Giant Marble Cross Found in N. Pakistan Hints of Christianity’s Early Presence There

[mossrose]

That's one of those things I don't quibble a whole lot about. I don't think we're "protestant" in the sense that we "protested" from the Catholic Church, or were part of the "reformation".

My mom used to get quite upset when the elementary school would send their "first day of class questionnaire" home, and it actually asked for you to state your religion "Catholic, Protestant, Jew or 'other'". She would have a fit --- "we're BAPTISTS, not Protestants or OTHERS".

I've seen this argued back and forth, so I don't bother getting into long debates about it. I don't consider myself a Protestant, but I completely understand that's the category I get placed in by being a non-Catholic Christian.

I agree. I don't even like to characterize myself as a Baptist, but simply a believer in Jesus Christ. And, yes, I do think immediately of Protestant as being part of the Reformation.

[Cow Poke]

I agree. I don't even like to characterize myself as a Baptist, but simply a believer in Jesus Christ. And, yes, I do think immediately of Protestant as being part of the Reformation.

Yeah, did I write here about the pastor who totally destroyed our college ministry by declaring that he was "Baptist through and through, and has a capital B on every bone in his body"?

AFTER we had spent 4 years building a college ministry on the basis of "you don't have to be Baptist to be here - we're going to preach the Bible...."?

He single-handedly destroyed a college ministry of 175 students to 13 in one Sunday.

[rogue06]

So, you'd be an orthodox protestant libertarian Christian, rather than an Orthodox Protestant Libertarian Christian, but always a Christian as opposed to a christian?

And maybe a catholic Christian rather than Catholic Christian

[Cow Poke]

And maybe a catholic Christian rather than Catholic Christian

Yeah, THAT TOO!!!!

I remember when I was a kid, we had our Church Covenant on a big poster on the wall in the auditorium, and there was that part about being part of the 'catholic church' and I thought "WOAH..... THAT can't be right!!!!"

[mossrose]

Yeah, did I write here about the pastor who totally destroyed our college ministry by declaring that he was "Baptist through and through, and has a capital B on every bone in his body"?

AFTER we had spent 4 years building a college ministry on the basis of "you don't have to be Baptist to be here - we're going to preach the Bible...."?

He single-handedly destroyed a college ministry of 175 students to 13 in one Sunday.

I don't think you did mention that, but I may have forgotten. What a terrible story.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think you did mention that, but I may have forgotten. What a terrible story.

Yeah, we had spent a lot of time and effort building a college ministry from a dozen kids to nearly 200 --- and he came in as the new senior pastor, and in his very first address to the "College Service", he made that brag.

The next Sunday, he was shocked that we only had about a dozen kids (mostly locals whose parents were members) and asked me "were ALL those kids NOT Baptist?"

I was pretty angry, and said, "no, you just don't understand the herd mentality of college kids - when they get up Sunday morning, trying to decide where they're going to go to Church, and one of them says he's not welcome at that Baptist church, the others won't go either". The Baptists kids aren't going to come if their Lutheran or Catholic or Methodist friends aren't welcome.

It turns out he was a very angry man who should have left the ministry a long time ago.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hey, I like it! I'm a protestant, not a Protestant!

Hence my use of a lower case "p" in my reply at post #12. Given your response to me at post #15 it would appear you do not recognise irony when it is directed against you.

I was referring to how H_A doesn't realize that many if not most Baptists don't consider themselves to be Protestant

Where on earth do you imagine the sect originated? There were no Baptists in western Europe in the 1300s. The sect arose out of the Reformation.

mossrose made the point at post #23 regarding her own religious position. She is mostly Baptist but considers herself Protestant [note the capital P in her remark]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In order to respond to your post adequately this will, of necessity, be a two part reply given the character restrictions per post.

I wait to see if I receive any reply or whether, once again, you will simply not respond.

I provided the page number from which it is on and noted that it was from the version containing notes by H.H. Milman.

You initially referred to a “version that included notes from someone named Milman” [my emphasis]. Nor do I see why you have mentioned Milman’s notes. They do nothing to “prove” the page number you have given. However, they do give the clue to the edition you have employed. It appears to be from the 1845 edition that contained notes and editing by H. H. Milman, [1791-1868] an English historian and ecclesiastic. That text may be found here:
https://sacred-texts.com/cla/gibbon/index.htm

And the relevant section from volume four, Chapter XL: Reign Of Justinian. Part III is here https://sacred-texts.com/cla/gibbon/04/daf04006.htm.

The passage is also found in volume four in the Penguin edition [2000] and in volume four of the Everyman Library edition [1910] [reprint 1994]. I have the 1994 edition and it can be found in volume four at chapter XL on page 197.

I therefore think we can conclude that either your copy is a very unusual printing of this 1845 edition, or you have yet again got your information wrong as you did when you contended that the four volume series the Cambridge World History of Slavery contained only three volumes.

I will pass over your pleading for your literary experiences. However, as to your remark that I made “snide insinuations that someone who doesn't go by the screen name of Hypatia_Alexandria couldn't possibly read things like the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” I merely asked you a question and given your incorrect reply I am perforce left to draw my own conclusions.

Again, background and something for you to keep in mind the next time you wish to suggest that anyone other than someone who goes by the screen name of Hypatia_Alexandria couldn't possibly have read things like the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Unfortunately your reputation precedes you as I have found in past exchanges. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of historical methodology. Insofar as the apostle Thomas the fact remains that we do not have any historical evidence this character even existed. He could be nothing more than a literary creation from the writer of John's gospel.

Furthermore the Christian writings you are citing are very much post [alleged] eventum and are polemical treatises for the promotion of the Christian faith.

[QUOTE=rogue06;n1217804] Unlike you, I'm not trying to impress . I would disagree. However, I simply offer corrections to misunderstandings and assumptions by the provision of known historically attested sources and evidence.

How often did you cite sources to support your contentions in the threads about crucifixion and Rome's use of slave labor

I am more than willing to give you a short reading list.

We know Rome used slave labour. The entire ancient world ran on slavery. Josephus tells us some Jewish slaves were used to build the Coliseum but I hardly suspect they were the only slaves used.

I cited Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army and suggested you also read Graham Webster's The Roman Imperial Army. I also referred to Barry Strauss' work The Spartacus War.

However, with reference to Spartacus’ possible employment in the Roman army you stated “If he was in the Roman army at the time, he was a citizen. Or is yet something else you know about and disagree with the historians over?”

Under the Roman Republic allied auxiliary forces were employed on campaigns but they were not regarded as an integral part of the Roman Republican army as such.

Later, and under the Principate we know that auxiliaries were not given citizenship until they were discharged at the end of their military service. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collec.../G_1930-0419-1

Following Caracalla’s Edict [aka Constitutio Antoniniana/Antonine constitution] in 212 CE, the situation changed when it declared all free men to be given full rights as Roman citizens, with the exception of the dediticii. These were “originally, persons who have made a deditio in fidem, an unconditional surrender, to Rome; the normal consequence in the case of a whole community was that Rome regulated their status, usually by restoring them to their position before their surrender.” For more on this see A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 2nd edn. (1973), 280–94.

With regard to Roman citizens being crucified, if you will recall on the Crucifixtion [sic] thread , I pointed out that the incident you cited occurred after the civil wars of Marius and Sulla towards the end of the Republic and concerned one scandalous incident during the corruption and extortion trial of Verres . At post #15 on that same thread I noted that the rest of your citations supported my contentions.

while I provided source after source?

Like your English-speaking tourist guide to Rome?

On the same Masada thread you later provided a confection of cut and pastes from a range of online sources that which, within their original contexts, referenced very different events and periods of Roman history. I cited Josephus and also mentioned three articles from Biblical Archaeology Review concerning Masada .

You appear to consider that Yadin is the de facto authority on Masada when he most certainly is not and you appear unwilling [or unable] to take into account the political significance for the state of Israel of that excavation given the dates in which it took place. If you would like another recommended read try Nachman Ben-Yehuda’s 1995, The Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel.

You also insisted that a short thumbnail written by Richard M Edwards in DiPrizio's book was “All that matters if he covers the Roman Jewish Wars.” As I pointed out at the time Edwards does no such thing.

You then further alleged that Edwards was “yet another historian who has studied this and concluded that slave labor was indeed utilized at Masada”. He is not a Roman military historian. His disciplines are philosophy and religious studies. It also appears that Edwards is simply repeating the allegations first made by Yadin and for which Yadin had absolutely no archaeological evidence.

If that's the case then please post them alongside what I wrote and let's compare them.

With regard to your remarks on Christianity in India the following have distinct echoes of what you wrote
https://www.quora.com/Was-there-Chri...-India?share=1

Traditionally, the date is 395 A.D ., although as that is fairly arbitrary

The date accepted for the fall of Rome is not 395 CE. The year 395 CE was the year Theodosius I died. Following the defeat and execution of of Eugenius at the River Frigidus [Vipava] Theodosius was, for a brief period of five months, the ruler of the entire Empire. On his death his eldest son Arcadius, aged eighteen, took the East and his brother Honorius, aged eleven became titular ruler of the West but the Empire was never unified again.

The date generally acknowledged as marking the end of the Western Roman Empire is 476 CE when its last titular Emperor Romulus Augustulus was forced to abdicate by the local German army commander Odoacer. Consequently, there was no longer any western empire at all. Its territory was now occupied by a group of German kingdoms.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In any case, all of those dates are much later than when Christians had already traveled to India and China which was my point. I'm surprised that such a genius as yourself has had so much difficulty figuring that out.

I have never disputed that Christianity was, at some point in the early centuries of the Common Era, taken to these regions by various Christian travellers. I am asking you to provide corroborative evidence that Thomas the Apostle went there and did so.

You cannot do that because there is no evidence apart from later Christian polemical texts.

Wow, you really are as thick as a brick. I immediately listed several of them

Ad hominem duly noted. However, none of your examples are attested historical evidence. Do you not understand that?

Oh, so you did see the evidence I provided after all. Then why the deliberately baseless allegation that I hadn't provided any?

See above. It is not “evidence”. It cannot be corroborated from other extant ancient sources. Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance of historical methodology.

The very fact that it was written in the 3rd cent., well before any "Fall" of Rome, mentions matter-of-factly about Thomas the Apostle having traveled there can not be summarily hand waved off. This cannot be dismissed as later tradition given the time it was written.

Yet again there is nothing to corroborate it.

Is this where I'm supposed to insinuate that you never read Vine's book and instead got your information by perusing Google? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that.

Aubrey Russell Vine: The Nestorian Churches: A Concise History of Nestorian Christianity in Asia from the Persian Schism to the Modern Assyrians [London Independent Press Ltd, 1937]
Chapter III, The Nestorian Church in the time of Babai

(iii) India.

The extent of Christianity in India at the beginning of the sixth century is rather difficult to determine. Although some modern writers are to be found who think even St. Thomas the Apostle may have visited India, most ancient references must be received with caution, not only because the writers may have been quoting on doubtful evidence, but also because the name India was very loosely used, being sometimes applied even to Arabia Felix or Ethiopia. It is also possible that after some centuries a confusion arose between St. Thomas the Apostle and Thomas of Jerusalem (Thomas Cannaneo), who quite probably visited south-west India in the fourth century. The persistent Thomas tradition in India may, therefore, be a genuine one, but its basis of reality may be the work of Thomas of Jerusalem rather than that of the Apostle. But it is safe to say that there were certainly some Christian communities in India at this time, and an indication of their locations may be gathered from the writings of Gosmas Indicopleustes, who wrote about 530. He says there were bishops at Galliana (near Bombay), in Male (Malabar), in the island of Sielediva (Ceylon), and in the island of Taprobana in the Indian Ocean; and that there were Christians in Pegu, the Ganges valley, Cochin China, Siam, and Tonquin. He definitely states that they were ecclesiastically dependent upon Persia, so what Christians there may have been in these regions must be reckoned as Nestorians from the sixth century. [pages 56-57]

And it wasn't just the apocryphal Acts of Thomas tells of his traveling to India. We also have several early Church Fathers remarking on it including hymns by St. Ephraim of Edessa (died c.373 A.D.).

That does not presuppose that the events actually took place.

While some of the traditions associated with Thomas' time in India (as well as accounts of further travels) may well be latter interpolations, the fact he went to India is pretty well established.

Where is the evidence [outside of much later Christian writings] that shows that his visit to India is “pretty well established”? Please provide it.

Oh, and I add the dates for some of these people to demonstrate that they are early sources and not from traditions arising after the "Fall" of the Roman Empire, as opposed to your condescending and impertinent inclusion of Vine's date of death.

Why is my giving Vine’s date of death “impertinent”? You have a tendency to take umbrage at the most unusual things. Russell Vine was a scholar who lived from 1900-1973.

He really would have no reason to make that up since it wouldn't serve any purpose to do so.

This is the classic response of the present-day believer being challenged. The immediate assumption is that the ancient Christian source must have “made it up”.

These individuals piously and often unquestioningly believed what they heard, read, and were told about the figures in the various Christian texts. However, that does automatically assume that what they heard, read, or were told was based on any attested historical evidence. It is the same for the four canonical gospels. We have no extraneous contemporary records for any of the amazing deeds of Jesus of Nazareth.

Do you ever gain any altitude with your frenzied hand waving?

Without any corroborative extraneous evidence it cannot be substantiated. That is something you appear totally unable to comprehend.

No. It's a very common way of indicating that someone will return to a subject later in due course. It is such a familiar expression that it even has an internet abbreviation, MOTL. Considering the pompous airs that you like to put on, I'm actually surprised that you are unfamiliar with the expression.

I see you don’t “do” irony.

Considering how badly you stuck your foot into it the last time you made this demand it might be a good idea to refrain from it.

I did not make any faux pas. You beat a hasty retreat and never replied to my last two posts on the Masada thread. Apparently you had “found better things to do”, which I have found is often an excuse made by an internet correspondent who cannot defend their position.

I was bringing up what many sources list as the arrival of the first Christians in China only to then show that wasn't the case. There are earlier documented visitations.

Where and what are these “earlier documented visitations”? Kindly cite them.

It is possible they were Nestorian, and several historians simply assume they were, but we don't know.

Insofar as the stela is concerned it was set up in 781 CE and recorded the arrival of a missionary from Tuts’in in 635 CE. It gives an account of the fortunes of the church to date and is the main witness to the growth of Christianity in the Far East before the thirteenth century and the arrival of the first western [Catholic] mission led by John of Monte Corvino [c.1294]. However this mission was ended by the advent of the Ming Dynasty in 1368 and it was not until the Jesuit ministries of the late sixteenth century that Christianity in China was re-established.

Even if they were they still count as Christians going to China even if they are from a heterodox or even heretical branch.

Really? Do you consider Mormons to be Christians? If you do you may be in a minority among your fellow believers.

Asserted without a scrap of evidence (hand waving isn't evidence) is not the same as demonstrated. You have sought here to summarily dismiss any and all accounts of Christians traveling to China and India.

I asked you for corroborative evidence. You have not supplied it.

In fact it would be highly unlikely that some didn't given the existence of the Silk Road and Christian's habit of traveling to distant lands to proselytize.

Of course that remains a possibility but without any late first early second century corroborative sources it cannot be established.

Arrogant conceited pup.

I suspect that age-wise you and I are not that far apart. I also note again that you don’t do irony.

you could be one of those who thinks all Asians look alike or that one place in Asia is essentially just like any other.

Perhaps you are one of those people who think all present-day Germans are white Europeans.

The original work by Hayes is a poem.

[mossrose]

Hence my use of a lower case "p" in my reply at post #12. Given your response to me at post #15 it would appear you do not recognise irony when it is directed against you.



Where on earth do you imagine the sect originated? There were no Baptists in western Europe in the 1300s. The sect arose out of the Reformation.

mossrose made the point at post #23 regarding her own religious position. She is mostly Baptist but considers herself Protestant [note the capital P in her remark]

Yeah. I wasn't differentiating between P and p in my comment. Mostly because it didn't occur to me. But I agree with rogue and CP on the small p.

[rogue06]

Hence my use of a lower case "p" in my reply at post #12. Given your response to me at post #15 it would appear you do not recognise irony when it is directed against you.

Where on earth do you imagine the sect originated? There were no Baptists in western Europe in the 1300s. The sect arose out of the Reformation.

Some Baptists (though not Southern Baptists) hold that Baptists go back to Apostolic times and even to the time of Christ (seeing their origins in John the Baptist's followers who became Christians), although FWIU not necessarily that there's been a Baptist Church since then. And the large percent of Baptists who don't regard themselves as Protestants do so because they sort of regard themselves as protesting against the Reformation churches as well as the RCC and hence not part of the Reformation Protestant churches. The fact that they were persecuted by both sort of cemented that view.

Me older little twin brudder from anudder mudder can likely explain this better since he is a Southern Baptist preacher.

mossrose made the point at post #23 regarding her own religious position. She is mostly Baptist but considers herself Protestant [note the capital P in her remark]

Note that she also said that she is "mostly Baptist" and "[doesn't] even like to characterize [herself] as a Baptist" as well.

[rogue06]

In order to respond to your post adequately this will, of necessity, be a two part reply given the character restrictions per post.

I wait to see if I receive any reply or whether, once again, you will simply not respond.

You initially referred to a “version that included notes from someone named Milman” [my emphasis]. Nor do I see why you have mentioned Milman’s notes. They do nothing to “prove” the page number you have given. However, they do give the clue to the edition you have employed. It appears to be from the 1845 edition that contained notes and editing by H. H. Milman, [1791-1868] an English historian and ecclesiastic. That text may be found here:
https://sacred-texts.com/cla/gibbon/index.htm

And the relevant section from volume four, Chapter XL: Reign Of Justinian. Part III is here https://sacred-texts.com/cla/gibbon/04/daf04006.htm.

The passage is also found in volume four in the Penguin edition [2000] and in volume four of the Everyman Library edition [1910] [reprint 1994]. I have the 1994 edition and it can be found in volume four at chapter XL on page 197.

I therefore think we can conclude that either your copy is a very unusual printing of this 1845 edition, or you have yet again got your information wrong as you did when you contended that the four volume series the Cambridge World History of Slavery contained only three volumes.

After looking online I found that depending on the edition the reference can be found in a number of different volumes including the ones we mentioned.

For example, some list it as in Volume 2 (https://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/declin...me2/chap40.htm as well as https://books.google.com/books?id=5G...volume&f=false), others as volume 7 (https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/gi...n-empire-vol-7 as well as https://www.scribd.com/document/1451...rd-Gibbon-1820) and this version has it in Volume 3 (https://books.google.com/books/about...d=HCcOAAAAYAAJ) but on page 99.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yeah. I wasn't differentiating between P and p in my comment. Mostly because it didn't occur to me. But I agree with rogue and CP on the small p.

Hence my employment of a lower-case "p" in my ironic reply to Cow Poke.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

After looking online I found that depending on the edition the reference can be found in a number of different volumes including the ones we mentioned.

For example, some list it as in Volume 2 (https://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/declin...me2/chap40.htm as well as https://books.google.com/books?id=5G...volume&f=false), others as volume 7 (https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/gi...n-empire-vol-7 as well as https://www.scribd.com/document/1451...rd-Gibbon-1820) and this version has it in Volume 3 (https://books.google.com/books/about...d=HCcOAAAAYAAJ) but on page 99.

You must have a somewhat unusual printing [?reprint?] of the 1845 edition with Milman’s notes. Gutenburg.org has uploaded a copy of that edition which is in six volumes with chapter XL in volume four. That same edition appears at openlibrary.org as six volumes.

However all this is mere trivia entirely removed from the main substance of our exchanges.

I therefore wait for you to address the rest of my comments and provide some corroborative extraneous contemporary evidence for your contentions and pronouncements.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Some Baptists (though not Southern Baptists) hold that Baptists go back to Apostolic times and even to the time of Christ (seeing their origins in John the Baptist's followers who became Christians),

We understand that early Christians practised full emersion but that has little relevance to the beliefs of an early seventeenth century protestant sect that split from other protesting/dissenting sects. The various movements that arouse out of the protests in the early sixteenth century have been splitting ever since over disagreements and disputations concerning translations and interpretations. The Monty Python team perfectly summed this up in The Life of Brian.