Hi Bastage,

Bastage:

Please Pilgrim. What are these sects that survived Catholic persecution?
You make the early Church sound like it embraced it's competitors rather than being the overwhelming destroyer of anything that stood in it's way.

My statements don't make any such strains - not one time have I hinted that Catholcism embraced its competitors; nor would I be that extreme to say that it was the overwhelming destroyer of anything that stood in its way. There were issues that arose among churches in early Christianity; and if one uses the word 'percecution' and 'destroyer' merely for the sake of peppering these extremes, we should understand that Marcion was excommunicated from Rome after his money was handed back to him.

An example of another such issue about the doctrine of Christ was Nestorianism (from Nestorius, c. 386–c. 451, archbishop of Constantinople) who posited that Christ exists as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as two natures (True God and True Man) of one divine person. Nestorius' postulation of Christ was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church. However, the Assyrian Church has survived to this day and has refused to drop support for Nestorius or to denounce him as a heretic.

In just the same way that Marcion gained a following after he was condemned as a heretic, so did Nestorius gain a significant following even after his having been condemned as a heretic. Difference is that Marcion's movement 'phased out', but the Nestorians have grown strong and survived to this day.

Bastage:

The Church itself viewed Marcionism as it's most dangerous foe. Would it really hold this view if Marcionism was a crack-pot sect that would die out naturally? Your claim is utterly illogical.

The Catholic Church saw many movements as dangerous to its claims; and if you're seeking a logical claim for Marcion, it is too weak to push that idea of yours in the fact that Nestorius' teachings and movement survived as well even after his having been condemned as a heretic. The difference in Nestorius' case is that, 'today the Assyrian and Roman Catholic Church view this schism as largely linguistic, due to problems of translating very delicate and precise terminology from Latin to Aramaic and vice-versa'.

Bastage:

You keep saying "Go to the texts". I've been there. They prove nothing that you're preaching. So how about you pull something from the texts rather than bleating the same thing over and over again?

Please. Less hiding behind eloquent wordplay and more truth.

Eloquence has nothing to do with sharing this matter with you, Bastage. . and nothing is hidden here. How do you defend Marcion's idea that Jesus was sent by a god greater than the Creator from his own canon? If he was not afraid of his own convictions, why was he busy editing the texts he collated as his own canon, when he was not their author?

Bastage:

You don't? Then which planet have you been living on? Of all the statements you've made, this one displays utter ignorance and totally disregards history. Even with the Church writing most of that history, we can see that it controlled every single aspect of a human being's life for centuries and we have records of how it treated dissenters.

I'm not driven to extremes of such disorient assertions, Bastage. If your assertions should hold any substance in this regard, how have you failed to notice that such "brute force" could not be read into the example of Nestorius (unless people just want to deliberately do so)?

How do you defend Marcion's idea that Jesus was sent by a god greater than the Creator from his own canon?

Why would I want to? If you've actually read anything I've posted, you'd see me stating time and time again that I disagree with Marcion. Yet you seem to totally disregard this and want me to justify a position I don't hold with. How is that logical?

nor would I be that extreme to say that it was the overwhelming destroyer of anything that stood in its way.

That is just pure denial. History shows us that the Catholic Church stamped out "heresy" where-ever it could find it. Where-ever it was even suspected of existing.

You use Nestorianism as an example of a sect that survived? Oh please get real. The only surviving sect members are found in staunch Islamic countries where the arm of the Catholic Church could not reach. Nestorianism survived simply because the Catholic Church did not have the reach to stamp it out. Prior to the protection of Islam it was the Eastern Church that was the protector from Catholic persecution. But Nestorianism within Catholic jurisdiction was stamped out.
If they could have destroyed it totally, they would have, as witnessed by the sects persecution where Cathloicism did have influence. A sect surviving because it was able to retreat out of harm's way is not a relevant example. Give an example of a major sect that survived under Rome's nose instead.

The claim you make is just pure and utter deception on your part.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

How do you defend Marcion's idea that Jesus was sent by a god greater than the Creator from his own canon?

Why would I want to? If you've actually read anything I've posted, you'd see me stating time and time again that I disagree with Marcion. Yet you seem to totally disregard this and want me to justify a position I don't hold with. How is that logical?

I wonder why you keep pushing that same logic and then coming back to complain about it. If you paid any close attention yourself, would this argument have dragged on to this time? You and I disagree with Marcion, QED - but no, you would not want to leave it at that and that is why you have been coming back again and again to that same point. My simple premise was for you to settle this issue for yourself by going to the text and defending Marcion's postulations from there, if you can't let the matter be. If you're disinclined thereto, what logic are you then seeking to advance for what you can't defend? How logical is it for you to ask others to do something you're so disinclined to do yourself?

Bastage:

That is just pure denial. History shows us that the Catholic Church stamped out "heresy" where-ever it could find it. Where-ever it was even suspected of existing.

"Stamped out", my dear Bastage is simply a knee-jerk reaction that blinds itself to the example of Nestorian posits. If indeed the Catholic Church "stamped out" everything it deemed a "heresy", how is it that Nestorianism survived such "stamping" especially where it was not a case of suspected occurence where it unequivocally branded Nestorius a heretic in an open council?

Bastage:

You use Nestorianism as an example of a sect that survived? Oh please get real. The only surviving sect members are found in staunch Islamic countries where the arm of the Catholic Church could not reach. Nestorianism survived simply because the Catholic Church did not have the reach to stamp it out. Prior to the protection of Islam it was the Eastern Church that was the protector from Catholic persecution. But Nestorianism within Catholic jurisdiction was stamped out.

Lol, you're just sounding really desperate here, I'm sorry to say. How could this statement even make any sense to you, Bastage - as if to say that it was Islam that protected Nestorianism? I am wondering if you're deliberately missing the chronology here and advancing these excuses for what you are disinclined to see for yourself. Please understand something: Islam was a late comer to the scene, not a contemporaneous religion when these events occured! So, how could Islam that came way later have been the one thing that stood in the way of the Catholic persecutors if they wanted to reach the Nestorians? I find that excuse a very weak defence for your assertions, Bastage.

Bastage:

If they could have destroyed it totally, they would have, as witnessed by the sects persecution where Cathloicism did have influence. A sect surviving because it was able to retreat out of harm's way is not a relevant example. Give an example of a major sect that survived under Rome's nose instead.

Your excuses for the example I gave are too weak, my dear sir. Scuttling behind those excuses are obviously obfuscating simple historical facts for yourself - unless you would like to find a clever way of re-inventing historical chronology to place Islam earlier than its origin.

Bastage:

The claim you make is just pure and utter deception on your part.

Thank you, I'm not the one confusing the dates of events in these histories.

I wonder why you keep pushing that same logic and then coming back to complain about it. If you paid any close attention yourself, would this argument have dragged on to this time? You and I disagree with Marcion, QED - but no, you would not want to leave it at that and that is why you have been coming back again and again to that same point.

No. My argument is that he wasn't a "heretic". He and his followers were merely people who believed a different kind of Christianity. Which part of that don't you understand?

If indeed the Catholic Church "stamped out" everything it deemed a "heresy", how is it that Nestorianism survived such "stamping" especially where it was not a case of suspected occurence where it unequivocally branded Nestorius a heretic in an open council?

Quite simply, it retreated Eastwards out of the clutches of Rome. But then I've already stated that.

Islam was a late comer to the scene, not a contemporaneous religion when these events occured! So, how could Islam that came way later have been the one thing that stood in the way of the Catholic persecutors if they wanted to reach the Nestorians?

Do you intentionally not read my posts and then pick me up on points I've already answered? Let point out to you again what I have already written -  "The only surviving sect members are found in staunch Islamic countries where the arm of the Catholic Church could not reach. Nestorianism survived simply because the Catholic Church did not have the reach to stamp it out. Prior to the protection of Islam it was the Eastern Church that was the protector from Catholic persecution." You even quoted it yourself!!!
There is absolutely no chronological misunderstanding on my part. If you're going to make an accusation then please try not to base it where it can be so easily dissected and disowned.


You keep harping on about how my arguments are weak yet you offer nothing whatsoever of substance in retort. Do you think by repeating the phrase "Your argument is weak" it becomes true? Do you also think that by repeating questions that I've already answered you become more convincing?

Thank you, I'm not the one confusing the dates of events in these histories.

And if you'd been honest, you'd have seen that I haven't.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

No. My argument is that he wasn't a "heretic". He and his followers were merely people who believed a different kind of Christianity. Which part of that don't you understand?

Which is hardly any different from what has been said already. We both disagree with Marcion, but from different angles - that disagreement with Marcion leads some of us to the inference that he was heretic; yours says "No, he wasn't heretical". Okay, in order to help you solve this problem, I offered that you go to the text and answer two simple questions for yourself: (a) why was Marcion editing documents which he did not author? (b) could you defend Marcion's postulations even from the texts he finally collated as his own canon?

At the end of these two premises, you disinclined with a "Why would I want to?" Which simply makes me wonder what exactly you are arguing here. Is there any logic in your position to foster an idea and yet be so unwilling to show these same postulations from the very texts that address Marcion's persuasions? If Marcion had nothing to fear in himself, one wonders why he would be busy editing documents he never authored in the first place, and yet those who seem to euphemistically acknowledge him are too busy applauding him and yet be so unwilling to defend him even from within his own canon!

Now, if you cannot understand these simple issues, how else could one help you, Bastage?

Bastage:

Quite simply, it retreated Eastwards out of the clutches of Rome. But then I've already stated that.

Which has no bearing yet on your earlier defence of "stamped out" in regards to following them on to the regions of "Islam" that did not yet exist at the time!

Bastage:

Do you intentionally not read my posts and then pick me up on points I've already answered?

No, rather I call your attention to the fact that you're making vacant statements and positing them as "facts' whereas you cannot (and have not been able to) hold a coherence in what you assert.

Bastage:

Let point out to you again what I have already written - "The only surviving sect members are found in staunch Islamic countries where the arm of the Catholic Church could not reach. Nestorianism survived simply because the Catholic Church did not have the reach to stamp it out. Prior to the protection of Islam it was the Eastern Church that was the protector from Catholic persecution."
There is absolutely no chronological misunderstanding on my part. If you're going to make an accusation then please try not to base it where it can be so easily dissected and disowned.

I wonder why the hint to Islamic countries as if they had anything to do with protecting Nestorianism. The case is simply a fallacy, and it should not have even endured in your excuses. Second, even when you advance the idea of the Eastern Church being the protector of Catholic persecution, are you not once again making a weaker case for your postulations?

Nestor was branded a heretic by the same Catholic Church in the Ephesian Council in 431 AD - how does the resulting schism advance the idea that the Eastern Church was "protecting" Nestorius from the "persecution" of the Catholic Church? The schism was from within the same group - the posits of Nestorius resulted in the "Nestorian schism" and the separation of the Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church. This debate on Christology went on for years and even Ephesus could not settle the issue - where upon the Byzantine Church was soon split again over the same question, leading to the "Chalcedonian schism".

From all these splits arising from differences in opinions, where was the Catholic Church "stamping out" others whom they branded 'heretics'? How come these others were not "stamped out" as well as you assumed? I don't think that making wild statements just because one is disenchanted with Catholicism is a helpful position to take - more often than not, it simple blinds people to simple facts, which is why I have been trying to make you see the issues as they are instead of lumping them all under a Catholic "stamped out" that does not address these particulars.

Bastage:

You keep harping on about how my arguments are weak yet you offer nothing whatsoever of substance in retort.

If I offered "nothing", you may as well have said you didn't see them! I addressed your worries directly, or you would not have asked for another example than Nestorianism.

Bastage:

Do you think by repeating the phrase "Your argument is weak" it becomes true? Do you also think that by repeating questions that I've already answered you become more convincing?

I don't think that shlepping your weak points and vacant statements are going to translate your arguments into reality.

a) why was Marcion editing documents which he did not author? (b) could you defend Marcion's postulations even from the texts he finally collated as his own canon?

a) It was the absolute norm to edit texts. Everyone involved with early Christianity was editing. You speak as if this was some sort of great conspiracy unlike the absolute norm that it was back then.

b) I tell you yet again that I don't need to. You don't seem to understand that the contents are irrelevant when in the context of this topic.

If Marcion had nothing to fear in himself, one wonders why he would be busy editing documents he never authored in the first place

Are you for real? The whole Bible has been edited by people who "never authored it in the first place". What do you think you read when you pick up your Bible?

Which has no bearing yet on your earlier defence of "stamped out" in regards to following them on to the regions of "Islam" that did not yet exist at the time!

Yet again you totallly ignore the fact that I stated that the Nestorian sect was protected prior to Islam. Which part of the word prior do you not understand?

Now, if you cannot understand these simple issues, how else could one help you, Bastage?

Issues? I've shown repeatedly I understand the issues yet you seem not to understand plain English.

Second, even when you advance the idea of the Eastern Church being the protector of Catholic persecution, are you not once again making a weaker case for your postulations?

No. Because it was a progression. You're the one that doesn't seem to grasp the chronological timeline so let me put it in simple terms for you - First it was protected by the Eastern Church. Then the Persians. Then the Islamic countries.
There's no easier way to put it and no other way that can be taken in context. Got it?

You seem oblivious to the fact that if Nestorians needed protection, there must have been a persecutor. Who do you think this persecutor was? The Tooth Fairy?

Nestor was branded a heretic by the same Catholic Church in the Ephesian Council in 431 AD - how does the resulting schism advance the idea that the Eastern Church was "protecting" Nestorius from the "persecution" of the Catholic Church

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

The Assyrian Church of the East refused to drop support for Nestorius or to denounce him as a heretic.

Yes it created a schism, but you seem to be totally denying that the Eastern Church defended Nestor when that is plainly untrue.

From all these splits arising from differences in opinions, where was the Catholic Church "stamping out" others whom they branded 'heretics'?

Are you being serious? No really. Are you? Are you honestly saying that the Catholic Church has never persecuted and stamped or tried to stamp out opponents?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews

But why post just three instances when there is a whole site full of examples here?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

@Bastage,

Bastage:

a) It was the absolute norm to edit texts. Everyone involved with early Christianity was editing. You speak as if this was some sort of great conspiracy unlike the absolute norm that it was back then.

Okey-dokes - which redactions of Luke and Galatians were extant before Marcion edited those documents before collating them as his own canon? That people edited documents does not mean that Marcion should do so and then claim that what he had edited were the 'true' teachings of Paul - that is highly questionable; and your answer here does not address the simple question I asked. "Everybody did this and that" is not addressing Marcion's reason for what he did, or why he should have done so if he was seeking to present true Christianity.

Bastage:

b) I tell you yet again that I don't need to. You don't seem to understand that the contents are irrelevant when in the context of this topic.

If that was irrelevant, I don't see how your constant recourse to this issue is of any relevance. If you still are disturbed about it, please do me the honour of going to the same texts edited by Marcion and defend his postulations from there - if not, Marcion's heresy stand as they are; if you say 'No', then please walk us through his own redactions and show us how even his own canon could be used to defend his postulations.

Bastage:

Are you for real? The whole Bible has been edited by people who "never authored it in the first place". What do you think you read when you pick up your Bible?

I don't take such ideosyncracies as establishing any arguments. Claims like this could be made; and when I ask in simple terms that you guys go to the texts and defend the apologetics of those you applaud, you tirelessly come back with a disinclination to do so.

Bastage:

Yet again you totallly ignore the fact that I stated that the Nestorian sect was protected prior to Islam. Which part of the word prior do you not understand?

My dear, if Islam has nothing to do with this, please throw it out! What part of that don't you understand? What is this weak defence of "protection" you keep shlepping about when it has no substance to your arguments? The point is that persecutions happened on all sides - from within the Catholic Church even after the split, and from outside the Christian Church against Christians.

Besides, if one wants to argue about the idea that the Nestorians were out of the reach of the "Catholic Church", one could not even begin to make that argument on a sound ticket: because what you are failing to see here is that both the Assyrian Church and the Byzantine Church were Catholics! It sounds like you're speaking from both sides and making these tenious statements to confuse the issue for us (or rather, make it diffcicult to know exactly what you're postulating). How could the Nestorians have been out of the reach of the Catholic Church when both the Assyrian and Byzantine churches were Catholic?

Yet again, I don't see how this "out of reach" matter could be a substance - because outside of the community and regions where Nestorians were protected, the Byzantine church could easily have gone to other lands to carry on such persecutions and thus "stamp out" the Nestorians. Examples? Of course, we know that the Nestorians were great missionaries and travelled even as far as China - was that region also "out of reach" of the "Catholic" church? If you had tried, at least, to distinguish these issues in your submissions, maybe they would have helped you see what you were mixing up. In as much as you make these assertions and excuse them under the idea of being "out of reach", you're presenting a very weak muddling of issues.

Bastage:

Issues? I've shown repeatedly I understand the issues yet you seem not to understand plain English.

In any English that appeals to you, please go to the text and do the simple thing I requested. No? If not, what is really this amusement about, Bastage?

Bastage:

No. Because it was a progression. You're the one that doesn't seem to grasp the chronological timeline so let me put in in simple terms for you - First it was protected by the Eastern Church. Then the Persians. Then the Islamic countries.

The schism was from within the same group; not from outside of it. This "protected by" that you acclaim for the Eastern Church makes it look like Nestorius ran to them and then the "Catholic Church" retreated from them after a hot pursuit; and then the same Nestorians went on to take cover under Islamic potection. This is even making me wonder the more for you: Islam has not sought to "protect" anything Christian; which again makes no sense in what you are projecting. That is why I have asked you to throw this Islamic gambit out, in as amuch as it does not help your arguments.

Bastage:

There's no easier way to put it and no other way that can be taken in context. Got it?

It does not help your arguments. No? Please repeat yourself if you may.

Bastage:

You seem oblivious to the fact that if Nestorians needed protection, there must have been a persecutor. Who do you think this persecutor was? The Tooth Fairy?

You don't get it, do you? Nestorians would need persecution and protection at the same time from within the same Catholic schism? Interesting.

Bastage:

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

The Assyrian Church of the East refused to drop support for Nestorius or to denounce him as a heretic.

I already pointed that out - "the Assyrian Church has survived to this day and has refused to drop support for Nestorius or to denounce him as a heretic" - did that sound like the wild statement you made of the Catholic Church trying to "stamp out" those who held the Nestorian view? For the fun of it, are you reading your musings into the text? Did that source give the idea that Nestorius was being protected by the Eastern Church from "Catholic persecution" seeking to "stamp out" Nestorianism? Highlighting that singular line does not say so, anymore than Wikipedia would be saying what you're at pains to force us to believe.

Here is a simple outline for you:

        Both the Assyrian and Byzantine churches were "CATHOLIC";
        If you're speaking of "Catholic persecutions", your allegations apply to both of them.
        if you're particular about one of the schisms, please do not confuse them as
        "Catholic persecutions" - because to do so is to treat the other as
         not "Catholic".

I hope that helps?

Bastage:

Yes it created a schism but you seem to be totally denying that the Eastern Church defended Nestor when that is plainly untrue.

Nope, I don't read ideas into the plain text: "The Assyrian Church of the East refused to drop support for Nestorius or to denounce him as a heretic" - does that sound like the Catholic Church (the collective body of Catholics) was calling for the "stamping out" of Nestorians? Please understand something here: The Catholic Church was split into two groups: the Assyrian and Byzantinian churches: the latter called the other to brand Nestorius a heretic, which the former did not comply to - did that suppose therefore that the same Catholic Church (now Assyrian and Byzantine) was persecuting and seeking to "stamp out" Nestorians?

I don't see a schism here to be necessarily a matter of strainuously inferring every single case as a Catholic persecution against others. Events following that schism have caused strong disagreements on all sides; and it was not just on one side we should be looking at persecutions within and among Catholics -

[list]He was further condemned for splitting Christ into two persons, although he clearly denied that accusation (see Nestorianism for detailed information on Nestorius's teachings). The whole affair was complicated by the unclear arguments of Cyril, which soon provoked the Monophysite schism.

In the Syriac speaking world, and especially in the school of Edessa, Theodore was held in high esteem and the followers of his pupil Nestorius were given refuge. The Persian kings, who were at constant war with Byzantium, saw the opportunity to assure the loyalty of their Christian subjects and supported the Nestorian schism:

         * They granted protection to Nestorians (462).
         * They executed the pro-Byzantine Catholicos Babowai who was then
            replaced by the Nestorian Bishop of Nisibis Bar Sauma (484).
         * They allowed the transfer of the school of Edessa to the Persian city Nisibis
            when the Byzantine emperor closed it for its Nestorian tendencies (489).

The writings of Nestorius were introduced at the school of Edessa-Nisibis only in about 530, a hundred years after Ephesus. The main theological authorities of the school and all the Assyrian Church have always been Theodore and his teacher Diodorus of Tarsus. Unfortunately, close to nothing of their writings has survived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_schism[/list]

What was the point in my quoting this? That on either side from within Catholicism, the fightings and wranglings had been between themselves. It was not a matter of Nestorius as an outsider seeking refuge in the Assyrian Church as if they also were not Catholics - that was the point I have been trying to make all this while when you seem to be straining at this idea that the "Catholic persecutions" as if the Assyrian Church was not Catholic as well. It wasn't clear from your argument of "Catholic persecution' what you tried to pass across - that's why I wondered what you could mean, where indeed both the Assyrian and Byzantine churches were Catholic.

Bastage:

Are you being serious? No really. Are you? Are you honestly saying that the Catholic Church has never persecuted and stamped or tried to stamp out opponents?

There are 3 things you're saying there - and if you had seen my discussions with catholics on the forum, you would not be assuming all those 3 assertions toward me. These 3 things:

       * Catholic Church has never "persecuted"
       * Catholic Church has never "stamped out"
       * Catholic Church has never tried to "stamp out"

are not saying the same thing - and you cannot read them into my statement that -
      _____________________________________________
       From all these splits arising from differences in opinions,
       where was the Catholic Church "stamping out" others
       whom they branded 'heretics'?
      _____________________________________________

If the strong word "stamping out" others has been your most interesting arguments, my simple question was this: in all what we have been saying, where has the CATHOLIC Church been "stamping out" (annihilating without a trace) those who have survived to this day? If the catholic Church "stamped out" the Jews, why do we still have Jews today? I don't think that such extreme assertions are making any coherent statements.

Bastage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews

But why post just three instances when there are is a whole site full of examples here?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

Please, where are the examples of "stamped-out" in those links? Persecuted, they did - but stamped-out. . . please show where, just incase we missed it.

I must admit that I'm getting bored of you.
You still post vaccuous statements and half-truths when presented with facts.

Both the Assyrian and Byzantine churches were "CATHOLIC";

Very misleading. After the schism regarding the Nestorians, the Assyrian Church ceased to be regarded as Catholic.

If you're speaking of "Catholic persecutions", your allegations apply to both of them.

No it doesn't. That's like saying a wife and a husband divorce and the wife is then guilty of attacking herself when they've split up. Even to the dumbest person, that simply doesn't make sense.
After the Schism, the Assyrian Church ceased to be Catholic. What was the schism caused by if not their support for the Nestorians? Why would they choose to then persecute the Nestorians? They even became the Nestorian Church!!

That people edited documents does not mean that Marcion should do so and then claim that what he had edited were the 'true' teachings of Paul

No? Isn't that what all churches have done before and since?

If that was irrelevant, I don't see how your constant recourse to this issue is of any relevance

I've already explained why it's irrelevant. Let me repeat it yet again to you - the fact that you disagree with Marcion does not make him a heretic. Do you honestly need me to keep repeating myself or are you just being stupid?

I don't take such ideosyncracies as establishing any arguments.

It's not idiosyncratic. It's a plain, cool, hard, set in concrete fact. Or do you disagree with the very evidence that sits before your own eyes? Or is your Bible written in the original Hebrew, Coptic and Aramaic? "Idiosyncracy" is probably the wrong word though. The fact I've laid out is the opposite to an idiosyncrasy.

My dear, if Islam has nothing to do with this, please throw it out! What part of that don't you understand?

Who said it has nothing to do with this? I didn't. I merely pointed out that you are confused as to it's relevance. Which part of that don't you understand? And there's no denying the fact that Nestorians were given sanctuary in Islamic nations. They reside there to this day.

"The Assyrian Church of the East refused to drop support for Nestorius or to denounce him as a heretic" - does that sound like the Catholic Church (the collective body of Catholics) was calling for the "stamping out" of Nestorians? Please understand something here: The Catholic Church was split into two groups: the Assyrian and Byzantinian churches

The Assyrian Church ceased to be the Catholic Church with it's support of Nestor. It's as simple as that. You keep saying that the two sides were the "same". Utter trash. If they were the same, there would not have been a schism. Again you defy logic.



The only confusion here is the one you're trying to create to prove your dubious point.

Please, where are the examples of "stamped-out" in those links? Persecuted, they did - but stamped-out. . . please show where, just incase we missed it.

From the first link.

"Innocent III declared a crusade against Languedoc, offering the lands of the schismatics to any French nobleman willing to take up arms. The violence led to France's acquisition of lands with closer cultural and linguistic ties to Catalonia (see Occitan). An estimated 200,000 to 1,000,000 people died during the crusade.
The Roman Catholic Church had always dealt vigorously with strands of Christianity that it considered heretical, but before the 12th century such groups were organized in small numbers, around wayward preachers or small localized sects. The Cathars of Languedoc represented an alarmingly popular mass movement,[4] a phenomenon that the Roman Church had not seen for almost 900 years, since Arianism and Marcionism in the early days of Christianity.
The area was reconquered by 1229, and the leading nobles made peace. After 1233 the Inquisition was central to crushing what remained of Catharism. Resistance and occasional revolts continued, but Catharism's days were numbered. Military action ceased in 1255. In the end, the Albigensian Crusade killed an estimated 1 million people, not only Cathars but much of the population of southern France.
A campaign started in 1233, burning vehement and relapsed Cathars wherever they were found, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many still resisted, taking refuge in fortresses at Fenouillèdes and Montségur, or inciting small uprisings.
The Cathar strongholds fell one by one. Montségur withstood a nine-month siege before being taken in March 1244. The final holdout, a small, isolated, overlooked fort at Quéribus, quickly fell in August 1255. The last known Cathar burning occurred in 1321."

But then if you'd have bothered to read the link you would have seen this.
I think that anyone who actually read the link would have a hard time not believing that it speaks about Catharism being stamped out by Catholicism.

And just so you don't try to wriggle out of yet another truth:

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

"The Catholic Church regarded the sect as dangerously heretical; faced with the rapid spread of the movement across the Languedoc region and the failure of peaceful attempts at conversion, which had been undertaken by Dominicans, the Church launched the Albigensian Crusade to crush the movement.
he independence of the princes of the Languedoc was at an end. But in spite of the wholesale massacre of Cathars during the war, Catharism was not yet extinguished.

In 1215, the bishops of the Catholic Church met at the Fourth Council of the Lateran under Pope Innocent III. One of the key goals of the council was to combat the heresy of the Cathars without explaining exactly what that heresy originated with: the Cathar's interpretation of the doctrine of the resurrection as meaning, "reincarnation".

The Inquisition was established in 1229 to uproot the remaining Cathars. Operating in the south at Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne and other towns during the whole of the 13th century, and a great part of the 14th, it finally succeeded in extirpating the movement. Cathars who refused to recant were hanged, or burned at the stake. [6]
From May 1243 to March 1244, the Cathar fortress of Montségur was besieged by the troops of the seneschal of Carcassonne and the archbishop of Narbonne. On March 16, 1244, a large and symbolically important massacre took place, where over 200 Cathar perfects were burned in an enormous fire at the prat des cramats near the foot of the castle.
After several decades of harassment and re-proselytizing, and perhaps even more importantly, the systematic destruction of their scripture, the sect was exhausted and could find no more adepts. The leaders of a Cathar revival in the Pyrenean foothills, Pierre and Jacques Autier, were executed in 1310. Catharism disappeared from the northern Italian cities after the 1260s, under pressure from the Inquisition. After 1330, the records of the Inquisition contain very few proceedings against Cathars. The last known Cathar prefect in the Languedoc, Guillaume Bélibaste, was executed in 1321."

What better example of "stamped out" do you need?

@Bastage,

Bastage:

I must admit that I'm getting bored of you.

Please do - especially so when you keep knotting yourself further and not saying anything tangible than the repetitive assertions that you are disinclined to defend yourself.

Bastage:

No it doesn't. That's like saying a wife and a husband divorce and the wife is then guilty of attacking herself when they've split up. Even to the dumbest person, that simply doesn't make sense.

Of course not, because you're scuttling under the excuse of "Catholic persecutions" and failing to recognize that your assertions are not producing any results in your arguments. How dumb could that be?

Bastage:

After the Schism, the Assyrian Church ceased to be Catholic. What was the schism caused by if not their support for the Nestorians? Why would they choose to then persecute the Nestorians? They even became the Nestorian Church!!

Is that? Okay, we all run to Wikipedia every now and then, and some may not have been that patient to see the details. I'm sorry to always draw you back to the details (boring or not); but that is because I'm being careful to not mix issues up and draw the wrong inferences. So here's what we can peruse from various sources:

(1) From the website of The Assyrian Church of the East (Diocese of N. Zealand and Australia)

[list]When did it begin?

The Church of the East began during the missionary activity which took place in the Apostolic Age. Written records have been traced to the late second century of the Christian era. The numbers of people who belonged to the Church at that time, and the broad area it covered, would indicate that there had been a long period of development and growth, possibly reaching back into the first century and the time of the Apostles. Tradition in the Church of the East dates its founding in the middle of the first century.
>snip<
The Assyrian people of upper Mesopotamia have always been an important part of the Church of the East, though historically they were only one ethnic group among many others within the Church. However, today they represent the single surviving cultural grouping. Though the Church moved far beyond its beginnings in upper Mesopotamia, the language of that region (Syriac) remained the language of the Church, and its vocabulary, with a certain amount of Greek added in, was the source of its characteristic theological formulations.

More here.[/list]


(2) From History of the Nestorian Church website:

[list]The Assyrian Church of the East was established in Edessa in the first century of the Christian era. It is from Edessa that the message of the Gospels spread. Edessa was a small kingdom, a buffer state between Roman and Parthean Empires. Mar Mary was sent to Persia by his fellow workers in Edessa. In the second century this church began to be organized. The church in Edessa had four Gospels in Aramaic. The teaching was spread to the Persian Empire. In the third century, the church in the Persian Empire had to take refugees from the Roman Empire where Christians were not welcomed. Streams of refugees turned toward Persia to escape persecution in the Eastern Roman Empire. A great multitude of Christians in all Roman provinces were put off by various punishments, torture professed to renounce Christianity.

From about 280 A.D. Mar Papa organized this church, thus Metropolitan seat of Seleucia became the headquarters. Now the city is in ruins, known as SalmanPark, 30 miles from Baghdad.

Mar Aprim the Assyrian, the representative of the Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., played a great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. That is the reason he is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church which declared Saint Aprim as the doctor of the Universal Church.

In the fifth century, the Nestorian controversy concerning the unity of the divine and human nature in Christ had far reaching consequences. At this time, the Church of the East was not involved in this controversy. It was a theological dispute within the Roman Empire.

John Nestorius was not an Assyrian nor did he know Syriac language. He was a native of Antioch and Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431 A.D. His rival Cyril was Patriarch of Alexandria. Therefore, the members of the Church say that they do not have anything to do with the Nestorian controversy. It was several years later and even after the death of Nestorius in 451 A.D. that the Christians of the Persian Empire heard about the controversy. They decreed that the stand taken by Nestorius was in agreement with the view always maintained by the Church of the East.[/list]

Now, what's the point in my recommendations? Simply this, Bastage: from your quote - "They even became the Nestorian Church", it does not appear that you recognized that they existed as an independent body before the schism - even those they followed the Catholic traditions, it does not mean that they emerged as the "Nestorian Church" from the schism - but rather, that the schism forced the brewing separation. The term "Nestorian" was rather a perjorative appellation, because even many of the Assyrian Christians did not even known about Nestorius until decades after the incident.

This is the reason why I would simply have passed over your assertions and continue with other matters; but it is imperative that I pint these matters out so you help us clear the seeming obfuscations in your submissions.

Bastage:

No? Isn't that what all churches have done before and since?

I'm not sure you caught what I said there. Does Marcion's editing of documents he never authored constitute his position as a "Christian" in your defence against his heretical doctrines? If he had nothing there to be uncomfortable about, WHY did he go to such lengths to edit those documents? You haven't answered that question as yet - rather, all I read here is your assertion that he did so, but no explanations as to HOW or WHY that exercise should have helped his own position. Care to answer that simple question, please?

Bastage:

I've already explained why it's irrelevant. Let me repeat it yet again to you - the fact that you disagree with Marcion does not make him a heretic. Do you honestly need me to keep repeating myself or are you just being stupid?

I'm not being stupid, Bastage. I think this silly attitude of making such hubris noise and not seeking to defend your position by the salient thing is just a waste. If you want to establish Marcion's position as anything but heretical, then please open the texts and defend that idea. Your disinclination to do so is rather a drama here. . . and unless you're sweating under the ampits to keep repeating that same drama, I don't see how you have established your case for him. Marcion's postulations were anti-Christian - the texts he collated and edited cannot defend his postulations: hence, if you think otherwise, simply open the text and show me how. if you cannot do so, throw this waste out.

Bastage:

It's not idiosyncratic. It's a plain, cool, hard, set in concrete fact. Or do you disagree with the very evidence that sits before your own eyes? Or is your Bible written in the original Hebrew, Coptic and Aramaic? "Idiosyncracy" is probably the wrong word though. The fact I've laid out is the opposite to an idiosyncrasy.

Please go to the text, establish your noise for Marcion, and then come back and let's talk. Too hard?

Bastage:

Who said it has nothing to do with this? I didn't. I merely pointed out that you are confused as to it's relevance. Which part of that don't you understand? And there's no denying the fact that Nestorians were given sanctuary in Islamic nations. They reside there to this day.

Lol, noise, my dear, does not pass for fact. I have given you a few pointers above: if anything, please go through them and kindly show me where this matter is helping your argument. I beg you.

Bastage:

The Assyrian Church ceased to be the Catholic Church with it's support of Nestor. It's as simple as that. You keep saying that the two sides were the "same". Utter trash. If they were the same, there would not have been a schism. Again you defy logic.

They both followed the same Catholic tradition - that is why even up until today most people refer to them as either:

          Assyrian Church of the East
          Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
         
I wasn't even appealing to logic; and if you argue on that basis, does your logic demonstrate that the Assyrian Church was no longer known as "Catholic" even after the schism?
   

Bastage:

The only confusion here is the one you're trying to create to prove your dubious point.

Okay, thanks.

Bastage:

From the first link.

"Innocent III declared a crusade against Languedoc, offering the lands of the schismatics to any French nobleman willing to take up arms. The violence led to France's acquisition of lands with closer cultural and linguistic ties to Catalonia (see Occitan). An estimated 200,000 to 1,000,000 people died during the crusade.
The Roman Catholic Church had always dealt vigorously with strands of Christianity that it considered heretical, but before the 12th century such groups were organized in small numbers, around wayward preachers or small localized sects. The Cathars of Languedoc represented an alarmingly popular mass movement,[4] a phenomenon that the Roman Church had not seen for almost 900 years, since Arianism and Marcionism in the early days of Christianity.
The area was reconquered by 1229, and the leading nobles made peace. After 1233 the Inquisition was central to crushing what remained of Catharism. Resistance and occasional revolts continued, but Catharism's days were numbered. Military action ceased in 1255. In the end, the Albigensian Crusade killed an estimated 1 million people, not only Cathars but much of the population of southern France.
A campaign started in 1233, burning vehement and relapsed Cathars wherever they were found, even exhuming some bodies for burning. Many still resisted, taking refuge in fortresses at Fenouillèdes and Montségur, or inciting small uprisings.
The Cathar strongholds fell one by one. Montségur withstood a nine-month siege before being taken in March 1244. The final holdout, a small, isolated, overlooked fort at Quéribus, quickly fell in August 1255. The last known Cathar burning occurred in 1321."

But then if you'd have bothered to read the link you would have seen this.
I think that anyone who actually read the link would have a hard time not believing that it speaks about Catharism being stamped out by Catholicism.

And just so you don't try to wriggle out of yet another truth:

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

"The Catholic Church regarded the sect as dangerously heretical; faced with the rapid spread of the movement across the Languedoc region and the failure of peaceful attempts at conversion, which had been undertaken by Dominicans, the Church launched the Albigensian Crusade to crush the movement.
he independence of the princes of the Languedoc was at an end. But in spite of the wholesale massacre of Cathars during the war, Catharism was not yet extinguished.

In 1215, the bishops of the Catholic Church met at the Fourth Council of the Lateran under Pope Innocent III. One of the key goals of the council was to combat the heresy of the Cathars without explaining exactly what that heresy originated with: the Cathar's interpretation of the doctrine of the resurrection as meaning, "reincarnation".

The Inquisition was established in 1229 to uproot the remaining Cathars. Operating in the south at Toulouse, Albi, Carcassonne and other towns during the whole of the 13th century, and a great part of the 14th, it finally succeeded in extirpating the movement. Cathars who refused to recant were hanged, or burned at the stake. [6]
From May 1243 to March 1244, the Cathar fortress of Montségur was besieged by the troops of the seneschal of Carcassonne and the archbishop of Narbonne. On March 16, 1244, a large and symbolically important massacre took place, where over 200 Cathar perfects were burned in an enormous fire at the prat des cramats near the foot of the castle.
After several decades of harassment and re-proselytizing, and perhaps even more importantly, the systematic destruction of their scripture, the sect was exhausted and could find no more adepts. The leaders of a Cathar revival in the Pyrenean foothills, Pierre and Jacques Autier, were executed in 1310. Catharism disappeared from the northern Italian cities after the 1260s, under pressure from the Inquisition. After 1330, the records of the Inquisition contain very few proceedings against Cathars. The last known Cathar prefect in the Languedoc, Guillaume Bélibaste, was executed in 1321."

What better example of "stamped out" do you need?

Reading "stamped-out" into the text is one thing; finding that same thing in the text is quite another. Any other games you wish to try for the Jews?

Reading "stamped-out" into the text is one thing; finding that same thing in the text is quite another.

You're a joke.

Even when the evidence is in front of your eyes, you refuse to accept it. Are you seriously telling me that the text I've posted from Wikipedia doesn't show that the Catholic Church destroyed Catharism?

I think anyone who reads the passages I posted regarding the Cathars will be able to see that they weren't just persecuted but stamped out. What happened was way beyond persecution and any independent can see that.

I'm done with you. I simply can't be bothered to converse with somebody who defies reason and treats facts with such contempt.

I'll leave the last word to you. You can post a sarcastic comment about how I "ran away" or how you win, but we both know that your reasoning and logic are totally and utterly flawed.

Ciao!!!

Bastage:

You're a joke.

Even when the evidence is in front of your eyes, you refuse to accept it. Are you seriously telling me that the text I've posted from Wikipedia doesn't show that the Catholic Church destroyed Catharism?

I think anyone who reads the passages I posted regarding the Cathars will be able to see that they weren't just persecuted but stamped out. What happened was way beyond persecution and any independent can see that.

I'm done with you. I simply can't be bothered to converse with somebody who defies reason and treats facts with such contempt.

I'll leave the last word to you. You can post a sarcastic comment about how I "ran away" or how you win, but we both know that your reasoning and logic are totally and utterly flawed.

Ciao!!!

Bastage, looks like you have been give the head-in-sand treatment, haven't you. You will not have been the first. Great stuff though and I admire your persistence.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

You're a joke.

Even when the evidence is in front of your eyes, you refuse to accept it. Are you seriously telling me that the text I've posted from Wikipedia doesn't show that the Catholic Church destroyed Catharism?

I think anyone who reads the passages I posted regarding the Cathars will be able to see that they weren't just persecuted but stamped out. What happened was way beyond persecution and any independent can see that.

I'm done with you. I simply can't be bothered to converse with somebody who defies reason and treats facts with such contempt.

I'll leave the last word to you. You can post a sarcastic comment about how I "ran away" or how you win, but we both know that your reasoning and logic are totally and utterly flawed.

Ciao!!!

Ciao, Bastage - I knew that after all the noise there's really no substance to your drivel.

huxley:

Bastage, looks like you have been give the head-in-sand treatment, haven't you. You will not have been the first. Great stuff though and I admire your persistence.

@huxley, Great backslap. But could you please do me the fav of not burying your head in sand and point out something for me? Here:

huxley:

The earliest Chriatian apologist admitted coping a great deal of their beliefs from pagan cults of the day. Have you ever heard of the apologist called Justin Martyr, from whom the word martyr is derived. Have your seen his defense of Christianity where the concept of Diabolical Mimicry in Anticipation is expounded?

Could you point me to the particular document where you got that quote ascribed to Justin Martyr?

Thanks.

I haven't read the whole of this thread but I don't think that it is possible to deny that the Albigensian crusade occurred. Of course it possible to deny it, all you have to say it no, but it cannot be reasonably denied.

The doctrines of Christianity have always been a work in progress. Even at the times of the apostles there were ideological differences between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem. Differences have always persisted all the way through the history of the church. It is inevitable that some groups will denounce others as heretics. Whether one calls them Catholics or not there are core ideological differences between certain churches and certain others. It is quite possible that Bastage and Pilgrim are having an argument over words rather than facts.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

I haven't read the whole of this thread but I don't think that it is possible to deny that the Albigensian crusade occurred. Of course it possible to deny it, all you have to say it no, but it cannot be reasonably denied.

One could be forgiven for jumping in the middle of the thread and just assume things. I don't think anyone has denied the crusades or Catholic persecutions - if anyone should know, they cannot deny that I have pointed this out clearly in my discussions with Catholic on the Forum.

However, since that time, I have been humbled to understand what I did not formerly grasp. Persecutions have happened from all sides, and not just from Catholics alone. This is a bitter truth that many people are unwilling to admit; but when I saw this, it taught me to distinguish between events and not seek to make wild statements to blame everything on Catholics alone! if someone says that Catholic persecutions are to be interpreted as the "stamping-out" of Jews, I don't know how to defend that idea for me to agree with such a thought. Did Catholic persecutions happen? Of course, they did - and I have pointed that out in other threads. But are those persecutions to be interpreted as "stamping out" the Jews? If that is the case, would those who are persuaded as such then tell us why we still have Jews today?

If people are given to find a few dashy cases in order to make wild statement and use them as generalized assertions, I'm sorry that is not my approach. If that is to be read as not attending to the issues being discussed, what is my worry?

Sorry. Couldn't resist posting again to defend myself.

Now you're concentrating on semantics and the words "stamped out". I first used them here:

Nestorianism survived simply because the Catholic Church did not have the reach to stamp it out.

When I discussed other religions and the Catholic Church and posted the links regarding Jewish persecution, I stated:

Are you honestly saying that the Catholic Church has never persecuted and stamped or tried to stamp out opponents?

You're stating that I said that all religions have been stamped out when it's quite plain that I didn't. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered with the word "tried" would I?

Now you may resume normal service by reverting back to your world of fantasy where you read things that aren't there and ignore the words that are.

@Bastage,

Bastage:

You're stating that I said that all religions have been stamped out when it's quite plain that I didn't. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered with the word "tried" would I?

I wonder if its second nature with you to just make noise and say nothing. Where did I say that your argument for "stamp-out" was referring to all religions?

How so often you traipsed that idea, it was also mentioned in my post earlier that I already pointed out Catholic persecutions against others; but even so I'm not given to extremes of applying a few events to generalised assertions. I also mentioned that your postulations about -

       * Catholic Church has never "persecuted"
       * Catholic Church has never "stamped out"
       * Catholic Church has never tried to "stamp out"

. . are not saying the same thing - and you cannot read them into my statements. To have tried to constantly assert it as if to mean that Catholics "stamped-out" the Jews - that was called to your attention, but rather than point out your case and bring us round, your reaction was going nowhere. You could turn and spin how-so-ever you wish on this, but I'm not given to the sort of hubris you've been trying to promote.

To have tried to constantly assert it as if to mean that Catholics "stamped-out" the Jews - that was called to your attention

I didn't say that. I specifically used the words "tried to". I've already pointed that out. As usual I have to repeat the same thing over and over again. It doesn't matter a dot whether you referred to all religions or just the Jews. The fact is that I never said it about either. You seem to take delight in being an idiot.


Now I really am done with you. People can see for themselves how you lie and twist and just repeat the same crap over and over again.

Bastage:

I didn't say that. I specifically used the words "tried to". I've already pointed that out. As usual I have to repeat the same thing over and over again. It doesn't matter a dot whether you referred to all religions or just the Jews. The fact is that I never said it about either. You seem to take delight in being an idiot.


Now I really am done with you. People can see for themselves how you lie and twist and just repeat the same crap over and over again.

Why are you so upset with yourself, Bastage? It "doesn't matter" that you ascribe something to me that I never said - and you use that hubris to cower over your endless drivel while alleging that I twist your empty drivel? So much for all your wasted efforts, sleep well and nurse your worries.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley, Great backslap. But could you please do me the fav of not burying your head in sand and point out something for me? Here:

Could you point me to the particular document where you got that quote ascribed to Justin Martyr?

Thanks.

Much obliged.  The pagan philosopher Celsus was a vociferous critic of Christianity and he wrote a whole series of critical works about Christianity, The True Doctrine c. 170 CE.  The book does not survive stand-alone, but survives as quotations in the work of Origen, who took it upon himself to respond to Celsus criticism.

These saga are address in the following books:

1) Hoffman, R. J., Celsus on the True Doctrine, Oxford University Press, 1987

2) King, C, W., Gnostics and their Remains, David Nutt, 1887

3) The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy

4) Kingslan, W 1937, 99.

The Church father Tertulian also writes of the Devils "diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:

'The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstance of the Devine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore achknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Devine'

huxley:

Much obliged.  The pagan philosopher Celsus was a vociferous critic of Christianity and he wrote a whole series of critical works about Christianity, The True Doctrine c. 170 CE.  The book does not survive stand-alone, but survives as quotations in the work of Origen, who took it upon himself to respond to Celsus criticism.

These saga are address in the following books:

1) Hoffman, R. J., Celsus on the True Doctrine, Oxford University Press, 1987

2) King, C, W., Gnostics and their Remains, David Nutt, 1887

3) The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy

4) Kingslan, W 1937, 99.

The Church father Tertulian also writes of the Devils "diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:

'The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstance of the Devine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore achknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Devine'

@huxley,

You would have noticed that I have tried to help you by steering clear of your recent over-reactions to some issues that you really do not understand. When you kept noising the same thing over and over again, I deliberately left just one-liners as terse answers because I knew you were advancing the ignorance and deliberate duplicity of those whom you have quoted. How? Have you noticed that outside of those sources you referred to as "scholars", you could not ascertain what exactly Justin Martyr or Tertullian stated - and that was why even though I had seen the other thread before you noised it here, my answer was:
      ________________________________________________________________

      "I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't draw my lessons from sources as such"
      ________________________________________________________________

My advice to you is please go back and edit your posts - you have only regurgitated the same deliberate fallacy from those fellows who have been too busy lying to one another. I'm sorry, but this is a serious matter; and as I did not want to initially make it hard for you, that was why I refrained and didn't mind people calling me all sorts of names. Do you care to go back and educate yourself a bit more - or you would like to remain on such fallacies?

Cordially yours.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

You would have noticed that I have tried to help you by steering clear of your recent over-reactions to some issues that you really do not understand. When you kept noising the same thing over and over again, I deliberately left just one-liners as terse answers because I knew you were advancing the ignorance and deliberate duplicity of those whom you have quoted. How? Have you noticed that outside of those sources you referred to as "scholars", you could not ascertain what exactly Justin Martyr or Tertullian stated - and that was why even though I had seen the other thread before you noised it here, my answer was:
________________________________________________________________

"I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't draw my lessons from sources as such"
________________________________________________________________

My advice to you is please go back and edit your posts - you have only regurgitated the same deliberate fallacy from those fellows who have been too busy lying to one another. I'm sorry, but this is a serious matter; and as I did not want to initially make it hard for you, that was why I refrained and didn't mind people calling me all sorts of names. Do you care to go back and educate yourself a bit more - or you would like to remain on such fallacies?

Cordially yours.

You challenge my source. That is fine and acceptable. But on what grounds do you challenge them? You are in the habit of making ad hoc comments without so much as a reference to support your premise.

Ok, let's make a deal. I will go back and edit and remove them on the following conditions:

1) You prove that these sources are unreliable and untrustworth

2) Prove that these sources got these citations wrong

3) Demonstrate that Justyn Martyr and Tertullian have been misquote and wrongly misattributed. I will accepts any historical material generally accepted by the scholarly community as reliable

Dear huxley,

huxley:

You challenge my source. That is fine and acceptable. But on what grounds do you challenge them? You are in the habit of making ad hoc comments without so much as a reference to support your premise.

Actually, that was mild - and my apologies for my initial stance, although I still maintain that your "scholars" have done the most shameful thing and even misled their publishers (Oxford Publishers of late has been in the habit of playing to such deliberate fallacies). However, regardless what anyone may allege against, or names they call me, my approach is to carefully investigate matters for myself before making any public assertions - and it does not matter how many people in the majority may applaud those who dress themselves as "scholars".

huxley:

Ok, let's make a deal. I will go back and edit and remove them on the following conditions:

1) You prove that these sources are unreliable and untrustworth

Okay. .

huxley:

2) Prove that these sources got these citations wrong

okay. .

huxley:

3) Demonstrate that Justyn Martyr and Tertullian have been misquote and wrongly misattributed. I will accepts any historical material generally accepted by the scholarly community as reliable

Granted. One more thing: when I do so, perhaps you would then understand that just because I choose to ignore certain over-reactions from atheists and skeptics does not mean that I have no answers to their hubris. I will find time to take all those 3 outlines and deal accordingly.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

Dear huxley,

Actually, that was mild - and my apologies for my initial stance, although I still maintain that your "scholars" have done the most shameful thing and even misled their publishers (Oxford Publishers of late has been in the habit of playing to such deliberate fallacies). However, regardless what anyone may allege against, or names they call me, my approach is to carefully investigate matters for myself before making any public assertions - and it does not matter how many people in the majority may applaud those who dress themselves as "scholars".

Okay. .

okay. .

Granted. One more thing: when I do so, perhaps you would then understand that just because I choose to ignore certain over-reactions from atheists and skeptics does not mean that I have no answers to their hubris. I will find time to take all those 3 outlines and deal accordingly.

Cheers.

Hello Pilgrim,

Am thankful that you have graciously taken up the challenge and I look forward to learning some new stuff from a different angle. 

However, must pull you on your incessant accusations of hubris on the side of the critics of religions. I think this is unfair.  I can only say that

1)  You do not know and understand the meaning of the word, or

2) You know and understand the meaning but are deliberate in unfairly attributing it to your critics.

Now these are the various meaning of hubris;

a) excessive pride, or
b) self-confidence, or
c) arrogance.

In what ways have your critics (or the critics of religions) displayed these behaviour?

Hi huxley,

huxley:

Hello Pilgrim,

Am thankful that you have graciously taken up the challenge and I look forward to learning some new stuff from a different angle.

However, must pull you on your incessant accusations of hubris on the side of the critics of religions. I think this is unfair. I can only say that

1) You do not know and understand the meaning of the word, or

2) You know and understand the meaning but are deliberate in unfairly attributing it to your critics.

Now these are the various meaning of hubris;

a) excessive pride, or
b) self-confidence, or
c) arrogance.

In what ways have your critics (or the critics of religions) displayed these behaviour?

Actually, I understand the meaning of hubris (also spelt hybris). The talk of unfairness, my apologies again; but I don't think it is a healthy attitude that those who take the position of critics are often themselves not bothered about fairness. It was one reason why I don't push myself to answer to every post where such unfairness is in display, even though I had repeatedly called for "reason and rational" in discussions. In the issue of Timothy and Gandy, would you honestly say they were being quite fair in their assertions and they way they treated their subject in their book? I wonder what drives men with such overweening pride to attempt to ridicule the convictions of other people where they know for certain that they have largely misrepresented the statements.

I was actually going to come back tomorrow to treat the request you had raised (as I have a busy day tomorrow); but I shall post you a few lines of my thought thereto.

Cheers.

huxley:

Ok, let's make a deal. I will go back and edit and remove them on the following conditions:

1) You prove that these sources are unreliable and untrustworth

2) Prove that these sources got these citations wrong

3) Demonstrate that Justyn Martyr and Tertullian have been misquote and wrongly misattributed. I will accepts any historical material generally accepted by the scholarly community as reliable

[size=14pt](1)[/size]

Now huxley, initially I hinted that it is not in my least interests to enter into such musings mainly because ‘various sources quoting that line’ were ‘using it to fit their arguments’ – which people love to do out of their misplaced disaffections against Christianity. Nevermind just now that indeed it is a fact that all those authors you had referenced were actually lying to one another and misleading their gullible readers, in just a moment I shall show you this plainly.

But rather than for their gullible readers to discuss issues objectively, any such assertions from those authors could just fit the wedge for these people as long as they attempt to discharge the claims of the Christian faith – and I know so many such sources besides the ones you had referenced, which in many instances contradict themselves or otherwise put words in the mouth of those they claim to be quoting (as Hoffman did with many quotes he ascribes to Celcus which are not true – but I shall focus on just the ones in question: Justin Martyr and Tertullian).

Let me help you on this one just for the moment. In the first instance, you might have confused Martyr for the author of what you asserted in bold (‘Diabolical Mimicry in Anticipation’) - the statement being referred to is perhaps not attributed to Flavius Justin Martyr (100 – 165AD), but rather to Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, ca.160 - ca220 AD). Even when you tried to ascribe that same line of inference to Justin Martyr, there was no such statements in his quote; but rather a forced inference to the effect to make it appear so in the line quoted as ascribed to him. Let me draw directly from your quote earlier:

[list]The 2nd century Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, on being countered
that Christianity had borrowed all its basic features from the existing
cults of the Greco-Egyptico-Romano-Persion world, this is what he had
to say;

"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was
to come and that the ungodly amongst men were to be punished by fire,
the wicked spirit put forth many to be called Sons of God, under
the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that
the things that were said with regards to Christ were merely marvellous
tales, like the things that were said by the poets".[/list]

As you can see, your sources were forcing the inference of ‘diabolical mimicry in anticipation’ in that line, whereas Justin Martyr did not make any such statements in your quote. If one has to be honest, what Justin in your quote pointed to was simply this: the aim of the wicked spirit was to produce in men the idea that the claims of Christianity were merely “marvellous tales” – which the pagans did not assume.

[size=14pt](2)[/size]

The statement of “mimicry” in question has been quoted too many times by skeptics that even apprentices discussing such issues in other fora/forums have confused the statements and apologists between themselves. Sadly, they take their assertions mostly from Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy who alleged that - 

[list]Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, were understandably disturbed
and resorted to the desperate claim that these similarities were the result
of diabolical mimicry. Using one of the most absurd arguments ever
advanced, they accused the Devil of "plagiarism by anticipation"
[T. Freke & Peter G, The Jesus Mysteries, p.5, 1999].[/list]

Skeptics are gleeful to follow such quips, and that was (probably) why you had attributed the statemet of mimicry to “Justin Martyr” rather than to “Quintus Tertullianus”.

Here is the statement attributed to Tertullian, drawn from your quote in the other thread:

[list]The father Tertullian also used the diabolical mimicry excuse
to explain the close similarity between Christianity and the pre-existing
cults at the time. This is Tertullian;

[size=14pt]"[/size][/b]The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth [b]mimics
the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments.
He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness o fsins
from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the
religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread,
andbrings in the symbol of resurrection. Let u stherefore
acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who caopies
certain things of those that be Divine[size=14pt]"[/size].[/list]

Dear huxley, the huge quotation marks are not typos - they are taking as the precise quote ascribed to Tertullian in your post - this was why I asked you pointed to please show precisely where one could find this exact quote from Tertullian’s works. No, I don’t mean “citations” from people all over the net gleefully cloning and repetitiously quoting the same thing endlessly from authors like Timothy and Gandy, without having checked their sources. So, could you just for simplicity’s sake try and show some substance here by referring to the actual documents where we find Tertullian actually making such an exact quote as ascribed directly to him by such people as Timothy and Gandy?

Could YOU, huxley? Many thanks.

[size=14pt](3)[/size]

Still on Tertullian, that quote having been endlessly pandered about in countless sources seem to have been traced in recent times to no other source than Tomothy and Gandy in the TJM. The sad thing here is that gullible people (including Muslim apologists) quote these authors directly without the slightest clue that they are perpetuating their hubris and duplicity. Why do skeptics like forcing themselves to largely misrepresent and beli  texts and documents, huxley?

But hang on – enough of the questions. Now let me directly point the source to you and we shall compare them, yes? Yes!

These are the statements ascribed to Quintus Tertullian:


Quoting yours, huxley:

[list]The father Tertullian also used the diabolical mimicry excuse
to explain the close similarity between Christianity and the pre-existing
cults at the time. This is Tertullian;

"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth mimics
the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments.
He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness o fsins
from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the
religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread,
andbrings in the symbol of resurrection. Let u stherefore
acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who caopies
           certain things of those that be Divine".[/list]


Tertullian’s actual quote:

[list]The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted  the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some'that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away  of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan, ) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown.  What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest  to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints 'his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does. They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry.[/list]

               Source: Tertullian, Prescriptions Against Heretics, Chapter XL.

One wonders whether such authors like Timothy and Gandy were actually quoting Tertullian or deliberately making him say what they wanted him to say rather than what he actually said. Many people today quote these authors precisely as they have stated in the TJM and don’t care that much to check the sources directly for themselves. My concern, however, is WHY?

I just wonder why such authors would attempt to falsify and belie the precise quote and use that as a “scholarly” work, published by reputable publishers? I wonder why people like you would gleefully quote them and constantly make recourse to them without first having ascertained the sources to see if your authors were playing straight by the rules of scholarship? I wonder why we should take these guys seriously if they pass such misrepresentations publicly as if they were saying it as quoted from their sources?

However, even if anyone was to look directly at the sources for Tertullian’s quote, is it not obvious what he stated? Did he state that the devil “mimics” the divine sacrements or he said something else that was taken out of context? Please see again and compare them:

          (a) part 1

          ●  Timothy and Gandy:
          – “the devil . . . mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments”

          ●  Tertullian himself:
          – “the devil, . . .  vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God.”
_________________________________

         (b) part 2

          ●  Timothy and Gandy:
          – “Let u stherefore acknowledge
          the craftiness of the devil, who caopies certain things of those that be Divine”

          ●  Tertullian himself:
          – >snip< [does not appear in Tertullian’s works]
          [rather, the only closest line to that would be this:
                           “is it not clear to us that the devil imitated
                            the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law?”]

I would not push myself here, huxley: but I might have missed it if Timothy and Gandy were actually quoting Tertullian or putting words in his mouth. Do you care to show me Timothy and Gandy’s direct sources and how they appear in those sources in their quotes for Tertullian?

In all of this, let me remind you of what I stated earlier:

      ______________________________________________________________________

      "I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't draw my lessons from sources as such"
      ______________________________________________________________________

These authors (Timothy and Gandy) have cause a great shame to skeptic scholarship – and if this is what you guys would like to push across for us to be amazed with, it would really be sad for what is truly “scholarly”.

Regards.

pilgrim.1:

[size=14pt](3)[/size]

Tertullian’s actual quote:

[list]The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted  the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some'that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away  of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan, ) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown.  What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest  to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints 'his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does. They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry.[/list]

               Source: Tertullian, Prescriptions Against Heretics, Chapter XL.

If these are Tertulians real words, how does it detract from the charge of "diabolical mimicry"?   Is Tertullian not say here that the devil has copied?

huxley:

If these are Tertulians real words, how does it detract from the charge of "diabolical mimicry"?   Is Tertullian not say here that the devil has copied?

. . . but sir, it is one thing to copy, but it is quite another thing to copy i[b]n anticipation[/b]. From what I can tell, the cults of mithras started around 1C£ so maybe we can acknowledge that they were contemporary with the start of christianity but there is no evidence of their predating it.