for all(BQ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26977BQ)) who are far off, everyone(BR (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26977BR)) whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying,(BS (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26978BS)) "Save yourselves from this(BT (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26978BT)) crooked generation." 41So those who received his word were baptized, and(BU (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26979BU)) there were added that day about three thousand souls.
[B]The Fellowship of the Believers

42And(BV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26980BV)) they devoted themselves to the apostles’(BW (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26980BW)) teaching and the(BX (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26980BX)) fellowship, to(BY (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26980BY)) the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43And awe[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#fen-ESV-26981d)] came upon every soul, and(BZ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26981BZ)) many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44And all who believed were together and(CA (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26982CA)) had all things in common. 45And(CB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26983CB)) they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46And day by day,(CC (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26984CC)) attending the temple(CD (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26984CD)) together and(CE (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26984CE)) breaking bread in their homes, they received their food(CF (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26984CF)) with glad and generous hearts, 47praising God and(CG (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26985CG)) having favor with all the people. And the Lord(CH (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26985CH)) added to their number(CI (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26985CI)) day by day those who(CJ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202;&version=47;#cen-ESV-26985CJ)) were being saved.

[A_Pioneer]

Acts 2

The Coming of the Holy Spirit



Since you believe this is the birth of Christianity. Why were they not called "Christian" at that time?
How many years passed from that time until Sha'ul had his Damascus Road experience and made his way to Antioch?
Also wasn't that a "slur" in the Greek language? (Greek epitheto)

[Steve Petersen]

Early christians met at house-churches. This of course is not debated of the first century since house churches are mentioned numerous times in the NT.

As the Faith spread across the empire; House-churches were still the norm, wilderness.

Synagogues are also referred to as 'houses' (House of Study) occasionally, as was the Temple in Jerusalem (House of the Sanctuary).

Houses also refer to specific schools of teachers such as 'House of Hillel' or 'House of Shammai.'

Given that the Jesus movement was birthed in Israel and Juaism these things should be taken into account as well.

[ContraMundum]

Is it really that hard to do? All I'm asking is historical documentation for C*hristian beliefs. I know it's out there, I've read it. I just want to see if anyone else will take or has taken the initiative to read it too.

Church history books are in abundance. Anyone can go and buy one, read it, and there's your answer.

Why is this so puzzling to you?

Perhaps you should get yourself a copy of decent Christian history book and stop trying to "test" people.

[DarkNLovely]

Church history books are in abundance. Anyone can go and buy one, read it, and there's your answer.

Why is this so puzzling to you?

Perhaps you should get yourself a copy of decent Christian history book and stop trying to "test" people.
Amen to that. The hostility is obvious.

[ChazakEmunah]

Church history books are in abundance. Anyone can go and buy one, read it, and there's your answer.

Why is this so puzzling to you?

Perhaps you should get yourself a copy of decent Christian history book and stop trying to "test" people.
I already have my answers. Got them long ago. Thanks. You must have not read through the entire thread. I posted my beliefs about christian origins in post #30.

My intent in starting this thread was to see if people actually knew how christianity came about, and then get some good discussion going. Unfortunately, only a couple people seem to know and there wasn't much interest among those who didn't. So I've pretty much dropped it. In fact, this is my first post in this thread in a week.

[ChazakEmunah]

Amen to that. The hostility is obvious.
And tell me why I should not harbor hostility towards the faith that slaughtered millions of my people and forced the spiritual destruction of untold more?

Yes I have of course I have many problems with christianity. But as I said to Contra, my intent here was to find out if anyone actually knew the origins of their own faith. Apparently most do not.

[ContraMundum]

I already have my answers. Got them long ago. Thanks. You must have not read through the entire thread. I posted my beliefs about christian origins in post #30.

Then why ask for more?

My intent in starting this thread was to see if people actually knew how christianity came about, and then get some good discussion going. Unfortunately, only a couple people seem to know and there wasn't much interest among those who didn't. So I've pretty much dropped it. In fact, this is my first post in this thread in a week.

Well, I think we are wondering about your motives here.

Anyone who is interested enough for themselves knows about Christianity, how it started, where it's gone, what it's done wrong and what it's done right. Opinions on the details vary, but so what?

Seems to me like you have something else in mind....

[ContraMundum]

And tell me why I should not harbor hostility towards the faith that slaughtered millions of my people and forced the spiritual destruction of untold more?

As a person born Jewish, I take offence at this. Sure, some people claiming Christ as their Saviour killed Jews, and some Jews martyred Christians too (early, of course). So what?

A good Christian will always follow the example of Jesus and not kill anyone, but rather, turn the other cheek. Currently, the two religions differ on whether or not we can kill people. The conclusions are of course ironic, but we can't discuss that here without both of us violating the rules.

Yes I have of course I have many problems with christianity. But as I said to Contra, my intent here was to find out if anyone actually knew the origins of their own faith. Apparently most do not.

Perhaps they just don't wish to discuss this with you, because it looks kinda pointless. It looks like you are saying "if you knew what I did, you would hate Christianity too. Check out my version of things".

Really, like most of the posts on the debate sub-forum lately, I'm finding it hard to see a genuine interest in debate, and to me it's starting to look like this has become a place to diss the ekklesia under the protection of the rules.

It's sad really. Many of us fought very hard to get full posting rights for those following the Rabbinical Jewish path, and now we get our faith labelled as "spiritual destruction" and worse. I personally feel very betrayed.

[Steve Petersen]

I too feel like this forum is a one-way street. The wiki protects Judaism from all sorts of things that might offend someone Jewish, but apparently it is OK to beat up Christianity.

Some of you converts to Judaism should read Chicken Soup for the Jewish Soul. There are several stories that show that some Jews are a lot more tolerant of Christians than you seem to be.

But, 'in for a penny, in for a pound' when it comes to leaving your childhood faith, eh?

[ChazakEmunah]

Then why ask for more?
I didn't? :scratch:



Well, I think we are wondering about your motives here.

Anyone who is interested enough for themselves knows about Christianity, how it started, where it's gone, what it's done wrong and what it's done right. Opinions on the details vary, but so what?

Seems to me like you have something else in mind....
I stated very plainly my motives. Please do not bring them into question. Despite what you may think, I have no hidden agenda here.

[ChazakEmunah]

Let me first clarify something. I do not have a problem with most christians. In fact, some of my personal friends are christians. Most of my co-workers are also christians. So there is no problem there. What I have a problem with is that so much wrong has been done in the name of christianity. So if I'm a little harsh or antagonistic towards it, that's why.


As a person born Jewish, I take offence at this. Sure, some people claiming Christ as their Saviour killed Jews, and some Jews martyred Christians too (early, of course). So what?
So what? Given that attitude, I cannot say that I am terribly surprised that so many Jews have converted to christianity.

Some people? How 'bout a majority of people? From a strictly historical standpoint the only people who have consistently persecuted Jews from the days of the Roman Empire through the 20th Cent. were none other than the christians. There is no other group responsible for the pogroms. There is no other group responsible for the Crusades. There is no other group responsible for the Inquisition. And there is no other group responsible for acquiescing to the complete destruction of European Jewry.


It looks like you are saying "if you knew what I did, you would hate Christianity too. Check out my version of things".
Not at all. Like I said, this was an exercise for me to see if people truly knew the origins of their faith. In fact, I waited for several pages before I even posted my thoughts. So obviously I wasn't trying to slant the discussion in my favor.


Really, like most of the posts on the debate sub-forum lately, I'm finding it hard to see a genuine interest in debate, and to me it's starting to look like this has become a place to diss the ekklesia under the protection of the rules.
Who exactly here is being dissed? And if so, isn't that a violation of the rules against flaming?



It's sad really. Many of us fought very hard to get full posting rights for those following the Rabbinical Jewish path, and now we get our faith labelled as "spiritual destruction" and worse. I personally feel very betrayed.
Ah, I see you completely misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that your faith was 'spiritual destruction.' I did say that forced conversions were spiritually destructive. And I would certainly hope you would agree.

[Colabomb]

Real Christianity does not believe in forced Conversions. I and my bretheren condemn the concept of Conversion at the Sword.

Those men may have been Christians, but they were not acting like it.

Are you as a Jew responsible for every bad thing done by Jews? No you are not, nor am I responsible for every bad thing done by a Christian.

[ChazakEmunah]

nor am I responsible for every bad thing done by a Christian.
Nor do I hold you personally responsible.

[Colabomb]

Let me first clarify something. I do not have a problem with most christians. In fact, some of my personal friends are christians. Most of my co-workers are also christians. So there is no problem there. What I have a problem with is that so much wrong has been done in the name of christianity. So if I'm a little harsh or antagonistic towards it, that's why.

When you read our Scriptures, which group of Christians is more in line with what you read? Your friends or your persecutors?





Some people? How 'bout a majority of people? From a strictly historical standpoint the only people who have consistently persecuted Jews from the days of the Roman Empire through the 20th Cent. were none other than the christians. There is no other group responsible for the pogroms. There is no other group responsible for the Crusades. There is no other group responsible for the Inquisition. And there is no other group responsible for acquiescing to the complete destruction of European Jewry.

The only group? What about the National Socialists, Neo-Nazis, Islam, White Supremecy groups (Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Brotherhood), Black Supremecy Groups (The Black Panther Party, the New Black Panther Party), Nation of Islam and its derivatives, the ancient religions of Babylon, and Egypt?

You have had a myriad of persecutors, as have we. Why do you single in on a particular one?


Not at all. Like I said, this was an exercise for me to see if people truly knew the origins of their faith. In fact, I waited for several pages before I even posted my thoughts. So obviously I wasn't trying to slant the discussion in my favor.


Christianity has traditionally understood its roots to be Abraham, and the formation of the Church at Pentecost in the early to mid 30's AD.

While Certain ancillary aspects of our faith have changed (Such as government of the Church) over 2000 years, the core teaching (what we call the Gospel) has not changed.

[Colabomb]

Nor do I hold you personally responsible.

No, but I am part of a People (although made of a Myriad of Races, we do see ourselves as a nation), and you hold my people responsible, for the actions of those who do not act according to our precepts.

Is all of Judaism Responsible for the Early Persecution of the Christian Church? No, you aren't, only those individuals who persecuted us are.

Are all the German People responsible for the Atrocities of the Holocaust? No, only those who participated in them.

(If I have misunderstood you, you have my apologies.)

[ContraMundum]

OK Chazak. I agree, forced conversion are bad, wrong, and yes, my own ancestors fled Europe to avoid it.

However, I think Cola's got a good point here. It's not fair to vent on Christians here (who accept you and support our community both in Israel and abroad) for the sins of others, past and present.

The Church needs time to fully undo what it did in the past, and it will take time. The Church does not expect the Rabbinic Jews to apologise for persecuting the early Christians, however. The Messiah teaches us a lot about forgiveness, repentance, and accepting injustices against us while trying to get involved in tikkun olam. His message hasn't always been heeded, but at least it's there to heed for those who will hear it.

Don't blame those of us who are trying to live according to those lofty standards because of sinners who didn't heed His message or follow His path.

[DarkNLovely]

And tell me why I should not harbor hostility towards the faith that slaughtered millions of my people and forced the spiritual destruction of untold more?

Yes I have of course I have many problems with christianity. But as I said to Contra, my intent here was to find out if anyone actually knew the origins of their own faith. Apparently most do not.
Do you understand that with that kind of twisted logic, we can justify everything that the church has ever done to the Jews? (keep in mind the church hasn't been very humane to my people either, but I'm still a Christian) If you can justify your hostiltiy toward us, which your hatred, by the way makes you hypocritical, then we can justify all we've done with the famous and dare I say really bad argument of, "Jews killed Jesus." Does that make any sense? Besides, those "origins" you belive in are your very wrong and biased opinion which you are welcome to. Aslo, Jews are not sinless in the way they have treated people over the years either. So why are you starting this? If we were to do this on a Jewish board smewhere, we would be slammed with "anti-Semite". What gives?

[DarkNLovely]

[/I]When you read our Scriptures, which group of Christians is more in line with what you read? Your friends or your persecutors?






The only group? What about the National Socialists, Neo-Nazis, Islam, White Supremecy groups (Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Brotherhood), Black Supremecy Groups (The Black Panther Party, the New Black Panther Party), Nation of Islam and its derivatives, the ancient religions of Babylon, and Egypt?

You have had a myriad of persecutors, as have we. Why do you single in on a particular one?




Christianity has traditionally understood its roots to be Abraham, and the formation of the Church at Pentecost in the early to mid 30's AD.

While Certain ancillary aspects of our faith have changed (Such as government of the Church) over 2000 years, the core teaching (what we call the Gospel) has not changed.
The BPP were not supremascists or racists! They have openly spoken out against the NBPP. It baffles me that people still consider them racists.

While firmly grounded in black nationalism and begun as an organization that accepted African American membership exclusively, the party reconsidered itself as it grew to national prominence and became an iconic representative of the counterculture of the 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture_of_the_1960s).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#_note-2) The Black Panthers ultimately condemned black nationalism as "black racism" and became more focused on socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) without racial exclusivity.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#_note-3) They instituted a variety of community programs to alleviate poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) and illness among the communities it deemed most needful of aid. While the party retained its all-black membership, it recognized that different communities (those it deemed oppressed by the American government) needed to organize around their own set of issues and encouraged alliances with these organizations.

The Red Power movement patterned themselves a lot after the BPP!

[DarkNLovely]

I didn't? :scratch:



I stated very plainly my motives. Please do not bring them into question. Despite what you may think, I have no hidden agenda here.
Right.

[ChazakEmunah]

OK Chazak. I agree, forced conversion are bad, wrong, and yes, my own ancestors fled Europe to avoid it.
THANK YOU! Finally, we can agree on SOMETHING.


However, I think Cola's got a good point here. It's not fair to vent on Christians here (who accept you and support our community both in Israel and abroad) for the sins of others, past and present.
But does one paragraph in an entire thread constitute venting? That doesn't make sense to me.


The Church needs time to fully undo what it did in the past, and it will take time.
To this, I will take a 'wait and see' approach. The last Pope took great strides towards this. The current one seems to be a little less enthusiastic.


The Church does not expect the Rabbinic Jews to apologise for persecuting the early Christians, however.
Hey, wait a sec. The biggest prosecutor of the early christians were the Romans.


Don't blame those of us who are trying to live according to those lofty standards because of sinners who didn't heed His message or follow His path.
I don't. Like I told Cola, I do not hold you nor any other present day christian personally responsible for those atrocities. I see a difference between holding an organization responsible for something and holding an individual responsible for something they were never personally involved in.

[muffler dragon]

Hey, wait a sec. The biggest prosecutor of the early christians were the Romans.

Shhhh.

Didn't you get the memo that this is not to be brought up. :D

[ChazakEmunah]

Do you understand that with that kind of twisted logic, we can justify everything that the church has ever done to the Jews? (keep in mind the church hasn't been very humane to my people either, but I'm still a Christian)
Twisted logic? Citing historical facts is twisted logic? You then go on to say you can actually justify what's been done to the Jews? Boy you have a lot of chutzpah. You might want to think twice about that statement Dark.


If you can justify your hostiltiy toward us, which your hatred, by the way makes you hypocritical
Woah, back up. I never, ever said that I was hostile towards you. You need to check yourself. I said that I was hostile towards christianity, and then proceed to explain why. If you can't accept that, that's your problem, not mine. And you might want to think twice before calling me a hypocrite. I'll let it slide this time, but you better bring evidence next time or I will report you for defamation of character.


, then we can justify all we've done with the famous and dare I say really bad argument of, "Jews killed Jesus."
This is an untrue, miso-Judaic statement and you know it. And here you go again saying that you can justify what christians have done to the Jews. What makes you think ANYTHING can justify those atrocities?


Does that make any sense? Besides, those "origins" you belive in are your very wrong and biased opinion which you are welcome to.
Cute. Next time try to bring some evidence to the table instead of just dismissing my research outright.


Aslo, Jews are not sinless in the way they have treated people over the years either.
What does this have to do with anything?


So why are you starting this? If we were to do this on a Jewish board smewhere, we would be slammed with "anti-Semite". What gives?
Starting what exactly? I've had this up since long before you sauntered over here. I should ask you what your purpose is here. Are you here to actually bring something to the table, or just to continue attacking me?

[visionary]

Shhhh.

Didn't you get the memo that this is not to be brought up. :Dawww shucks...;)

[Colabomb]

Stephen, the first Christian was stoned to death, by Jews. Yes, Romans were the Greater persecutors, but Jews often killed us as blasphemous traitors to the faith.

I have no hatred for the Jewish people, but history is history. Just because the Romans did more, does not mean the Jews did nothing.

[ChazakEmunah]

Stephen, the first Christian was stoned to death, by Jews. Yes, Romans were the Greater persecutors, but Jews often killed us as blasphemous traitors to the faith.
Not so. If the historical account is accurate, it would only prove one thing. That the Sadducees were instrumental in killing off anyone who opposed them. This should come as no surprise to any student of 1st Cent. history.


I have no hatred for the Jewish people, but history is history.
And likewise, I have no hatred for christians.

[muffler dragon]

Stephen, the first Christian was stoned to death, by Jews. Yes, Romans were the Greater persecutors, but Jews often killed us as blasphemous traitors to the faith.

Not so. If the historical account is accurate, it would only prove one thing. That the Sadducees were instrumental in killing off anyone who opposed them. This should come as no surprise to any student of 1st Cent. history.

Another problem for those who believe that the Sanhedrin carried out capital offenses is the fact that the Sanhedrin wasn't even meeting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone during these times of supposed capital punishments.

[ChazakEmunah]

Another problem for those who believe that the Sanhedrin carried out capital offenses is the fact that the Sanhedrin wasn't even meeting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone during these times of supposed capital punishments.
Excellent reminder!

[DarkNLovely]

Twisted logic? Citing historical facts is twisted logic? You then go on to say you can actually justify what's been done to the Jews? Boy you have a lot of chutzpah. You might want to think twice about that statement Dark.


Woah, back up. I never, ever said that I was hostile towards you. You need to check yourself. I said that I was hostile towards christianity, and then proceed to explain why. If you can't accept that, that's your problem, not mine. And you might want to think twice before calling me a hypocrite. I'll let it slide this time, but you better bring evidence next time or I will report you for defamation of character.


This is an untrue, miso-Judaic statement and you know it. And here you go again saying that you can justify what christians have done to the Jews. What makes you think ANYTHING can justify those atrocities?


Cute. Next time try to bring some evidence to the table instead of just dismissing my research outright.


What does this have to do with anything?


Starting what exactly? I've had this up since long before you sauntered over here. I should ask you what your purpose is here. Are you here to actually bring something to the table, or just to continue attacking me?
This is pure comedy! Wow! As far as reporting me, what are they gonna do SPANK ME!? Pleez! This is a dumb conversation. There are tons of books on our origins. If you don't want to read them to prove a mistaken point that's on you. Believe what you want to. We have an amazing and victorious history full passion and the fact is you can't touch it with your hostility. We are the One True Faith and nothing you can say is going to convince us otherwise, so you might as well as give it up.

Since when did hostility of Christianity not mean hostility toward Christians?If I said I was hostile toward Judaism, wouldn't I be hostile toward Jews? I think it's so strange that you dare to charge others with hatred but clearly ignore your own. You don't see me on a Jewish board flaming them. I'm all for debate, but you have to be serious. Your "facts" don't stand up to Church history and you know it. Or maybe you don't as you have obviously not studied it. I honestly challenge you to reasearch objectivly and not to justify your hatred. And if you claim not to hate then you have really misrepresented yourself.

[DarkNLovely]

Shhhh.

Didn't you get the memo that this is not to be brought up. :D
Who said it wasn't? And how does that make Jews who did the same less culpapble?

[DarkNLovely]

As a person born Jewish, I take offence at this. Sure, some people claiming Christ as their Saviour killed Jews, and some Jews martyred Christians too (early, of course). So what?

A good Christian will always follow the example of Jesus and not kill anyone, but rather, turn the other cheek. Currently, the two religions differ on whether or not we can kill people. The conclusions are of course ironic, but we can't discuss that here without both of us violating the rules.



Perhaps they just don't wish to discuss this with you, because it looks kinda pointless. It looks like you are saying "if you knew what I did, you would hate Christianity too. Check out my version of things".

Really, like most of the posts on the debate sub-forum lately, I'm finding it hard to see a genuine interest in debate, and to me it's starting to look like this has become a place to diss the ekklesia under the protection of the rules.

It's sad really. Many of us fought very hard to get full posting rights for those following the Rabbinical Jewish path, and now we get our faith labelled as "spiritual destruction" and worse. I personally feel very betrayed.
Worth repeating.

[muffler dragon]

Who said it wasn't?

Who said "what" wasn't?

And how does that make Jews who did the same less culpapble?

Around 30CE, the Sanhedrin was no longer conducting business in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. This was the only area where capital punishments were proclaimed.

Thus, since the Sanhedrin was no longer operating in such a fashion, it stands to reason that the Christian testament fabricated the Jewish involvement in the Stephen stoning and quite possibly, in the Jesus condemnation.

If you're asking in broad terms, then I suggest you read about the conduct of the Romans in the provinces under their rule. This will more than explain the nature of how they dealt with political enemies.

[muffler dragon]

We have an amazing and victorious history full passion and the fact is you can't touch it with your hostility. We are the One True Faith and nothing you can say is going to convince us otherwise, so you might as well as give it up.

Since when did hostility of Christianity not mean hostility toward Christians?If I said I was hostile toward Judaism, wouldn't I be hostile toward Jews? I think it's so strange that you dare to charge others with hatred but clearly ignore your own. You don't see me on a Jewish board flaming them. I'm all for debate, but you have to be serious. Your "facts" don't stand up to Church history and you know it. Or maybe you don't as you have obviously not studied it. I honestly challenge you to reasearch objectivly and not to justify your hatred. And if you claim not to hate then you have really misrepresented yourself.

I think the emboldened pokes holes in the remainder of your self-proclaimed non-judgmental post.

[Colabomb]

Who said "what" wasn't?



Around 30CE, the Sanhedrin was no longer conducting business in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. This was the only area where capital punishments were proclaimed.

Thus, since the Sanhedrin was no longer operating in such a fashion, it stands to reason that the Christian testament fabricated the Jewish involvement in the Stephen stoning and quite possibly, in the Jesus condemnation.



Is it likely a man writing within a lifetime of the event, would blatantly lie about such an important detail?

If he was wrong, his book would have been loudly discredited and thrown out as trash. Rather, it has survived for 2000 years as one of the most revered books ever written.

The author of Acts, is the Author of the Gospel of Luke. Luke was a Jewish man, and according to most traditions, he was writing to a learned Jewish man. Is it likely that both the author, and the Recipient would have missed such an important detail as a powerless Sanhedrin?

Anyway, men of Religious motivation often disobey the law of the land to follow the law of their God/gods. It is very possible the Sanhedrin continued to act in their God given role anyway. Perhaps they did not ruffle Rome's feathers too much, or perhaps the Sanhedrin did a good job of working under Rome's nose.

Rarely do faithful men sit by and let their religious rights die.

[ChazakEmunah]

This is pure comedy! Wow! As far as reporting me, what are they gonna do SPANK ME!? Pleez! This is a dumb conversation.
As soon as you start acting like an adult we can have a reasonable conversation, until that point in time, I see no point in further dialog.

[muffler dragon]

Is it likely a man writing within a lifetime of the event, would blatantly lie about such an important detail?

These sorts of hypotheticals are worthless, IMO. They rank up there with, "Could G-d produce a rock to heavy for Him to lift?"

Anyway... to answer your question. Yes, it's completely possible that what Luke wrote regarding the Sanhedrin is a fabrication. Furthermore, it's also quite possible that this story was ADDED WELL AFTER THE ORIGINAL BOOK WAS PENNED.

If he was wrong, his book would have been loudly discredited and thrown out as trash.

Rubbish. Have you not learned in Literature courses what people wrote and accepted as fact throughout the ages. Mythology and the imaginary has been accepted repeatedly, because no one could prove otherwise.

Rather, it has survived for 2000 years as one of the most revered books ever written.

If this is your criteria for authority; then I'm surprised you're not Hindu since the Bhagavad Gita has the Christian testament stumped by many centuries. Other than being a non sequitur, this line of argument is vacuous.

The author of Acts, is the Author of the Gospel of Luke.

Something you take on faith and not fact.

Luke was a Jewish man, and according to most traditions, he was writing to a learned Jewish man.

There is absolutely nothing that shows Luke as anything more than a physician. More than likely he was a Gentile.

Is it likely that both the author, and the Recipient would have missed such an important detail as a powerless Sanhedrin?

Considering that the Talmud and Josephus outline such things, the answer to your question is an unqualified, "Yes."

Anyway, men of Religious motivation often disobey the law of the land to follow the law of their God/gods. It is very possible the Sanhedrin continued to act in their God given role anyway. Perhaps they did not ruffle Rome's feathers too much, or perhaps the Sanhedrin did a good job of working under Rome's nose.

Rarely do faithful men sit by and let their religious rights die.

Perhaps this?
Maybe that?
Could it be...?

Let me know when you bring something of substantiation to your argument.

[Colabomb]

These sorts of hypotheticals are worthless, IMO. They rank up there with, "Could G-d produce a rock to heavy for Him to lift?"

Anyway... to answer your question. Yes, it's completely possible that what Luke wrote regarding the Sanhedrin is a fabrication. Furthermore, it's also quite possible that this story was ADDED WELL AFTER THE ORIGINAL BOOK WAS PENNED.

There is no Textual support for that theory. Even Christians acknowledge that certain aspects of our Scriptures were penned later than the originals (we still hold them as scriptural), such as the Woman Taken in Adultery in the book of john, and the long ending of the Book of Mark. Just because a text is not original, does not mean it was not inspired.

However, as far as I have read, there is no Textual support for the theory that The account of Stephen's Execution is a later addition. All signs point to "Yes, its original".





Rubbish. Have you not learned in Literature courses what people wrote and accepted as fact throughout the ages. Mythology and the imaginary has been accepted repeatedly, because no one could prove otherwise.There is a difference between Mythology which happened "Long ago in a kingdom far away" and Historical claims that happened "About thirty years ago in Palestine".

If I wrote a book claiming that the first president Bush ordered the assasination of former president nixon, I would be taken as a fool, because the obvious facts of history point otherwise, my book would not be in wide circulation, no scholar would take me seriously, and I doubt a worldwide religion that numbers in the billions would be formed from my claims. There was no criticism of Luke's account of Stephen's execution, even though there were thousands of Jews who could have stifled the claims quite easily if they were not true. Including the sanhedrin, who would have objected to accusations of an execution, that would have put their lives in danger at the hands of the Roman Government.





If this is your criteria for authority; then I'm surprised you're not Hindu since the Bhagavad Gita has the Christian testament stumped by many centuries. Other than being a non sequitur, this line of argument is vacuous. I did not say I believe the book because it is old, I said that it would not have circulated widely if its claims were obviously historical lies.






There is absolutely nothing that shows Luke as anything more than a physician. More than likely he was a Gentile. You claim i have no evidence for my claim, but you offer no evidence for yours. There are several evidences for Luke being a Jew, including his detailed knowledge of the Temple and its priests.






Perhaps this?
Maybe that?
Could it be...?

Let me know when you bring something of substantiation to your argument.
Much of history is based on Speculation about facts. Have you ever read a history book? The words "probably" and "most likely" occur often.

[muffler dragon]

There is no Textual support for that theory.

You must be kidding. When it comes to textual consistency, the Christian testament is poor. Furthermore, when the earliest manuscripts available to us are from the 2nd century CE; then there is a definite possibility that there was disinformation added. Couple this with the FACT that these Lukan elements are not in line with traditional Jewish sources, and there's reason to have belief.

Even Christians acknowledge that certain aspects of our Scriptures were penned later than the originals (we still hold them as scriptural), such as the Woman Taken in Adultery in the book of john, and the long ending of the Book of Mark. Just because a text is not original, does not mean it was not inspired.

I'm not discussing your dogma of inerrancy and inspiration. That's irrelevant to me, and it's a non sequitur. The fact of the matter remains that the Lukan elements have no basis.

However, as far as I have read, there is no Textual support for the theory that The account of Stephen's Execution is a later addition. All signs point to "Yes, its original".

I have also read a book that speaks of the similarities between the Passion and the situation that Stephen is supposedly in. What's your point?

Furthermore, you keep adding in this concept of "late addition". I'm not advocating that in either situation. I am calling it a potential fabrication. Big difference.

There is a difference between Mythology which happened "Long ago in a kingdom far away" and Historical claims that happened "About thirty years ago in Palestine".

If I wrote a book claiming that the first president Bush ordered the assasination of former president nixon, I would be taken as a fool, because the obvious facts of history point otherwise, my book would not be in wide circulation, no scholar would take me seriously, and I doubt a worldwide religion that numbers in the billions would be formed from my claims. There was no criticism of Luke's account of Stephen's execution, even though there were thousands of Jews who could have stifled the claims quite easily if they were not true. Including the sanhedrin, who would have objected to accusations of an execution, that would have put their lives in danger at the hands of the Roman Government.

You're bringing up continuous non sequiturs.

1) The text in question is from 2000 years ago (or so) and NOT 30 years ago.
2) There was no vampant circulation.
3) There were no huge numbers of witnesses for verification.
4) There are no contemporary sources that back up the claims.
5) An Appeal to Popularity regarding the "billions" of Christians is irrelevant.

You act as thought this book was in a printing press that allowed it to be on every coffee table in Palestine and the Diaspora Jewish world. That wasn't the case. Furthermore, what would be the reason for the Sanhedrin to refute spurious claims? The Christian element in the first century was miniscule. Who cares what a fringe group writes or thinks? It had nothing to do with Judaism.

I did not say I believe the book because it is old, I said that it would not have circulated widely if its claims were obviously historical lies.

Rubbish again. You have no support for such WIDE circulation. Furthermore, there is no support that ever reached the populace of those who saw/read/experienced otherwise.

You claim i have no evidence for my claim, but you offer no evidence for yours. There are several evidences for Luke being a Jew, including his detailed knowledge of the Temple and its priests.

Let me state first of all that I could care less what religion or background Luke had. Secondly, having an understanding of the Temple and the priests is just as easy second hand as anything else. Thirdly, Luke isn't present when Paul goes and takes part in the Nazirite vow. There are no "we" or "us" involved in it; therefore, it's a possibility that Luke was NOT in there. Which makes wonder about his potential Jewish background that you espouse. Lastly, what's his religious background when it comes to writing veracity.

Much of history is based on Speculation about facts. Have you ever read a history book? The words "probably" and "most likely" occur often.

If you intend on having a discourse with me; then I suggest you drop the flippant flame. I've read many history books, and I've read the Christian Bible cover to cover in six different translations. I also have a Jewish Tanakh that I break open every once in a while. I've even read Sir Walter Ramsey's treatise on the veracity of the Book of Acts as it pertains to the travels of Paul. Wanna know what's absent from the treatise? The operations of the Sanhedrin.

[Colabomb]

You must be kidding. When it comes to textual consistency, the Christian testament is poor. Furthermore, when the earliest manuscripts available to us are from the 2nd century CE; then there is a definite possibility that there was disinformation added. Couple this with the FACT that these Lukan elements are not in line with traditional Jewish sources, and there's reason to have belief.

A very very LIBERAL estimate, says that about 90% of the new testament is consistant. Considering the texts are as you point out 2000 years old, I think a ten percent margin of error is pretty good.

Also, the majority of the differences in the texts have to do with word order and scribal error, not factual or historical/theological differences. There are as I pointed out, some differences in texts concerning passages I mentioned, but even those are little doctrinal weight.

Yes, there are more differences in the Christian texts than say the Muslim or Jewish texts, however the christian texts were widespread into different cultures, much more quickly, than the quaran or the Tanakh, which were carried on by insulated cultural scribes, who had more time to take in copying and accurate transmission.

Also, the Tanakh is not itself pure of mistakes, especially when you compare the Masoretic tradition (younger) and the Septuagint Tradition (older).

And as I pointed out earlier the inconsistencies that there are, are of little consequence, in either the Jewish or Christian texutual traditions.



I'm not discussing your dogma of inerrancyThat's fair.

That's irrelevant to me, and it's a non sequitur. The fact of the matter remains that the Lukan elements have no basis. You've yet to offer any reason for this claim.





Furthermore, you keep adding in this concept of "late addition". I'm not advocating that in either situation. I am calling it a potential fabrication. Big difference.And I'm arguing that there is no reason, quite the contrary, to consider it a later fabrication.



You're bringing up continuous non sequiturs.

1) The text in question is from 2000 years ago (or so) and NOT 30 years ago.Yes, the book is 2,000 years old, but it was written about events that happened about 30 years earlier than its penning. It was a modern history text, not a mythology tome.

The point is, if I wrote a book of historical lies that supposedly happened 30 years ago, it would be quite easy for my critics to discredit my work. As it would have been easy for Luke's critics to discredit his work had it been false.

2) There was no vampant circulation.Perhaps not immediately, but at a very liberal estimate, it was in wide circulation at the latest 100 years later, not late enough for people to forget about a powerless sanhedrin.

Christians made bold claims. If they were false, it would be very easy to discredit them.


3) There were no huge numbers of witnesses for verification.Yes there were. You honestly think that only theophilus had a copy of the book before it was canonized?

Christians were prolific copiers, there were ALWAYS multiple copies of Gospel stories etc.

4) There are no contemporary sources that back up the claims.There is no contemporary sources that back up that Moses receieved the Law on Sinai, but both you and I know and believe he did.

Anyway, why would secular commentators care about a Christian being stoned to death? Why write about such a small event if you had no special interest in it like the early Christians did.



5) An Appeal to Popularity regarding the "billions" of Christians is irrelevant.its not an appeal to popularity. All i was saying is that a book of obvious historical lies, does not survive the test of time.

You act as thought this book was in a printing press that allowed it to be on every coffee table in Palestine and the Diaspora Jewish world.No, i don't. However, the Jews and the Romans both were interesting in shutting up the little cult, and if they could have poked a hole in a Christian Scripture (Not talking contemporary, i'm talking about 100 or so years later) they could have easily done so.

Obviously both the Jews and the Romans knew that the sanhedrin was carrying out its purpose, or they would have quickly silenced us with the fact they weren't.

That wasn't the case. Furthermore, what would be the reason for the Sanhedrin to refute spurious claims?To save their own neck from their Roman oppressors, to silence the blasphemous Christian cult, to defend their own names.

There are lots of reasons to prove the Christians wrong.



Small, but loud. Why did the romans try to kill us all if we were so fringe as to be of no consequence?


[quote] Rubbish again. You have no support for such WIDE circulation. Furthermore, there is no support that ever reached the populace of those who saw/read/experienced otherwise.It was wide enough circulation, for Christians living a mere 100 years later to consider it Scriptural. one of the criteria for considering a book scripture is acceptance by the Christian community at large. A book used by a few Churches or a few individuals would not have been canonized.

And yes, Primarily christians used the book, but obviously Jews and Romans would have been interested enough in what we think to at least procure a copy.

Thirdly, Luke isn't present when Paul goes and takes part in the Nazirite vow. There are no "we" or "us" involved in it; therefore, it's a possibility that Luke was NOT in there. Which makes wonder about his potential Jewish background that you espouse. Lastly, what's his religious background when it comes to writing veracity.I'm not talking about Paul's vow, I'm talking about John's father's priestly duties.



If you intend on having a discourse with me; then I suggest you drop the flippant flame. I've read many history books, and I've read the Christian Bible cover to cover in six different translations. I also have a Jewish Tanakh that I break open every once in a while. I've even read Sir Walter Ramsey's treatise on the veracity of the Book of Acts as it pertains to the travels of Paul. Wanna know what's absent from the treatise? The operations of the Sanhedrin.There is no flippancy here. You seem to think disagreement is disrespect. I was simply making a point. I assume that of course you have read history texts, otherwise I would not have appealed to them.

[Steve Petersen]

A lot of emotion coming from certain posters here, a lot of ad hominems. Signs of a weak argument.

[Colabomb]

A lot of emotion coming from certain posters here, a lot of ad hominems. Signs of a weak argument.

Is this referring to me?

[Steve Petersen]

Is this referring to me?

No.

[muffler dragon]

A very very LIBERAL estimate, says that about 90% of the new testament is consistant. Considering the texts are as you point out 2000 years old, I think a ten percent margin of error is pretty good.

Also, the majority of the differences in the texts have to do with word order and scribal error, not factual or historical/theological differences. There are as I pointed out, some differences in texts concerning passages I mentioned, but even those are little doctrinal weight.

Yes, there are more differences in the Christian texts than say the Muslim or Jewish texts, however the christian texts were widespread into different cultures, much more quickly, than the quaran or the Tanakh, which were carried on by insulated cultural scribes, who had more time to take in copying and accurate transmission.

Also, the Tanakh is not itself pure of mistakes, especially when you compare the Masoretic tradition (younger) and the Septuagint Tradition (older).

And as I pointed out earlier the inconsistencies that there are, are of little consequence, in either the Jewish or Christian texutual traditions.

You keep missing the main thrust of what I have been writing. The Christian description of the Sanhedrin does not coincide with traditional Jewish sources. Do you understand this? The FACT that the Sanhedrin was NOT in the Chamber of Hewn Stone is a HUGE obstacle for you to overcome when attempting to disparage the Sanhedrin by calling them out as a group that harrassed the early Christians.

You've yet to offer any reason for this claim.

Just as I said above, there is nothing in traditional Jewish literature that supports this activity of the Sanhedrin.

And I'm arguing that there is no reason, quite the contrary, to consider it a later fabrication.

I'm not calling it a LATER fabrication. I'm calling it a potential fabrication during the time it was written. I'm calling it a piece of propaganda. That happens in the "here and now" so as to persuade to have a particular viewpoint. It's a historical "poisoning of the well".

Yes, the book is 2,000 years old, but it was written about events that happened about 30 years earlier than its penning.

And the resources available for distribution as well as verification are next to nil when comparing the two time frames. Thus, your argument is a non sequitur.

It was a modern history text, not a mythology tome.

That's how you view it. That doesn't mean it is. Once again, when looking at something as a piece of propaganda that supports a particular sect or schizm, there is nothing to hold them back from stretching the truth. You see it in today's media and there are plenty of chances for verification and evaluation. There was virtually no check and balance 2000 years ago.

The point is, if I wrote a book of historical lies that supposedly happened 30 years ago, it would be quite easy for my critics to discredit my work. As it would have been easy for Luke's critics to discredit his work had it been false.

This is presuming you had critics, and that you had people who believed otherwise who cared enough to make a statement to that effect.

There are people who are one generation away from Holocaust in age who are attempting to deny it. Your argument has no foundation.

Perhaps not immediately, but at a very liberal estimate, it was in wide circulation at the latest 100 years later, not late enough for people to forget about a powerless sanhedrin.

You're missing my point. The numbers of Christian followers is next to nil in the grand scheme of Jews in the first century CE. Who cares if 5% of the population had a particular belief. This doesn't make it true.

Btw, if the Sanhedrin was powerless; then how did they supposedly pull a capital punishment out of their hats while being under Roman jurisdiction?

Christians made bold claims. If they were false, it would be very easy to discredit them.

If anyone gave a crap. My contention is that the Sanhedrin had enough things to deal with that this fledgling little group was of no concern whatsoever. It is also pertinent to point out that the Jesus followers were NOT the only messianic group of the first century CE.

Yes there were.

According to what?

You honestly think that only theophilus had a copy of the book before it was canonized?

Theophilus isn't a single person. It's a euphemism for a fellow believer.

I'm sure there was circulation of this letter WITHIN THE GROUP THAT CARED ABOUT IT. Circulation of a letter for a sectarian group would have little to no value to someone who didn't care about it.

Christians were prolific copiers, there were ALWAYS multiple copies of Gospel stories etc.

According to what?

There is