Originally Posted by Everyday Hunter
Originally Posted by derby_dude
It's true in the very early years probably the first thirty or so the religion wasn't organized but it didn't take long to start organizing especially once the Roman bureaucrats joined the Church and once Constantine made Christianity the official state religion it was all over but the shouting.

Glad you agree, but that's not what you said earlier. You don't get to change your point when your point is proven incorrect.

Originally Posted by derby_dude
Remember, the Old Testament was written in only the first seventy years or so and isn't the complete history of the Church if it's history at all of the Church.

I'm sure, or at least I hope, you actually mean the NEW Testament. And it's pretty well accepted that the New Testament is reliable history. Luke, for example (who wrote a Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, arguably the biggest contributor to the New Testament) is today regarded as a historian of the first rank. I refer you again to F. F. Bruce and his book The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable? (There is also a more recent book that covers his ground and brings the issues more up to date; if I remember the name of it I'll insert it later.) Paul, while not writing history per se, does not contradict the history we know, and due to his travels produced a body of work that would be easy to discredit historically if that could be done.

Originally Posted by derby_dude
As to the second part I'm dead right and you prove my point. Of course orthodox Christianity is not mysticism at least for the rank and file. The books that were accepted into the New Testament were the books that would provide for a ruling hierarchy. The ruling hierarchy needs ignorance in order to survive.

Here, you're changing your point again. But to continue, there is far more to the acceptance of the New Testament books than you admit.

You confuse the church with the Church, and try to define it crisply and clearly (which even the theologians are unable to do) according to your own preconceptions.

Originally Posted by derby_dude
The last thing the Church (religious state) needs or wants is a bunch of self-reliant, free thinking, and wealthy mystics running around. Look what happened to the Cathars.

The way you use the term "church" changes continually, so I'm going to go ahead and let you post away. No meaningful discussion can be had when the terms of the discussion are fluid.

Steve.


I assume that everyone knows that the Church wasn't organized immediately upon Jesus's death. I guess I shouldn't assume anything. Rome was nothing if not an organizing machine.

Yes I did mean the NEW Testament. Sorry for the poor proof reading. I'm usually in a hurry but that's no excuse.

As to the New Testament being reliable history, all legends and mythologies have some eliminate of historical truth but they are still stories none the less. I believe that the Bible is just a collections of legends and mythologies just like Pagan legends and mythologies. I do not put a lot of stock in stories written by anonymous dead men.

As to changing my point of view I have changed nothing. I stand by what I said.

When I use the term Church I'm referring to the the religious state of the Roman Christian Church. When I use the term with a small case "c" letter I'm referring to church the building. I thought I was clear.

All Christian sects are members of the same orthodox Church out of Roman just differences of theological opinions on the same subject. The Church is ALL orthodox Christian sects under one roof so to speak.

Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous

"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude