And the second part of the previous post:
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(3) Church Records. It is also the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY Christian Church that has preserved the early Church records such as the writings of the early Church "martyrs," the early Church Fathers, and the early Church correspondence between Popes and various rulers, etc. Why was there no other Christian Church doing the same thing? Because no other one existed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]72424[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The writings on the 'martyrs' were mostly doctored, see second excerpt below.
And church records are often a fraud and suspicious at other times. The book on 'Eccliastical history' (eccliastes = church) was written by one who was universally acknowledged as a compulsive liar, bishop Eusebius of Caesarea: http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2c.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The father of ecclesiastical history," as Eusebius of Caesarea is unhappily called ... He tells us also that his chief business as a writer is to "edify"; which means, to advertise the Church. So modern historians are discreetly reticent about the zealous and courtly bishop. I will, as usual, supply the word which they leave unspoken. Eusebius was a liar.
-- The Story of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe, historian and former Franciscan monk
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Concerning 'martyrs' see http://freetruth.50webs.org/Appendix5.htm (Joseph McCabe's The Story of Religious Controversy ) which starts with:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me turn over for you a page in the Migne (Roman Catholic) collection of the Fathers which is better than many tons of sermons and pamphlets. I turn to a decree of a Council held in Rome under the presidency of the Pope. The editors have put it in the year 494 A.D., and they make the Pope Gelasius. But I agree with certain modern scholars who think that the Pope was Damasus ("the tickler of matrons ears," as some of his priests called him), and that the Council was held between 370 and 380.
The Pope is nervous about the kind of literature which, even in the fourth century, and in Rome, is circulating amongst the faithful. Evidently -- that is why it is impossible to put the Council back to 494 -- the educated pagans are making fun of "Catholic Truth." The decree says this. So the Pope and his clergy solemnly warn the faithful that a vast amount of spurious literature is current.
They even draw up a list of some of the books; and the Catholic who trusts the Gospels on the ground that "the Church" would guard the faithful against false literature will be surprised if he reads the list. It contains a score of spurious Gospels (there is one in the name of each of the apostles, besides our four), Epistles and Acts. Our four Gospels are just a selection out of a muddy stream of legendary literature; and "the Church" had let all this have a free run for at least two centuries (to the time of Constantine) before it made any protest. There was no control whatever of Gospel-writing. But by the fourth century the Church found it prudent to suppress wild stories about "the boyhood of Jesus" and picturesque accounts of "the midwife of Jesus," and so on.
From the second (or end of the first) century onward, therefore, the new religion was confessedly nourished on spurious literature. And the beginning of persecution opened to the forgers a new and magnificent field. Very rightly and naturally the early Christians treasured the memory and the remains of the few priests and many simple-minded maids and matrons who had died rather than forswear what they believed to be the truth. ... If a church had no martyrs, it made them.
The spurious literature that existed in the fourth century is a mere trifle in comparison with the river of forgeries of the early Middle Ages. But it was serious enough to bring discredit on the Church. The "infidels," says the decree, are laughing at the Christians because their stories of martyrs are full of historical errors and patent absurdities.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The rest of the stuff on that page is a very good read.
Again:
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is also the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY Christian Church that has preserved the early Church records such as the writings of the early Church "martyrs," the early Church Fathers, and the early Church correspondence between Popes and various rulers<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]72424[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->They've 'preserved' very little. Most of these were forgeries - they invented people, attributed writings to invented people, attributed writings to real people, and all kinds of combinations of 'lying in writing' -
For instance, concerning the statement "It is also the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY Christian Church that has preserved...the early Church correspondence between Popes and various rulers" - assuming rulers refers to Roman Emperors, here's a good example of how reliable these 'correspondences preserved by the catholic church' are:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1d.htm#StJustinMartyr
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->JUSTIN MARTYR: (c. 100-165): Saint, Martyr, a foremost Christian Apologist. A Gentile ex-Pagan of Samaria, turned Christian, and supposed to have suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in whose name he forged a very preposterous script.
His principal works, in Greek, are his two Apologies, the first addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, whose reply he also forged; the second to "the sacred Senate" of Rome; his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, and his Hortatory Address to the Greeks.
-- The saintly "Fathers" of the Faith from Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dhu, the person who wrote the contents pasted in your #73 is deceiving himself in giving any credence to the catholic church and its documents. That person based his conclusions on several false premises at least.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(9) India. One (9) India. One of the main regions that Rome had hoped to conquer was India. The creators of the Christian religion had taken several of the major themes of the Indian religion and had incorporated them into the Christian religion so that in anticipation of their conquering India, the citizens there would accept the new religion easily.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]72424[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I can't see that christianism was ever intended by Rome to bring India within its rule. When a new religion modelled on many Greco-Roman motifs (christianism) so completely failed to appeal to the citizens of the Empire itself, how did they imagine it would appeal to Hindus?
As for imperial Rome (as opposed to the church) inventing much of the gospels contents, I don't really know. The 'universal imperial religion' idea always only made sense upto a point. But the problem is <b>timing</b>, IMO. It wasn't until the 4th and 5th centuries when most things related to historical christianity started taking place: deciding on the contents of the gospels, the doctrines, and also the forgeries, the manipulation of events of the first two centuries ('persecutions') by rewriting history. And I thought the decisive attempts to bring Jerusalem's population to heel took place before the 4th and 5th.
As regards imperial Rome entertaining plans of designing a single religion for all of the empire and any new conquests: what never made sense to me was why. Their existing religion(s) did not divide the populace, and more importantly, christianity was most unfavourably 'received' - it had to be forced down, bitterly.
Dhu, there's so much missing in relation to the history of that part of the world in that time - wilfully destroyed by the church - that it would be a miracle to <i>know</i> with any certainty whether a reconstruction is wholly accurate. I do nod my head to some of the stuff that you've posted on this matter (whilst I do not completely understand some other posts or how they're related to this topic - but that's just me being slow), but the problem remains that it is hard at present to confirm any of this. It is certainly true that christianism is a remarkably curious synthesis of the prime beliefs of every major religion and movement in the empire (and of those beyond the empire which had been heard of). And it fits in perfectly to think that this religion was manufactured to have universal appeal to all of the empire's citizens. But the facts of history are elusive, all we know definitely is that the people found christianism particularly hard to swallow and were unwilling to do so. If it was Rome's intention at any point to foist this labratory-made religion onto the populace in order to strengthen and unify the empire, they had surely miscalculated grossly. It brought more division and strife and weakness.
And...I see I'm repeating myself again. That means it's time for me to sign off.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(3) Church Records. It is also the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY Christian Church that has preserved the early Church records such as the writings of the early Church "martyrs," the early Church Fathers, and the early Church correspondence between Popes and various rulers, etc. Why was there no other Christian Church doing the same thing? Because no other one existed.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]72424[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The writings on the 'martyrs' were mostly doctored, see second excerpt below.
And church records are often a fraud and suspicious at other times. The book on 'Eccliastical history' (eccliastes = church) was written by one who was universally acknowledged as a compulsive liar, bishop Eusebius of Caesarea: http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2c.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The father of ecclesiastical history," as Eusebius of Caesarea is unhappily called ... He tells us also that his chief business as a writer is to "edify"; which means, to advertise the Church. So modern historians are discreetly reticent about the zealous and courtly bishop. I will, as usual, supply the word which they leave unspoken. Eusebius was a liar.
-- The Story of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe, historian and former Franciscan monk
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Concerning 'martyrs' see http://freetruth.50webs.org/Appendix5.htm (Joseph McCabe's The Story of Religious Controversy ) which starts with:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me turn over for you a page in the Migne (Roman Catholic) collection of the Fathers which is better than many tons of sermons and pamphlets. I turn to a decree of a Council held in Rome under the presidency of the Pope. The editors have put it in the year 494 A.D., and they make the Pope Gelasius. But I agree with certain modern scholars who think that the Pope was Damasus ("the tickler of matrons ears," as some of his priests called him), and that the Council was held between 370 and 380.
The Pope is nervous about the kind of literature which, even in the fourth century, and in Rome, is circulating amongst the faithful. Evidently -- that is why it is impossible to put the Council back to 494 -- the educated pagans are making fun of "Catholic Truth." The decree says this. So the Pope and his clergy solemnly warn the faithful that a vast amount of spurious literature is current.
They even draw up a list of some of the books; and the Catholic who trusts the Gospels on the ground that "the Church" would guard the faithful against false literature will be surprised if he reads the list. It contains a score of spurious Gospels (there is one in the name of each of the apostles, besides our four), Epistles and Acts. Our four Gospels are just a selection out of a muddy stream of legendary literature; and "the Church" had let all this have a free run for at least two centuries (to the time of Constantine) before it made any protest. There was no control whatever of Gospel-writing. But by the fourth century the Church found it prudent to suppress wild stories about "the boyhood of Jesus" and picturesque accounts of "the midwife of Jesus," and so on.
From the second (or end of the first) century onward, therefore, the new religion was confessedly nourished on spurious literature. And the beginning of persecution opened to the forgers a new and magnificent field. Very rightly and naturally the early Christians treasured the memory and the remains of the few priests and many simple-minded maids and matrons who had died rather than forswear what they believed to be the truth. ... If a church had no martyrs, it made them.
The spurious literature that existed in the fourth century is a mere trifle in comparison with the river of forgeries of the early Middle Ages. But it was serious enough to bring discredit on the Church. The "infidels," says the decree, are laughing at the Christians because their stories of martyrs are full of historical errors and patent absurdities.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The rest of the stuff on that page is a very good read.
Again:
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is also the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY Christian Church that has preserved the early Church records such as the writings of the early Church "martyrs," the early Church Fathers, and the early Church correspondence between Popes and various rulers<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]72424[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->They've 'preserved' very little. Most of these were forgeries - they invented people, attributed writings to invented people, attributed writings to real people, and all kinds of combinations of 'lying in writing' -
For instance, concerning the statement "It is also the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY Christian Church that has preserved...the early Church correspondence between Popes and various rulers" - assuming rulers refers to Roman Emperors, here's a good example of how reliable these 'correspondences preserved by the catholic church' are:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1d.htm#StJustinMartyr
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->JUSTIN MARTYR: (c. 100-165): Saint, Martyr, a foremost Christian Apologist. A Gentile ex-Pagan of Samaria, turned Christian, and supposed to have suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in whose name he forged a very preposterous script.
His principal works, in Greek, are his two Apologies, the first addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, whose reply he also forged; the second to "the sacred Senate" of Rome; his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, and his Hortatory Address to the Greeks.
-- The saintly "Fathers" of the Faith from Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dhu, the person who wrote the contents pasted in your #73 is deceiving himself in giving any credence to the catholic church and its documents. That person based his conclusions on several false premises at least.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Aug 24 2007, 10:39 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(9) India. One (9) India. One of the main regions that Rome had hoped to conquer was India. The creators of the Christian religion had taken several of the major themes of the Indian religion and had incorporated them into the Christian religion so that in anticipation of their conquering India, the citizens there would accept the new religion easily.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]72424[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I can't see that christianism was ever intended by Rome to bring India within its rule. When a new religion modelled on many Greco-Roman motifs (christianism) so completely failed to appeal to the citizens of the Empire itself, how did they imagine it would appeal to Hindus?
As for imperial Rome (as opposed to the church) inventing much of the gospels contents, I don't really know. The 'universal imperial religion' idea always only made sense upto a point. But the problem is <b>timing</b>, IMO. It wasn't until the 4th and 5th centuries when most things related to historical christianity started taking place: deciding on the contents of the gospels, the doctrines, and also the forgeries, the manipulation of events of the first two centuries ('persecutions') by rewriting history. And I thought the decisive attempts to bring Jerusalem's population to heel took place before the 4th and 5th.
As regards imperial Rome entertaining plans of designing a single religion for all of the empire and any new conquests: what never made sense to me was why. Their existing religion(s) did not divide the populace, and more importantly, christianity was most unfavourably 'received' - it had to be forced down, bitterly.
Dhu, there's so much missing in relation to the history of that part of the world in that time - wilfully destroyed by the church - that it would be a miracle to <i>know</i> with any certainty whether a reconstruction is wholly accurate. I do nod my head to some of the stuff that you've posted on this matter (whilst I do not completely understand some other posts or how they're related to this topic - but that's just me being slow), but the problem remains that it is hard at present to confirm any of this. It is certainly true that christianism is a remarkably curious synthesis of the prime beliefs of every major religion and movement in the empire (and of those beyond the empire which had been heard of). And it fits in perfectly to think that this religion was manufactured to have universal appeal to all of the empire's citizens. But the facts of history are elusive, all we know definitely is that the people found christianism particularly hard to swallow and were unwilling to do so. If it was Rome's intention at any point to foist this labratory-made religion onto the populace in order to strengthen and unify the empire, they had surely miscalculated grossly. It brought more division and strife and weakness.
And...I see I'm repeating myself again. That means it's time for me to sign off.