Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The earliest back I've seen is the 2nd century (100-199 CE)

Which raises the question, why did it take 100 years for Jesus to be recognised?

Originally posted by lord xyz
The earliest back I've seen is the 2nd century (100-199 CE)

Which raises the question, why did it take 100 years for Jesus to be recognised?

Are you now denying Saint Paul's existence?

This is just too good.

You know nothing about how the Bible was made or how the historical community feel about it do you?

Originally posted by lord xyz
The earliest back I've seen is the 2nd century (100-199 CE)

Which raises the question, why did it take 100 years for Jesus to be recognised?

Great Fire of Rome. Nero said Christians caused it.

Which raises the question: are you trying to look stupid?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Are you now denying Saint Paul's existence?

This is just too good.

You know nothing about how the Bible was made or how the historical community feel about it do you? Isn't St. Paul in the Bible?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Great Fire of Rome. Nero said Christians caused it.

Which raises the question: are you trying to look stupid? Are you?

Since you clearly didn't name anyone.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Isn't St. Paul in the Bible?

Nope. No mention of people being Saints in the Bible. Paul was there, though.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Are you?

Since you clearly didn't name anyone.

You asked two questions. The second I refuted with ten seconds of searching, having an answer to it made your first question pointless unless you're actually interested in prominent first century Christians (which I seriously doubt).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nope. No mention of people being Saints in the Bible. Paul was there, though. Thank you for being perdantic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You asked two questions. Did I? Wow, never kneww that. *what the **** expression*

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The second I refuted with ten seconds of searching, having an answer to it made your first question pointless unless you're actually interested in prominent first century Christians (which I seriously doubt). You didn't refute anything.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Since you clearly didn't name anyone.

Eh, he was recognized before that. The Apostles and such, if we're to strictly believe Biblical history. It just wasn't made into a publicly practiced religion until a century or two after Jesus. Which throws into question all kinds of details about the origin and stories associated with Jesus, but isn't damning in and of itself...most major religions don't spring into life immediately anyway.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Eh, he was recognized before that. The Apostles and such, if we're to strictly believe Biblical history. It just wasn't made into a publicly practiced religion until a century or two after Jesus. Which throws into question all kinds of details about the origin and stories associated with Jesus, but isn't damning in and of itself...most major religions don't spring into life immediately anyway. It does question the origin of the stories.

If Jesus was real, believers of Jesus would've been recorded as far back as the first century, yet, there aren't any.

I've heard that the Bible was wrote at around 1/200 years after as well.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Thank you for being perdantic.

You're welcome.

Thank you for misspelling pedantic. It makes my point about your intelligence so much clearer for everyone else.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You didn't refute anything.

Yes I did. It's fairly hard to blame something on someone you've never heard of. In the 1st century Christians were blamed for starting the Great Fire of Rome. Thus Christians must have existed to blame in the first century.

Don't be silly, Sym. It was just a little typo. He obviously meant predantic, as opposed to postdantic. Duh.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't be silly, Sym. It was just a little typo. He obviously meant predantic, as opposed to postdantic. Duh.

B-but "dantic" isn't a root word. You c-cant and prefixes and postfixes is it like that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're welcome.

Thank you for misspelling pedantic. It makes my point about your intelligence so much clearer for everyone else.



Yes I did. It's fairly hard to blame something on someone you've never heard of. In the 1st century Christians were blamed for starting the Great Fire of Rome. Thus Christians must have existed to blame in the first century. Perfect, pernickety etc, it's an honest mistake.

He could just blame them for the sake of blaming them and only assume Christians existed in the first century by the assumption that Jesus was born in the first century.



It's not really notable, is it?

By looking, I think it's logical to say there were religious cults in the first century.

My point was it was apparant that the story was made up, by the fact that there's no evidence of the stories existing until 100 years after.

Marius wanted me to lay down my agenda.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Perfect, pernickety etc, it's an honest mistake.

He could just blame them for the sake of blaming them and only assume Christians existed in the first century by the assumption that Jesus was born in the first century.



It's not really notable, is it?

Considering they went out and persecuted Christians . . . considering they were a recognized group for him to accuse . . .


Seriously, if you don't want to believe in Jesus do what everyone who thinks the same does, take it on faith.

beside the human race ???

Originally posted by lord xyz
Perfect, pernickety etc, it's an honest mistake.

He could just blame them for the sake of blaming them and only assume Christians existed in the first century by the assumption that Jesus was born in the first century.



It's not really notable, is it?

I'm sorry, are you saying Nero anticipated the rise of Christianity and so blamed the Christians for burning Rome even though they didn't exist?

Isn't that akin to the British claiming Australia two centuries before anyone in the west knew it was there?

Your being completely ignorant...but at the same time quite clever.

The first century goes from the year 1 to the year 100. Now all the Christians at this time were very prominent and they still are they include: Jesus, St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. Matthew, St. John, St. Luke, St. Mary, St. Joseph, St. Paul and many many others. However, because the Christian communities took these peoples writings and formed them into Scripture you have found yourself a way of excluding them from a list- you don't want Christians who have been written about, you want ones who have not been written about but are still prominent?

However, luckily some of us aren't as stupid as you are.

Pope St. Clement (Died circa AD 99, became Pope in AD 88)
St. Ignatius of Antioch. (Born AD 35 died AD 117)
Saint Polycarp. (Born AD 69 died AD 155)

Three very prominent Church Fathers from the 1st century who did not get a mention in the Bible.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I'm sorry, are you saying Nero anticipated the rise of Christianity and so blamed the Christians for burning Rome even though they didn't exist?

Isn't that akin to the British claiming Australia two centuries before anyone in the west knew it was there?

Your being completely ignorant...but at the same time quite clever.

The first century goes from the year 1 to the year 100. Now all the Christians at this time were very prominent and they still are they include: Jesus, St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. Matthew, St. John, St. Luke, St. Mary, St. Joseph, St. Paul and many many others. However, because the Christian communities took these peoples writings and formed them into Scripture you have found yourself a way of excluding them from a list- you don't want Christians who have been written about, you want ones who have not been written about but are still prominent?

However, luckily some of us aren't as stupid as you are.

Pope St. Clement of Rome.
St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Saint Polycarp.

Three very prominent Church Fathers from the 1st century who did not get a mention in the Bible. Dude, those are excluded on the grounds of being excluded.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I'm sorry, are you saying Nero anticipated the rise of Christianity and so blamed the Christians for burning Rome even though they didn't exist? No, not at all.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Isn't that akin to the British claiming Australia two centuries before anyone in the west knew it was there? Possibly.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Your being completely ignorant...but at the same time quite clever. K.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The first century goes from the year 1 to the year 100. I think I already established that.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Now all the Christians at this time were very prominent and they still are they include: Jesus, St. Peter, St. Andrew, St. Matthew, St. John, St. Luke, St. Mary, St. Joseph, St. Paul and many many others. However, because the Christian communities took these peoples writings and formed them into Scripture you have found yourself a way of excluding them from a list- you don't want Christians who have been written about, you want ones who have not been written about but are still prominent? They can be written about, just not included in the Bible. For example, Justin Martyr was a christian, but he was in the second century, so doesn't count.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However, luckily some of us aren't as stupid as you are.

Pope St. Clement (Died circa AD 99, became Pope in AD 88)
St. Ignatius of Antioch. (Born AD 35 died AD 117)
Saint Polycarp. (Born AD 69 died AD 155)

Three very prominent Church Fathers from the 1st century who did not get a mention in the Bible. I see.

Fair enough.




One question still remains that I forgot to include in my first post:

Did any of them follow the Bible?

Originally posted by lord xyz
One question still remains that I forgot to include in my first post:

Did any of them follow the Bible?

They couldn't, the modern Bible was not specified until the 4th century.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They couldn't, the modern Bible was not specified until the 4th century. Not much of a book by God, then.

Originally posted by lord xyz
One question still remains that I forgot to include in my first post:

Did any of them follow the Bible?

Well, yes and no.

They followed the teachings of the people of the Bible, like Saint Paul- he sent letters to Christian Communities all across the known world and so teachings were fairly uniform- of course as the religion grew a need for a more concrete scripture became apparent.

However, the did not follow our Biblical Canon of today and instead relied on continuing revelation from the Holy Spirit for their faith.

Thank you for strengthening the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Cause.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not much of a book by God, then. How did you come to this quick and illogical conclusion?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well, yes and no.

They followed the teachings of the people of the Bible, like Saint Paul- he sent letters to Christian Communities all across the known world and so teachings were fairly uniform- of course as the religion grew a need for a more concrete scripture became apparent.

However, the did not follow our Biblical Canon of today and instead relied on continuing revelation from the Holy Spirit for their faith.

Thank you for strengthening the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Cause.

You mean, provide an argument to use the non-distorted scripture?

I guess I did do that, didn't I?

Originally posted by lord xyz
You mean, provide an argument to use the non-distorted scripture?

I guess I did do that, didn't I?

Scripture is irrelevant. its who wrote it that's important. Anyone can give a command and put it in a nice wee parable.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It does question the origin of the stories.

If Jesus was real, believers of Jesus would've been recorded as far back as the first century, yet, there aren't any.

I've heard that the Bible was wrote at around 1/200 years after as well.

Not necessarily. Recording methods of the day were largely oral, which was how Christianity survived the century or two before it came to be standardized. We also have non-Christian sources that mention the existence of Jesus. Briefly, granted, but they do.

And the Bible wasn't "written." It was pieced together using texts that range from well before Jesus to well after him.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You mean, provide an argument to use the non-distorted scripture?

I guess I did do that, didn't I?

What do you know about the Bible? Honestly.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We also have non-Christian sources that mention the existence of Jesus. Briefly, granted, but they do. No we don't.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No we don't.

XYZ, what do you know about the Bible.

Who wrote the NT?
When?
When was the book assembled?
Who assembled it?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
XYZ, what do you know about the Bible.

Who wrote the NT?
When?
When was the book assembled?
Who assembled it?

Who wrote the NT?
Unknown witters posing as disciples, but mostly Paul.

When?
Between 60 to 120 years after the death of Jesus.

When was the book assembled?
325 AD

Who assembled it?
The First Council of Nicaea.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Who wrote the NT?
Unknown witters posing as disciples, but mostly Paul.

When?
Between 60 to 120 years after the death of Jesus.

When was the book assembled?
325 AD

Who assembled it?
The First Council of Nicaea.

Good job, xy.....wait a minute...you are that smelly kid that always sits in the corner and raises his hand for every teacher's question cause he mistakes the annoyed moans of his classmates for affection.

(Also, the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts (believed to be the same person) wrote most of the NT).

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
XYZ, what do you know about the Bible.

Who wrote the NT? Mark, Matt, Luke, John and whoever wrote Corinthians etc. I'm guessing the others were collections of stories, scriptures etc.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
When? Don't know.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
When was the book assembled? You said the 4th century, so I'll say that.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Who assembled it? As I recall, it was a group of christian leaders who got together in Rome or wherever and decided what should go in and what shouldn't.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Mark, Matt, Luke, John and whoever wrote Corinthians etc. I'm guessing the others were collections of stories, scriptures etc.

Don't know.

You said the 4th century, so I'll say that.

As I recall, it was a group of christian leaders who got together in Rome or wherever and decided what should go in and what shouldn't.

In short, you don't have a clue do you?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
In short, you don't have a clue do you? I would say I have a vague idea.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I would say I have a vague idea.

You have an incredibly vague grasp of what the Bible is and how it was made and when all that took place.

You don't even know that Christians were well known in the 1st Century- as shown by Nero's persecution and Tacitus' records of their activities or the fears in Rome that they were cannibals...

However you still think you have the ability to challenge the Bible's legitimacy even though you don't know the facts you would need to know to undermine them?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Mark, Matt, Luke, John and whoever wrote Corinthians etc. I'm guessing the others were collections of stories, scriptures etc.

You've never ever crack open a Bible have you? Corinthians is "Paul's Letter to the Corinthians" would you like to try a guess about the writer?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've never ever crack open a Bible have you? Corinthians is "Paul's Letter to the Corinthians" would you like to try a guess about the writer?
Are you suggesting that lord xyz should read a bible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you suggesting that lord xyz should read a bible?

If he wants to have any sort of understanding he should know more than bits of isolated rhetoric.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If he wants to have any sort of understanding he should know more than bits of isolated rhetoric.

That's true, but I think better advice might be; stick to what you know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That's true, but I think better advice might be; stick to what you know.

The Bible should never have been given to the uneducated masses...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The Bible should never have been given to the uneducated masses...

Then take it back.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The Bible should never have been given to the uneducated masses... Yeah, if they had only burned that ****er Luther, instead of...you know...not. That and letting that idiot Henry marry a few times...things would be a lot different.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, if they had only burned that ****er Luther, instead of...you know...not. That and letting that idiot Henry marry a few times...things would be a lot different.

Less Scientific for a start yeah!.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Less Scientific for a start yeah!.

OMG what are we waiting for then?

Its never too late for a counter-reformation

Originally posted by inimalist
OMG what are we waiting for then?

Its never too late for a counter-reformation

It would have to be a Counter-Counter-Reformation though...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It would have to be a Counter-Counter-Reformation though...

wouldn't it be the second counter-reformation though?

counter-counter seems to me that it would be pro.... wait, pro science? I don't know about that...

Originally posted by inimalist
wouldn't it be the second counter-reformation though?

counter-counter seems to me that it would be pro.... wait, pro science? I don't know about that...

Counter-Counter-Reformation?

Protestant Reformation, an attempt by Martin Luther to reform the Roman Catholic Church that resulted in a schism, and grew into a wider movement.

Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church's response to the Protestants.

It would be the Counter-Counter-Reformation then.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation

Originally posted by inimalist
wouldn't it be the second counter-reformation though?

counter-counter seems to me that it would be pro.... wait, pro science? I don't know about that...

It kicked off the idea that creation could be used to put the Bible into context and back up sacred tradition...scientific method slowly evolved out of that process- which ended up nullifying God.

Mel Gibson
Better known as 'Mel Gimpal' in India