Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Conversions to Christianity were slow but steady
Then the Born Againers come with no knowledge of the locals and print pamplets saying Hindu gods and goddesses are demons -- they distribute these. The Hindus get pretty indignant and throw stones and attack Christian places of worship -- of course the only ones visible are the Catholic and Orthodox ones....
no, a slap on the face serves no purpose at all and in fact ensures your cause is lost
Of course they did! Would you expect them not to?
Luke in particular pays attention to historical details that were one time mocked but have later proved to be right on
I wasn't aware of that. Which ones?
And how successful were they in the long term - not very
They didn't have the backing of the sole superpower in the world as Christianity did since the Edict of Milan. Despite that, Manichaeism was the largest religion in the known world until the 7th century.
Tacitus wrote there was a growth of the following of Jesus after his death for instance. 3000 are recorded on the day of Pentecost
Just because they attracted attention or notoriety doesn't tell us how popular it was. As for the 3,000 that is a Christian source...and is expected to be exaggerated. Tell me how many Christians were there in the romen Empire in the first cnetury AD.
Pliny the Younger complained about its growth in 110 AD. The fact is kosta, the church grew inspite of the persecution and the contrary nature of the gospel it preached.
So did other sects that made up Christianity, the Ebionites, the Gnostics in aprticular (Marcion, Valentius, and others), etc. Thye were all counted in Rome as "Christians".
And even the short term, they were limited geographically as well as demographically
Read up on Menachaeism, G.
LOL, yes Constantine ate too much pasta before going to bed that night. Yet you give him too much credit, especially since after Nicea he turned the arians loose against the Christians for another round and period of persecution now didn't he.
The Arians were only some of the sects that were counted as Christians (along with Nesotirans, and Donatists, and Adoptionsits, and Sebellians, etc.). Constatine was himself an Airan — It's a Chrisotlogical issue of who Christ is/was, noth some non-Christian sect. It was akin to Protestanti/Catholic division, a split in the same religion. You are mixing apples and oranges.
And also, Christianity was growing in areas outside of Rome's control at that time as well. Yet the bottom line is kosta - it did grow inspite of persecution and inspite of constantine.
The Bogomils and Anabaptists grew depsite Catholic and Protestant pogroms. The Protestants succeeded because the STATE reognized them, just as Christainity succeeded because the STATE reocngized them and stood behind them. Those on the loser end didn'thave that luck.
One point I see you avoided was the profound change in the Apostles and other followers after the resurrection
I didn't avoid it. I already said it's something written after the fact...
Yes, and that's why I say not to limit Christ, the Word of God to just the Written Word.
All he did in the Edict of Milan was remove penalties for practising Christianity. This Edict did not only protect Christians, but ALL religions, allowing all to worship whichever deity they chose. This was passed in 313. In 311, Emperor Galerius had passed a similar edict.
Theodosius I the Great declared Christianity the official state religion in 380 AD.
Making my point as far as kosta is concerned. He rejects all witnesses for their unreliability. You accept his logic.
And your example is not relevant. There are numerous living witnesses and examinable facts and measurements which can absolutely establish that your last statement is false. He and you fail to establish that about John.
What hypocrisy? What nonsense?
Well, maybe it's "nonsense" to you; but you have no sense to begin with.
The statement you quote comes from A-G, not me. I was simply endorsing it for its truth. Get your facts straight.
Your statement, James, comes out of the mouth of an idiot....
I don't think you could reason your way out of a wet paper bag.
JMHO FWIW
Taking it coldly and not weighing the merits or demerits of its philosophy, Manichaenism just came at the wrong time. It was growing up when Zoroastrianism and Christianity already had state influence and that was the territory Manichaenism wanted to muscle in to
It did not work. By 291, they were being persecuted in persia and later around 300 Diocletian order them to be condemned to fire
Manichaenism is speculated to have influenced +Augustine -- how much, I have not studied enough to give an opinion on
But there is no doubt that the Cathars, paulicians, etc. were Manichaen in thought
That's why it is made up. His answer is completely non sequitur, and that's why the Latin translators tried to "make sense" of it by changing the "above" into "again".
You even have English Bibles which translate anothen as "from above", and not "again". Cite one example where "anothen" by itself means "again". Even if we allow that it is some hyperbolic slang 'pun' in Greek (of singular occurrence!), how could Nicodemuc minsudnerstand the "pun" in Aramaic when in Aramaic the word "above" can never be understood as "again"?
So then how does overturning money tables and whipping people not fit in with a slap in the face? And I don't think that being called the son of the devil is a compliment.
Again, I dispute that as having no evidence. Manichaenism was the state religion of the Uighurs (Xinjiang province in China today but much larger then), but it still did not compare in adherents to Christianity or Zoroastrianism
About the rest of your post -- I need to research more :)
Thank you, I stand corrected.
How large was Christianity? Reliable data? We can only go by how widespread it was, and Manichaeism was greater in that sense than Christianity.
Learn to read, and better yet, comprehend.
I said you endorse them, thereby proving yourself a hypocrite. To call you an idiot (like you do in knee-jerk fashion when your hypocrisy is pointed out) would be a waste of bandwidth. Your nonsensical posts do that job quite nicely, thank you very much.
Do you believe in destroying Christian relics? After all, they’re also “proof” of your deity’s “reality”. Burn up the Shroud of Turin, ay? Unless you don’t want the “proof” destroyed...
Good grief, James! What a non-sequitur!
BTW, If I am a "hypocrite" in your book, then please tell me: Just how do you define "hypocrite?"
Come again? John was trying to make no sense? Look, whatever word John used in verse 3 prompted a question about a womb in verse 4. Yet that same word(or phrase) is translated the same way in verse 7. Be that as it may, the word born is not in contention and that word is definite. On top of that Peter uses "ἀναγεννάω", born again.
Truth or lie kosta.
I wasn't aware of that. Which ones?
Luke used the correct titles, discovered to be correct by later information?
In Acts 13 v 7, Luke addressed Sergius Paulus with the (correct) term "anthupa";, translated "deputy"; or "proconsul."
Luke correctly called Herod Antipas "tetrarch".
Luke called the rulers of city in Thessalonica: politarchs (See Acts 17:6). skeptics got particularly hot on this one kosta since "politarchs" wasn't found in any classical greek literature. Yet in 1835 an arch was found in Thessalonica from the first century that contained the title 'politarch'.
In Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23, Erastus, a coworker of Paul, is named the Corinthian city treasurer. Archaeologists excavating a Corinthian theatre in 1928 discovered an inscription. It reads, "Erastus in return for his aedilship laid the pavement at his own expense." The pavement was laid in 50 A.D.
These are just a few of the details that at one time skeptics used to scoff at the accuracy of Luke's writings.
Just because they attracted attention or notoriety doesn't tell us how popular it was. As for the 3,000 that is a Christian source...and is expected to be exaggerated. Tell me how many Christians were there in the romen Empire in the first cnetury AD.
And why should a source be considered 'lying' just because it is Christian kosta? Then present the teachings of Jesus which focus on truthfulness - not deception.
Tell me how many Christians were there in the romen Empire in the first cnetury AD.
There were over 40 centers of Christianity established by the end of the first century kosta. That doesn't include the smaller outliers. I've looked up rough numbers ranging from 1700 to hundreds of thousands. Encyclopeda Britticania IIRC states that by the time of constantine Christians composed roughly 10% of the ROMAN empire (and doesn't count those outside of the empire). Some place that 10% figure at about 4 million. And that growth is uphill, against persecution and society.
They didn't have the backing of the sole superpower in the world as Christianity did since the Edict of Milan. Despite that, Manichaeism was the largest religion in the known world until the 7th century
Do you have actual demographics for this kosta? Exact numbers please. But you admit, they failed to survive under persecution, whereas Christianity continued to grow and survive under even harsher persecution (and still does today in places like China). Extinct is a very clear word to explain the failure of Manichaeism, especially when it spread into the ME and Asia (outside the realm of the Edict).
Thye were all counted in Rome as "Christians".
Documentation please kosta.
The Arians were only some of the sects that were counted as Christians (along with Nesotirans, and Donatists, and Adoptionsits, and Sebellians, etc.). Constatine was himself an Airan — It's a Chrisotlogical issue of who Christ is/was, noth some non-Christian sect. It was akin to Protestanti/Catholic division, a split in the same religion. You are mixing apples and oranges
Come on kosta, the definition of the nature of God as a trinity was mainline from the earliest record. Arianism and the other 'isms' ceased to be Christian by violating one or more of the fundamental teachings of Christianity. These 'isms' were not welcomed into the church and arian's attempted to kill off opposition (with the emperor's blessing).
The Bogomils and Anabaptists grew depsite Catholic and Protestant pogroms. The Protestants succeeded because the STATE reognized them, just as Christainity succeeded because the STATE reocngized them and stood behind them. Those on the loser end didn'thave that luck.
Sorry kosta, protestants succeeded inspite of persecution even in states that refused to recognize them.
I didn't avoid it. I already said it's something written after the fact...
In short - you avoided it. Thanks.
placemarker
well, it was large enough to be a problem in the Romaoi Empire.
From history world
In the year 251 the church in Rome has on its books the bishop (in other words the pope), 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, readers and doorkeepers, and the very large number of 1500 widows and paupers being 'fed by the grace and kindness of the Lord'.I haven't cross-referenced this.
If you take this as a fact, 251 is a few decades before Mani
Rome had a million folks, and take it roughly as 1 priest for 1000 folks and you have 46 to 50,000 people in Rome alone -- 5% of the population. 5% aren't a real pain, so perhaps it was larger -- after all, 140 years later when Theodosius made it state religion, the pagans were too outnumbered to protest much, so it must have been 50% at that time
And for Constantine to put the symbol on his flag would signify that that wise politician realised that more people were becoming Christian or were Christian
The figures on Manichaens is next to nonexistent, and they were persecuted in each Empire right from their start, so they never had a chance to grow
The uyghur Empire may have been large, but it was not populous
in terms of being widespread -- yes, the Manichaens were widespread, but arguably so too was the Church of the East (the Assyrian Church)
That was one occasion friend, one occasion. And on that occasion Jesus was not looking to preach to those moneylenders but to prove a point — that the house of God is to be kept holy. This is a different case
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.