Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Here is a selection of his comments taken from various threads where the topic was raised.







    [/FONT]
    So you've got nothing. As I suspected.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      So you've got nothing. As I suspected.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        I would know much less if I were to consider your pontification valid. The accuracy of what you post is inversely proportional to the insults in its content.
        Do you consider this comment adequately explains the known situation at the time?

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

        Why Caesar did this really doesn't matter. It
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          Do you consider this comment adequately explains the known situation at the time?
          Given that Caesar did not document his reasons ... it is acceptable.
          He did it. We don't know why.

          It is legitimate to engage in conjecture, but that is all it will ever be.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

            Given that Caesar did not document his reasons ... it is acceptable.
            He did it. We don't know why.

            It is legitimate to engage in conjecture, but that is all it will ever be.
            Below is an extremely brief overview at the contemporary situation towards the mid first century BCE in Gaul.

            There were already indications that unrest was imminent when the Aediu appealed to Rome for assistance over incursions by the Sequani. This situation risked escalating because the Sequani had called upon the Suebi [whose leader was Ariovistus] and he had agreed to their request on the condition that some of his people could settle in Sequani lands. At the same time the Helvetii who had only comparatively recently moved from the Rhine and Main region to what is now Switzerland felt themselves increasingly pressured by their Germanic neighbours across the Rhine and perceived that this would only increase if the Suebi settled in that region.

            Considering that discretion was the better part of valour the Helvietii planned to move west. However, their route would take them through what is now Geneva and the lands of the Allobroges and while this route was beyond Roman territory it was perceived as a threat to the Roman province in southern Gaul. Purely for contemporary historical context, in its wider sense Transalpine Gaul referred to all of Gaul beyond the Alps but as far as the Romans were concerned at this period it related to the Roman territory in that region, i.e. the province that had been established in 121 BCE and which was intended to protect the port of Marseilles and the land route to Italy and Spain. The region then known as the Province still today retains a version of that name Provence. There was also some historical enmity between the Helvetii and Rome as at the end of the previous century those tribes had defeated Roman armies. Rome therefore prepared for war.


            All of the above of which was considered by rogue06

            really doesn't matter


            A comment that illustrates that he [and yourself] are totally unfamiliar with Caesar's commentaries as Caesar writes of it in Book I where he provides his justification for his campaigns beyond the frontier. Namely that the Helvetii had offended Rome's allies, they presented a threat to the Province, albeit somewhat geographically implausible, and they had committed historical, and yet to be avenged, indignities and injuries against Romans.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              Below is an extremely brief overview at the contemporary situation towards the mid first century BCE in Gaul.

              There were already indications that unrest was imminent when the Aediu appealed to Rome for assistance over incursions by the Sequani. This situation risked escalating because the Sequani had called upon the Suebi [whose leader was Ariovistus] and he had agreed to their request on the condition that some of his people could settle in Sequani lands. At the same time the Helvetii who had only comparatively recently moved from the Rhine and Main region to what is now Switzerland felt themselves increasingly pressured by their Germanic neighbours across the Rhine and perceived that this would only increase if the Suebi settled in that region.

              Considering that discretion was the better part of valour the Helvietii planned to move west. However, their route would take them through what is now Geneva and the lands of the Allobroges and while this route was beyond Roman territory it was perceived as a threat to the Roman province in southern Gaul. Purely for contemporary historical context, in its wider sense Transalpine Gaul referred to all of Gaul beyond the Alps but as far as the Romans were concerned at this period it related to the Roman territory in that region, i.e. the province that had been established in 121 BCE and which was intended to protect the port of Marseilles and the land route to Italy and Spain. The region then known as the Province still today retains a version of that name Provence. There was also some historical enmity between the Helvetii and Rome as at the end of the previous century those tribes had defeated Roman armies. Rome therefore prepared for war.


              All of the above of which was considered by rogue06

              really doesn't matter


              A comment that illustrates that he [and yourself] are totally unfamiliar with Caesar's commentaries as Caesar writes of it in Book I where he provides his justification for his campaigns beyond the frontier. Namely that the Helvetii had offended Rome's allies, they presented a threat to the Province, albeit somewhat geographically implausible, and they had committed historical, and yet to be avenged, indignities and injuries against Romans.
              How does all of that explain why Julius Caesar chose to leave 2/3 of his forces out of the arena?
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                How does all of that explain why Julius Caesar chose to leave 2/3 of his forces out of the arena?
                It is unlikely that when Caesar entered upon his provincial command he required those legions. That his first intention was an Illyrian campaign is indicated by the fact that he based those three legions in Aquileia [northern Italy]. In Book III he recounts how he set out on a reconnaissance visit to Illyria which suggests he might have been attempting to still give the impression that he intended an Illyrian campaign in 56 BCE, had the Venetic revolt not intervened,. However, that this was not his first priority cannot be entirely ruled out..

                Furthermore, and given that in 59 BCE Caesar had been instrumental in having Ariovistus declared as a "Friend of the Roman People" might likewise suggest that he was hoping to delay any potential eruptions of violence for Rome's clients beyond the Transalpine province.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Bad puns deserve recognition.
                  The only good puns are bad ones.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Because you never give details until pressed.
                    You didn't "press," but rather asked a question that you didn't know the answer for and presented as some sort of mystery. But it is a question with an easy answer to it -- at least easy for those who actually do know a bit about this rather than being a poser pretending to be an academic historian.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    I noted some time ago that these commentaries had a political edge.
                    And subsequently ignored that given how you treat his writings as pure unvarnished truth.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      For rogue06 to write this with regard to Caesar's campaigns in Gaul:



                      Serves to illustrate his profound ignorance on the contemporary situation.

                      He does seem to have a tendency to claim he has read texts and then make posts that indicate he has not read such texts. Either that or, what appear to be increasingly problematic issues with his memory, leave him unable to recall to mind a single word of what he has apparently read.
                      I make posts that demonstrate that I realize that Caesar often stretched and occasionally shredded the truth in order to aggrandize himself and justify his actions. Pretty much what typically happens in propaganda.

                      You, OTOH, seem to believe if I don't mindlessly regurgitate Caesar's claims as truth carved into stone it somehow means I never read his account.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        I make posts that demonstrate that I realize that Caesar often stretched and occasionally shredded the truth in order to aggrandize himself and justify his actions. Pretty much what typically happens in propaganda.
                        If you knew anything about the situation in late Republican Rome you would understand that political prestige and military prowess were, to a large extent, inseparable.

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        You, OTOH, seem to believe if I don't mindlessly regurgitate Caesar's claims as truth carved into stone it somehow means I never read his account.
                        That you could write such arrant nonsense as this:

                        Why Caesar did this really doesn't matter.


                        Serves to indicate, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are are almost entirely unfamiliar with Caesar's commentaries as well as the situation prevailing in Gaul in the early 50s BCE.

                        And to remind you yet again [as this memory problem of yours is getting worse by the day] I have in fact referred to the political aspect of his commentaries in a remark I made some time previously:

                        The text of The Gallic Wars as we now have it was not all written at one time. It comprises a series of dispatches regularly sent by Caesar back to Rome to be read [possibly in the senate] and certainly by his supporters to demonstrate and enhance his military prowess and political status. Bear in mind that military conquest and the booty that came with it was particularly important for Roman commanders and helped keep them [as it were] in the spotlight back in Rome.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          You didn't "press," but rather asked a question that you didn't know the answer for and presented as some sort of mystery.
                          On the contrary I was merely testing you and your reply served to confirm your ignorance of the details.
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by eider View Post
                            How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

                            I don't think that Jesus the Galilean Nagar (handworker) knew any languages other than Eastern Aramaic, never knew names like Christ or Peter, and didn't have any interest in founding anything for Gentiles to follow. I think he stood for the working classes that struggled on, all around him, and against the greed and hypocrisy of the Priesthood.

                            So I reckon that a whole mass of 'outside' material was needed for the development of Christianity.
                            Yep, and Jesus was simply used by the inventors of the new religion of Christianity. The inventors of Christianity combined the ancient myths with the later philosophy of of the Greeks, particularly that of Plato and Socrates to create Christianity. The idea of this life being a crucible, or an imperfect image of the perfect reality, a perfaction of which we are meant to seek here on earth is Socratic. The resurrection to a heavenly afterlife didn't start with Jesus and the New Testament, it began with myth, and continued in Greek philosophy from out of which the ideas were incorporated to create Christianity as if it were a natural outgrowth of Judaism.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post

                              Yep, and Jesus was simply used by the inventors of the new religion of Christianity. The inventors of Christianity combined the ancient myths with the later philosophy of of the Greeks, particularly that of Plato and Socrates to create Christianity. The idea of this life being a crucible, or an imperfect image of the perfect reality, a perfaction of which we are meant to seek here on earth is Socratic. The resurrection to a heavenly afterlife didn't start with Jesus and the New Testament, it began with myth, and continued in Greek philosophy from out of which the ideas were incorporated to create Christianity as if it were a natural outgrowth of Judaism.
                              I think this does a more than adequate job explaining the relationship between Christianity and the Greek philosophers

                              How has Greek philosophy influenced Christianity?
                              Philosophy literally means “a love of wisdom.” In modern use, the term refers to any process of organizing thoughts and ideas within some established framework. “Greek philosophy” is actually a subset of the world’s varied systems of discourse. Still, it would be fair to say that, when Western culture thinks of “philosophy,” what’s in mind is really “Greek philosophy.” Terminology, techniques, and categories developed in ancient Greece became the standards by which later philosophical discourse was conducted. As a result, virtually all questions of truth, ethics, worldview, and morality are still discussed using the basic principles of Greek philosophy.

                              It’s important, however, to distinguish between terminology and techniques, in contrast to tenets. In other words, Greek philosophy has provided the modern world with a vast array of methods and words useful in comparing different claims and effective in framing certain ideas. That does not imply that thoughts discussed using the mechanics of Greek philosophy are themselves drawn from the worldview of ancient Greece. On the contrary—what has made Greek philosophy so enduring is its application to a wide range of divergent views.

                              This distinction is especially crucial when discussing the impact of Greek philosophy on Christianity. On one hand, the worldview, morals, and central claims of Judeo-Christianity far predate Greek philosophers. Many central beliefs of Christianity are in direct opposition to those of men like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Paul, who often debated Greek philosophers (Acts 17:18), indicated that the gospel of Christ was “foolishness” to the Hellenistic (Greek) worldview (1 Corinthians 1:23). In that sense, it would be fair to say that Greek philosophy has not influenced Christianity.

                              On the other hand, it is also true that Christianity was born into a world steeped in Greek thinking. Greek philosophy provided the early Christian church with a set of discussion tools, as well as an opposing worldview with which to contrast the gospel. This makes Greek philosophy a profound influence on the words, systems, and discussions by which Christians throughout history have sought to explain their faith.

                              In short, Greek philosophy is not literally a source of Christian belief or a meaningful influence in the spiritual beliefs of Christians. At the same time, the systems with which Christians teach, discuss, and understand biblical truth have been deeply affected by Greek philosophy.

                              The apostle Paul was well-acquainted with Greek philosophy and often quoted Greek writers as he spread the gospel (Acts 17:23–28). New Testament writers also reference Greek philosophical concepts in order to better explain their ideas. John’s use of the word Logos, for instance, plays off of a pre-existing Greek term while connecting it to a personal, unique divine being (John 1:1–4). This shows how the prevalence of certain philosophical methods greatly influenced how early Christians presented their faith but not what they preached.

                              Early church fathers understood the relationship between message and method well. Augustine, for example, compared a Christian’s use of Greek philosophy to Israel’s use of gold taken from Egypt during the Exodus (Exodus 12:25–36). Like any physical tool, he argued, philosophy was capable of being used either rightly or wrongly. Philosophy might have been developed by an ungodly culture, Augustine contended, but it was ultimately just a set of techniques and terms, entirely useful in defending the truth.

                              As time went on, Christianity spread to a larger audience and involved more sophisticated discussion. The trend of relying on philosophical discussion continued. Greek philosophy remained a dominant force in Western thought, and so Christian theology continued to develop its structure and terminology by using this framework. This relationship is best exemplified in men like Thomas Aquinas, who sought to systematically describe the Christian worldview through the system of Greek philosophy. This approach, known as Scholasticism, revolutionized how Christians defended, discussed, and dispersed biblical ideas.

                              Of course, it would be naïve to think that Greek religious or spiritual ideas never, in any way, made inroads into the Judeo-Christian community. A major component of Greek thinking, in the era just prior to Jesus’ birth, was the concept of allegorical interpretation. In essence, this was the technique of interpreting mythical stories as analogies, not literal events, in order to avoid unpleasant implications about the morality of Greek gods such as Zeus or Ares. While this has value, in some instances, allegorical interpreters often applied the technique to stories meant to be taken literally. This allegorical approach was taken up by some Jewish writers, most famously the scholar Philo, who lived around the same time as Jesus Christ. Not all theologians accepted his approach, however.

                              Likewise, after the earthly ministry of Jesus, certain Greek religious ideas had to be confronted as they seeped into the church. Easily the most influential of these was Gnosticism, which played off the Greek penchant for mystery religions and intellectualism. The Bible itself shows that these overtly spiritual influences were strongly rejected by leaders of the church (1 John 4:2–3; 1 Timothy 4:1–5, Colossians 2:6–9). Even in the earliest days of Christianity, there was little confusion about the difference between adopting Greek philosophy and accepting Greek religion.

                              The New Testament era was one dominated by Greek culture and language. Even though Rome ruled the physical world, Greek intellectual traditions remained supreme. The New Testament was originally written in Greek and was targeted to an audience immersed in a Hellenized worldview. Greek philosophy continued through the millennia to be the primary system by which the Western world debated and defined concepts. At the same time, Christianity stands in clear contrast to the spiritual and religious beliefs of ancient Greek culture.

                              Greek philosophy has deeply, profoundly influenced the way Christianity discusses theology. It has not, however, been the origin of Christian belief nor a source of Christian religious ideas.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                I think this does a more than adequate job explaining the relationship between Christianity and the Greek philosophers

                                How has Greek philosophy influenced Christianity?
                                Philosophy literally means “a love of wisdom.” In modern use, the term refers to any process of organizing thoughts and ideas within some established framework. “Greek philosophy” is actually a subset of the world’s varied systems of discourse. Still, it would be fair to say that, when Western culture thinks of “philosophy,” what’s in mind is really “Greek philosophy.” Terminology, techniques, and categories developed in ancient Greece became the standards by which later philosophical discourse was conducted. As a result, virtually all questions of truth, ethics, worldview, and morality are still discussed using the basic principles of Greek philosophy.

                                It’s important, however, to distinguish between terminology and techniques, in contrast to tenets. In other words, Greek philosophy has provided the modern world with a vast array of methods and words useful in comparing different claims and effective in framing certain ideas. That does not imply that thoughts discussed using the mechanics of Greek philosophy are themselves drawn from the worldview of ancient Greece. On the contrary—what has made Greek philosophy so enduring is its application to a wide range of divergent views.

                                This distinction is especially crucial when discussing the impact of Greek philosophy on Christianity. On one hand, the worldview, morals, and central claims of Judeo-Christianity far predate Greek philosophers. Many central beliefs of Christianity are in direct opposition to those of men like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Paul, who often debated Greek philosophers (Acts 17:18), indicated that the gospel of Christ was “foolishness” to the Hellenistic (Greek) worldview (1 Corinthians 1:23). In that sense, it would be fair to say that Greek philosophy has not influenced Christianity.

                                On the other hand, it is also true that Christianity was born into a world steeped in Greek thinking. Greek philosophy provided the early Christian church with a set of discussion tools, as well as an opposing worldview with which to contrast the gospel. This makes Greek philosophy a profound influence on the words, systems, and discussions by which Christians throughout history have sought to explain their faith.

                                In short, Greek philosophy is not literally a source of Christian belief or a meaningful influence in the spiritual beliefs of Christians. At the same time, the systems with which Christians teach, discuss, and understand biblical truth have been deeply affected by Greek philosophy.

                                The apostle Paul was well-acquainted with Greek philosophy and often quoted Greek writers as he spread the gospel (Acts 17:23–28). New Testament writers also reference Greek philosophical concepts in order to better explain their ideas. John’s use of the word Logos, for instance, plays off of a pre-existing Greek term while connecting it to a personal, unique divine being (John 1:1–4). This shows how the prevalence of certain philosophical methods greatly influenced how early Christians presented their faith but not what they preached.

                                Early church fathers understood the relationship between message and method well. Augustine, for example, compared a Christian’s use of Greek philosophy to Israel’s use of gold taken from Egypt during the Exodus (Exodus 12:25–36). Like any physical tool, he argued, philosophy was capable of being used either rightly or wrongly. Philosophy might have been developed by an ungodly culture, Augustine contended, but it was ultimately just a set of techniques and terms, entirely useful in defending the truth.

                                As time went on, Christianity spread to a larger audience and involved more sophisticated discussion. The trend of relying on philosophical discussion continued. Greek philosophy remained a dominant force in Western thought, and so Christian theology continued to develop its structure and terminology by using this framework. This relationship is best exemplified in men like Thomas Aquinas, who sought to systematically describe the Christian worldview through the system of Greek philosophy. This approach, known as Scholasticism, revolutionized how Christians defended, discussed, and dispersed biblical ideas.

                                Of course, it would be naïve to think that Greek religious or spiritual ideas never, in any way, made inroads into the Judeo-Christian community. A major component of Greek thinking, in the era just prior to Jesus’ birth, was the concept of allegorical interpretation. In essence, this was the technique of interpreting mythical stories as analogies, not literal events, in order to avoid unpleasant implications about the morality of Greek gods such as Zeus or Ares. While this has value, in some instances, allegorical interpreters often applied the technique to stories meant to be taken literally. This allegorical approach was taken up by some Jewish writers, most famously the scholar Philo, who lived around the same time as Jesus Christ. Not all theologians accepted his approach, however.

                                Likewise, after the earthly ministry of Jesus, certain Greek religious ideas had to be confronted as they seeped into the church. Easily the most influential of these was Gnosticism, which played off the Greek penchant for mystery religions and intellectualism. The Bible itself shows that these overtly spiritual influences were strongly rejected by leaders of the church (1 John 4:2–3; 1 Timothy 4:1–5, Colossians 2:6–9). Even in the earliest days of Christianity, there was little confusion about the difference between adopting Greek philosophy and accepting Greek religion.

                                The New Testament era was one dominated by Greek culture and language. Even though Rome ruled the physical world, Greek intellectual traditions remained supreme. The New Testament was originally written in Greek and was targeted to an audience immersed in a Hellenized worldview. Greek philosophy continued through the millennia to be the primary system by which the Western world debated and defined concepts. At the same time, Christianity stands in clear contrast to the spiritual and religious beliefs of ancient Greek culture.

                                Greek philosophy has deeply, profoundly influenced the way Christianity discusses theology. It has not, however, been the origin of Christian belief nor a source of Christian religious ideas.
                                Well of course, that is a Christian biblical spin from a Christian biblical (gotquestions) site. As stated the orginal gospels were written in Greek by those, such as Paul, who were well versed in Greek philosophy. All of the ideas about "the good", "the evil" (ignorance), the crucible. Death and resurrection pre-existed Christianity. Socrates, according to Plato fully expected an after life in the more perfect realm of the good.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                29 responses
                                97 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                416 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X