India Temple

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

So we should just assume, absent any evidence, that President Nelson is secretly hoarding our tithes and offerings to the Lord and everyone who says otherwise is covering it up?

Well let’s look at what we do know:

$40 million a year in cash, material and volunteer time in total for humanitarian programmes globally.

$1.5 billion on one upmarket shopping mall complex in downtown Salt Lake City that was not expected to turn a profit.

Hmmm...

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

........... It has been suggested that Jesus came to Central Asia, from where He carried back those Buddhist teachings shown to be identical with Christianity from Tibetan Lamaism. ..............................

Yes, and some have Jesus saying "My yoga is light, and my burden is easy."  However, some of those claims ought to give us pause:  https://swarajyamag.com/culture/how-jesus-as-a-yogi-is-being-used-for-conversion-propaganda .

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There certainly are many prophesies pertaining to the Levant. In your view, which prophesies would pertain to the west?

When I say the west I am referring to Rome and Europe. The prophecies pertaining to them have to do with what came after the iron legs of the image in Daniel 2. So, there are several in Daniel, and in Revelation. These definitely pertain to Christianity as it becomes more apostate. However, I believe the United States is also referred to as the beast arising from the earth/wilderness in Rev 13:11 which starts as a lamb. 

Quote

There are accounts of thousands, if not millions, of 'hidden' Christians in Asia dating as early as 328 AD. A Persian Prince named Sapor reported large numbers of Christians and Christian churches in Seres (China). Nearly every westerner who ventured that far reported Christians and a Christian kingdom of some sort, and some described it in a way that leaves no doubt that this was not just a fanciful legend.

Jenkins has a chapter on the 'ghosts' of the Church of the East. Once you start poking around in the history, especially in the hilly regions where there hasn't been much external influence for centuries, it really jumps out at you. Here's one example (source) describing the beliefs and practices of a Malay hilltribe:



Click on the image for the source, and tell me if that account of Adam and Eve and their innumerable spirit children doesn't sound familiar. When people say the Book of Mormon is so obviously a fiction, full of anachronisms, I just think they aren't looking closely (or broadly) enough.

I believe the Church of the East probably has the most reliable indications of the numbers of Christians which were in the East at one time, and yes, it was probably in the millions. I have been over this before. It was the Muslim Timurlane/Timur the Lame who is largely responsible for the destruction of Christianity throughout the East. The use of the term "Isa" in Malaysia does not indicate a Christian heritage, but a Muslim one, since this is a term applied to Yeshua when the Syriac got translated to Arabic. The Quran refers to Yeshua as Isa, so mere use of Isa does not indicate a Christian background. Without the attendant Christian practices, it indicates a probable Muslim background.

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

........... It has been suggested that Jesus came to Central Asia, from where He carried back those Buddhist teachings shown to be identical with Christianity from Tibetan Lamaism. ..............................

Yes, and some have Jesus saying "My yoga is light, and my burden is easy."  However, some of those claims ought to give us pause:  https://swarajyamag.com/culture/how-jesus-as-a-yogi-is-being-used-for-conversion-propaganda .

Yes, that's why he followed with "since Buddhism did not reach Tibet until 640, it is unnecessary for the historian to waste his time refuting a baseless argument."

This is evidence of Christianity (not Jesus himself) in India, and points farther east, at a period early enough to interface and influence religions that we normally consider to be completely alien to Christianity.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I believe the Church of the East probably has the most reliable indications of the numbers of Christians which were in the East at one time, and yes, it was probably in the millions. I have been over this before. It was the Muslim Timurlane/Timur the Lame who is largely responsible for the destruction of Christianity throughout the East.

But again, Timurlane destroyed Christianity in the Mongol Empire, not throughout the East. European explorers that lived after Timurlane described Christian populations in Southeast Asia. Varthema traveled for months with two of them:

Quote

"They said that they were from a city called Sarnau (in Siam) and had brought for sale silken stuffs, and aloes wood, and benzoin, and musk. Which Christians said that in their country there were many lords also Christians, but they are subject to the great khan (of) Cathai (China). As to the dress of these Christians, they were clothed in a kebec (jerkin) made with folds, and the sleeves were quilted with cotton. And on their heads they wore a cap a palm and a half long, made of red cloth. These same men are as white as we are, and confess they are Christians.... We departed thence with the said Christians, and went towards a city which is called Pego (in Burma), distant from Banghella (Bengal) about a thousand miles. On which voyage we passed a gulf (of Martaban) towards the south, and so arrived at the city of Pego.

Varthema was of the papal faith, and he recognized that the religion of the region of Pego was different. He says that the king "has with him more than a thousand Christians of the country which has been above mentioned to you, that is, Nestorians from Sarnau." He and his traveling companions struck a bargain with the Christians that they should act as guides while they visited the islands of Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Maluko. It is characteristic of this outstanding missionary church that its members were not content with having planted the seeds of their faith in Persia, India, and China, but that they also extended their work down the Malacca Strait over into Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and the Spice Islands. It is written that the catholicos, Elijah V, in 1503 ordained three metropolitans and sent one to India, one to China, and one to Java.

Tamerlane never invaded Burma or Siam. He probably didn't even know these places existed. So these could very easily be Nestorians who were isolated from the destruction further north, or those who managed to flee south. It was also just a few years after De Gama landed in India, so they were not European Christians. 

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I believe the Church of the East probably has the most reliable indications of the numbers of Christians which were in the East at one time, and yes, it was probably in the millions. I have been over this before. It was the Muslim Timurlane/Timur the Lame who is largely responsible for the destruction of Christianity throughout the East.

We don't know what the original name used was. Rajah Brahil seems to be the name they themselves used. What that means, nobody knows. Some have claimed that it is a mispronunciation of Gabriel/Jibril. But from the account, it is clearly not a story from Islam or the Quran. Isa does not create Adam and Hawa in a preexistent heaven and then receive direction from Allah to create a world for their children. That is not any version of Islam I am familiar with.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Well let’s look at what we do know:

$40 million a year in cash, material and volunteer time in total for humanitarian programmes globally.

$1.5 billion on one upmarket shopping mall complex in downtown Salt Lake City that was not expected to turn a profit.

Hmmm...

So the answer is yes we should ignore all the evidence

[RevTestament]

32 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But again, Timurlane destroyed Christianity in the Mongol Empire, not throughout the East. European explorers that lived after Timurlane described Christian populations in Southeast Asia. Varthema traveled for months with two of them:

I am not denying that Christianity made it to SE Asia and west China. I believe it did. It clearly did make it to India, where it survived Islamic onslaught in the southern half of India, where Islamic conquest failed to reach. I am just pointing out that Christianity was known to be widespread throughout the Middle East in what is now Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was here that I believe eastern Christianity was most prominent, and here that Timurlane was essentially the single-handed destroyer of Christianity. However, he also destroyed much of Islamic culture, and was the end cap of the so-called golden age of Islam. Prior to him, Islam had been more tolerant of Christianity, and the two religions co-existed somewhat peacefully in many places. After all, the Muslims, who will never admit it, needed the knowledge of the Christians, and had the Christians translating their vast libraries. As I recall, fortunately for the East, Timurlane croaked before he turned his full attention on them.

Quote

Tamerlane never reached Burma or Siam. So these could very easily be Nestorians who were isolated from the destruction further north, or those who managed to escape. It was also just a few years after De Gama landed in India, so they were not European Christians. 

We don't know what the original name used was. Rajah Brahil seems to be the name they themselves used. What that means, nobody knows. Some have claimed that it is a mispronunciation of Gabriel/Jibril. But from the account, it is clearly not a story from Islam or the Quran. Isa does not create Adam and Eve in a preexistent heaven and then receive direction from God to create a world for their children. That is not Islam.

I am just saying the use of the name Isa is indicative of an Islamic heritage. You are right that in Islam Isa does not create the world. However, the name Isa could be indicative of an Islamic culture mixing with a later Christian culture or some Christian ideas, so one must be careful in concluding that a mere belief in Isa does not get misconstrued as a Christian heritage, especially given that Islam has spread throughout Malaysian culture, and indeed it has the highest concentration of Muslims in the world. Yeshua was not called Isa in the Church of the East.

[toon]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I believe the Church of the East probably has the most reliable indications of the numbers of Christians which were in the East at one time, and yes, it was probably in the millions. I have been over this before. It was the Muslim Timurlane/Timur the Lame who is largely responsible for the destruction of Christianity throughout the East. The use of the term "Isa" in Malaysia does not indicate a Christian heritage, but a Muslim one, since this is a term applied to Yeshua when the Syriac got translated to Arabic. The Quran refers to Yeshua as Isa, so mere use of Isa does not indicate a Christian background. Without the attendant Christian practices, it indicates a probable Muslim background.

I just finished Ehrman's latest book The Triumph of Christianity, in which he estimates that there were approximately 2 to 4 million Christians in the entire Roman Empire by the end of the Third Century. This estimate also seems to be the scholarly consensus.

If Ehrman's and others' estimates are correct, then I would have a hard time believing that there was an equal if not greater number of Christians in the East twenty or so years later, even considering the exponential growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire in those same intervening years. This isn't to day that Christianity didn't spread East of the Roman Empire, but that there were likely significant barriers to that that would at least justify skepticism over claims that it was widespread.

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, toon said:

I just finished Ehrman's latest book The Triumph of Christianity, in which he estimates that there were approximately 2 to 4 million Christians in the entire Roman Empire by the end of the Third Century. This estimate also seems to be the scholarly consensus.

If Ehrman's and others' estimates are correct, then I would have a hard time believing that there was an equal if not greater number of Christians in the East twenty or so years later, even considering the exponential growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire in those same intervening years. This isn't to day that Christianity didn't spread East of the Roman Empire, but that there were likely significant barriers to that that would at least justify skepticism over claims that it was widespread.

What exactly were those "significant barriers?" Unlike the Roman Empire, where Christianity was illegal and persecuted. the Parthian Empire was a free and very open society. It had several religions which were freely practiced, so contrary to your insinuation it had almost no barriers to Christianity, and the Church of the East spread rapidly throughout the Parthian Empire. Especially, by the time of the Peshitto, the Church had become large and established, and there is no reason to believe it did not reach the millions of members it claims it once had. This is all the more likely because this is the region the 10 tribes of Israel had been carted off to. That they remembered their heritage is somewhat manifested by the appearance of the wise men from the East ie Parthia at the time of Yeshua's birth. So it seems they may have hearkened to the prophecy of a Messiah better than the Jews did. The reason Christianity was so small in the Roman Empire, is because it was severely persecuted until the 4rth century. Not so in the East where the ten tribes would have already been familiar with the  OT, and would have welcomed the arrival of the Peshitto. Unfortunately, most all that history was destroyed by Muslims such as Timurlane. The Parthians were not great historians to begin with, so it seems the best indications of Christian numbers survive from what is left of records in the Church of the East. Without a state-mandated religion, and with a population which was more familiar with the OT, and more welcoming to its stories, Christianity had every reason to spread faster in the East than in the Roman Empire.

[Rajah Manchou]

39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Prior to him, Islam had been more tolerant of Christianity, and the two religions co-existed somewhat peacefully in many places. After all, the Muslims, who will never admit it, needed the knowledge of the Christians, and had the Christians translating their vast libraries. As I recall, fortunately for the East, Timurlane croaked before he turned his full attention on them.

Prior to Timur it was probably difficult to distinguish between Islam and the Oriental Christians. They were so similar that Islam was considered by many to be a schism off Christianity. There were even rumors circulating that Muhammad had learned everything from a Christian monk named Sergius. There are whisperings even today that the Quran was heavily influenced by Syriac Christian liturgical texts. 

56 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am just saying the use of the name Isa is indicative of an Islamic heritage. You are right that in Islam Isa does not create the world. However, the name Isa could be indicative of an Islamic culture mixing with a later Christian culture or some Christian ideas, so one must be careful in concluding that a mere belief in Isa does not get misconstrued as a Christian heritage, especially given that Islam has spread throughout Malaysian culture, and indeed it has the highest concentration of Muslims in the world. Yeshua was not called Isa in the Church of the East.

I'd have to look this up to confirm it, but I believe Yeshua was, at times, called Isa or Isho in the Nestorian Church. I believe Nestorians would also refer to God as Allah.

I did a quick search only, but found a few Nestorians named Isa (Jesus) including an Arabic-speaking Syrian who wrote anti-Islamic tracts for Kublai Khan (source).
 

[toon]

32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

What exactly were those "significant barriers?" Unlike the Roman Empire, where Christianity was illegal and persecuted. the Parthian Empire was a free and very open society. It had several religions which were freely practiced, so contrary to your insinuation it had almost no barriers to Christianity, and the Church of the East spread rapidly throughout the Parthian Empire. Especially, by the time of the Peshitto, the Church had become large and established, and there is no reason to believe it did not reach the millions of members it claims it once had. This is all the more likely because this is the region the 10 tribes of Israel had been carted off to. That they remembered their heritage is somewhat manifested by the appearance of the wise men from the East ie Parthia at the time of Yeshua's birth. So it seems they may have hearkened to the prophecy of a Messiah better than the Jews did. The reason Christianity was so small in the Roman Empire, is because it was severely persecuted until the 4rth century. Not so in the East where the ten tribes would have already been familiar with the  OT, and would have welcomed the arrival of the Peshitto. Unfortunately, most all that history was destroyed by Muslims such as Timurlane. The Parthians were not great historians to begin with, so it seems the best indications of Christian numbers survive from what is left of records in the Church of the East. Without a state-mandated religion, and with a population which was more familiar with the OT, and more welcoming to its stories, Christianity had every reason to spread faster in the East than in the Roman Empire.

1. I think the traditional view of the Roman persecution of Christians is overstated. No doubt that there were persecutions and that they could be brutal. But there were also sporadic and varied for location to location. Most early Christians probably lived their entire lives without personally experiencing any significant persecution.

As far is it being illegal, there was no empire wide ban until 240 CE, and even that was more often unenforced than enforced.

Christianity wasn't small in the Roman Empire by 300 CE. As I stated early, most scholars assume 2 to 4 million Christians. at that time. That reflects some consistent and exponential growth from what was likely less than 100 followers immediate after Jesus' death. Roman persecution likely had little impact on this growth.

2. 10 tribes of Israel? They remembered their heritage? CFR? Now, you're no longer going by what can be established historically, but by rumor and conjecture. There's not really much evidence that the northern kingdom of Israel even had messianic beliefs in 720 BCE.

Like I said, I'm not questioning that Christianity spread to the east and outside of the Roman Empire. There's no doubt to that. I'm just skeptical of any claim that the growth equaled or exceeded that in the Roman Empire.

[Rajah Manchou]

12 minutes ago, toon said:

Like I said, I'm not questioning that Christianity spread to the east and outside of the Roman Empire. There's no doubt to that. I'm just skeptical of any claim that the growth equaled or exceeded that in the Roman Empire.

"When they think about Christian history, most modern Westerners follow the book of Acts in concentrating on the church’s expansion west, through Greece and the Mediterranean world, and on to Rome. But while some early Christians were indeed moving west, many other believers—probably in greater numbers—journeyed east along the land routes, through what we today call Iraq and Iran, where they built great and enduring churches. Because of its location— close to the Roman frontier, but just far enough beyond it to avoid heavy-handed interference—Mesopotamia or Iraq retained a powerful Christian culture at least through the thirteenth century. In terms of the number and splendor of its churches and monasteries, its vast scholarship and dazzling spirituality, Iraq was through the late Middle Ages at least as much a cultural and spiritual heartland of Christianity as was France or Germany, or indeed Ireland." The Lost History of Christianity

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Prior to Timur it was probably difficult to distinguish between Islam and the Oriental Christians. They were so similar that Islam was considered by many to be a schism off Christianity. There were even rumors circulating that Muhammad had learned everything from a Christian monk named Sergius. There are whisperings even today that the Quran was heavily influenced by Syriac Christian liturgical texts. 

Well Judaism and Christianity predated Islam so it was natural for Muhammed to have learned about both before starting his new religion. I tend to believe the Muslim stories of Muhammed learning from a Christian monk, and clearly many stories in the Quran are based on Judaic writings and Gnostic Christian writings. So it is more than "whisperings." The stories of baby Isa making paper birds that became real; of speaking from his crib, etc all have preexisting, duplicate Gnostic Christian counterparts. However, I don't necessarily agree that one could not tell the the members of the two religions apart. Islam had clearly spread through conquest, and had an Arabian flavor to its religion. It was clearly distinct. Muhammed was their "way" whereas in Christianity Christ was "the way" and there is no Muhammed at all, period - with the exception as being a prophesied anti-Christ. Indeed, I am probably alone in believing Islam was clearly prophesied in Zech 5.

Quote

I'd have to look this up to confirm it, but I believe Yeshua was, at times, called Isa or Isho in the Nestorian Church. I believe Nestorians would also refer to God as Allah.

I did a quick search only, but found a few Nestorians named Isa (Jesus) including an Arabic-speaking Syrian who wrote anti-Islamic tracts for Kublai Khan (source).
 

The Nestorian Church did not refer to Yeshua as Isa. The Nestorian Church used a Syriac equivalent. In translating that into Arabic is where Isa came in, which tends to support the fact that Muhammed got his Quranic stories from Syriac sources. Nor did the Nestorians refer to God as Allah. The Syrians invented an acronym, Marya, to refer to YHWH, and it is used in the Syriac/Nestorian Peshitta to refer to Yeshua as well. In trying to spread Christianity to the Muslims eventually an Arabic Bible was translated, but I don't believe there is one which predates the advent of Islam. It may use Isa and Allah. I know it uses Allah. Allah is really just a generic form of El. It comes from a combination of al(the) El. "The Power" or The El became Allah. See Zech 5 for improperly using God's name. So when speaking Arabic, I'm sure the Nestorian Church had no problem using Allah, and probably much preferred it to the names of the prior Arabic pagan gods. However, I should point out that Arabic was a new language. There are essentially no Arabic texts predating Islam (a smattering of poems, etc survive) and the Quran has been acknowledged as containing many Syrian words. Arabic is essentially the last Aramaic language.

One can safely disregard the slurs that Allah came from the Arabic pagan moon god - there was none named Allah.

Edited April 23, 2018 by RevTestament

[Rajah Manchou]

18 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The Nestorian Church did not refer to Yeshua as Isa. The Nestorian Church used a Syriac equivalent. In translating that into Arabic is where Isa came in, which tends to support the fact that Muhammed got his Quranic stories from Syriac sources.

We're saying the same thing are we not? Nestorians used a Syriac equivalent of Yeshua, like Isho, Yasu, Yesu or something sounding very similar to Isa, which becomes the Arabic name for Yeshua in the Quran.

Arabic-speaking Nestorians would have used Isho, Yasu, Yesu or Isa, no?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, toon said:

1. I think the traditional view of the Roman persecution of Christians is overstated. No doubt that there were persecutions and that they could be brutal. But there were also sporadic and varied for location to location. Most early Christians probably lived their entire lives without personally experiencing any significant persecution.

As far is it being illegal, there was no empire wide ban until 240 CE, and even that was more often unenforced than enforced.

Christianity wasn't small in the Roman Empire by 300 CE. As I stated early, most scholars assume 2 to 4 million Christians. at that time. That reflects some consistent and exponential growth from what was likely less than 100 followers immediate after Jesus' death. Roman persecution likely had little impact on this growth.

2. 10 tribes of Israel? They remembered their heritage? CFR? Now, you're no longer going by what can be established historically, but by rumor and conjecture. There's not really much evidence that the northern kingdom of Israel even had messianic beliefs in 720 BCE.

Like I said, I'm not questioning that Christianity spread to the east and outside of the Roman Empire. There's no doubt to that. I'm just skeptical of any claim that the growth equaled or exceeded that in the Roman Empire.

The fact remains that it was really in the west where there were "significant barriers" to Christianity - not the East. If Christianity was able to grow to 2-4 million there by the 4rth century, why not even moreso in the East? You have not supported your claim there were "significant barriers" in the East. As for the ten tribes in the East, the fact is they intermarried and essentially disappeared from history. The same happened to the Jews who stayed in Babylon. Only a remnant returned to Jerusalem. The majority stayed in the East. Life was good there. Cyrus was a benevolent king who paid well. The later Greeks didn't seem to persecute the locals. The Parthians were even more benevolent. Josephus indicates that when the Jews rebuilt the temple there were only enough priests to fill 4 of the traditional 24 courses of priests. That means this group had to eventually be divided up 8 ways to make the traditional 24 courses of priests. That means about 7/8ths of the people stayed in Babylon. Would they retain the Aramaic book of Daniel? How about the other prophets? There were later synagogues built there as well. Would the ten tribes have retained their beliefs in the Torah? Well, unfortunately, history there is spotty, but the fact remains that someone from the East showed up to visit baby Jesus, and the Parthians had supported the Maccabean kingdom against Rome. The Parthian Empire was the kingdom the Romans loved to hate, and I believe Roman pride has always colored western history. If you want to doubt the history given by the Church of the East, I suppose you can, but I don't really see a valid reason to doubt it. It seems credible. Certainly as much so or moreso than RCC history.

[RevTestament]

36 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

We're saying the same thing are we not? Nestorians used a Syriac equivalent of Yeshua, like Isho, Yasu, Yesu or something sounding very similar to Isa, which becomes the Arabic name for Yeshua in the Quran.

Arabic-speaking Nestorians would have used Isho, Yasu, Yesu or Isa, no?

To be perfectly honest, I really don't know. I suppose when they translated Yasu/Yesu into Arabic it became Isa. I'm not sure. I do know El became Allah. That is what the early Arabic Bible uses. It is just another variant of the ancient Semitic El. It can be traced quite far back into early Assyrian/Akkadian. If the early Arabic Bible uses Isa, then I concede the point. However, a Nestorian monk speaking in his native tongue would use Yasu/Yesu. I guess I should make clear that it depends on what period of time we are speaking of. Arabic was a language that really coalesced under Islam. Before that, the early Christians were probably trying to teach the Arabs in Syriac, and would have used Yasu.

Edited April 23, 2018 by RevTestament

[Lagrange]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Prior to Timur it was probably difficult to distinguish between Islam and the Oriental Christians. They were so similar that Islam was considered by many to be a schism off Christianity. There were even rumors circulating that Muhammad had learned everything from a Christian monk named Sergius. There are whisperings even today that the Quran was heavily influenced by Syriac Christian liturgical texts. 

 

https://ismailignosis.com/2013/03/29/the-crucifixion-in-shia-ismaili-islam/

[toon]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

The fact remains that it was really in the west where there were "significant barriers" to Christianity - not the East. If Christianity was able to grow to 2-4 million there by the 4rth century, why not even moreso in the East? You have not supported your claim there were "significant barriers" in the East. As for the ten tribes in the East, the fact is they intermarried and essentially disappeared from history. The same happened to the Jews who stayed in Babylon. Only a remnant returned to Jerusalem. The majority stayed in the East. Life was good there. Cyrus was a benevolent king who paid well. The later Greeks didn't seem to persecute the locals. The Parthians were even more benevolent. Josephus indicates that when the Jews rebuilt the temple there were only enough priests to fill 4 of the traditional 24 courses of priests. That means this group had to eventually be divided up 8 ways to make the traditional 24 courses of priests. That means about 7/8ths of the people stayed in Babylon. Would they retain the Aramaic book of Daniel? How about the other prophets? There were later synagogues built there as well. Would the ten tribes have retained their beliefs in the Torah? Well, unfortunately, history there is spotty, but the fact remains that someone from the East showed up to visit baby Jesus, and the Parthians had supported the Maccabean kingdom against Rome. The Parthian Empire was the kingdom the Romans loved to hate, and I believe Roman pride has always colored western history. If you want to doubt the history given by the Church of the East, I suppose you can, but I don't really see a valid reason to doubt it. It seems credible. Certainly as much so or moreso than RCC history.

I don't think I ever said anything about the West.  Rather, I mentioned the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire. If I wasn't clear, by East, I meant east of the Roman Empire. The barriers are that the spread of Christianity outside of the Roman Empire in the first three centuries CE would have involved exactly that, dissemination outside of the Empire, at times when the Roman Empire was occasionally at war and at odds with the Parthians.  There's no question that it happened, and there's no question that there were significant Christian communities outside of the Roman Empire. There's also no question that, at times, the Parthian Empire was more tolerant of Christianity that were the Romans. (There were also times where the Parthians persecuted their Christian communities.)

But none of that means that the growth equaled or exceeded the growth within the Roman Empire.

The ten tribes are a non-issue for me. I suspect they were absorbed and assimilated into their captors civilization, with little to no known impact on that civilization. I was only responding to the claim that Christianity found a fertile ground in the East because the descendant so of the ten tribes somehow were more receptive because they had a different understanding of messianic prophesies than did the Jews in Judea.

Where do you get that the "fact remains that someone from the East showed up to visit the baby Jesus." I think the best evidence is that any account of Jesus' birth in the New Testament is not historical.

I suspect that the claim that it "seems credible" can be a reason in itself to be skeptical.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by toon

[toon]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

"When they think about Christian history, most modern Westerners follow the book of Acts in concentrating on the church’s expansion west, through Greece and the Mediterranean world, and on to Rome. But while some early Christians were indeed moving west, many other believers—probably in greater numbers—journeyed east along the land routes, through what we today call Iraq and Iran, where they built great and enduring churches. Because of its location— close to the Roman frontier, but just far enough beyond it to avoid heavy-handed interference—Mesopotamia or Iraq retained a powerful Christian culture at least through the thirteenth century. In terms of the number and splendor of its churches and monasteries, its vast scholarship and dazzling spirituality, Iraq was through the late Middle Ages at least as much a cultural and spiritual heartland of Christianity as was France or Germany, or indeed Ireland." The Lost History of Christianity

I'd be more interested in Jenkins' support for that claim, especially since he qualifies it in terms of probability.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, toon said:

I'd be more interested in Jenkins' support for that claim, especially since he qualifies it in terms of probability.

If you define east vs west as Roman Empire vs everything east of the Roman Empire, then there isn't much support for that claim. Much of the Church in the East was in Asia just within, or just beyond, the boundary of the Roman (and Byzantine) Empire. But Jenkins does give some numbers for Asia vis a vis Europe:

"The continuing strength of Christianity in Asia is obvious if we look at the distribution of the world’s believers around the year 1000, roughly at the halfway point in the story of the faith. Still, at that point, Asia had 17 to 20 million Christians, with a further 5 million in Africa. The European continent as a whole had some 40 million people, including Russia. Of those Europeans, at least a quarter either were still pagan or else lived in countries that had only very recently undergone formal conversion. That overall total would also include the Muslim inhabitants of Spain and Sicily, perhaps 4 or 5 million, in addition to European Jews. By this point, a reasonable estimate would suggest that Europe had some 25 to 30 million Christians, many whose faith was very notional indeed compared with the ancient churches of Asia and Africa. Many Europeans were still in the first or second generation of the faith, a situation comparable to that of modern-day Africa. Most Asian Christians, in contrast, stemmed from Christian traditions dating back twenty-five or thirty generations. If raw numbers favored Europe, Asia could still properly claim the leadership of the Christian world."

If the question is whether or not there were more than around 1-2 million Christians outside the Roman/Byzantine Empire at any point during the first half of the first millennium, there are strong arguments in support, but I don't think we'll ever know. Of course it would depend on where you draw the lines and whether or not you include the Christian kingdoms of Ethiopia, East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula in the "east".

Edited April 23, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, toon said:

I don't think I ever said anything about the West.  Rather, I mentioned the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire. If I wasn't clear, by East, I meant east of the Roman Empire.

Now you seem a bit disingenuous. Roman culture was western culture, and Europe remained the seat of western culture after the fall of the Roman west to the Gothic forebears of modern Europe. And yes, I am talking about the East as being East of the Roman Empire as in Parthia. When I mentioned the Greeks it was only referring to the Seleucid empire in the East which came about after Alexander the Great conquered it. Alexander had a vision of being a benevolent empire builder, which is why he built the great library of Alexandria, and for the most part his generals carried out that vision. For instance I don't think the Greeks who conquered Persia particularly persecuted the Zoroastrians. Nevertheless, I believe the Parthians were more favored, and viewed less as outsiders than the Seleucids. It was not a religious thing.

Quote

The barriers are that the spread of Christianity outside of the Roman Empire in the first three centuries CE would have involved exactly that, dissemination outside of the Empire, at times when the Roman Empire was occasionally at war and at odds with the Parthians.  There's no question that it happened, and there's no question that there were significant Christian communities outside of the Roman Empire. There's also no question that, at times, the Parthian Empire was more tolerant of Christianity that were the Romans. (There were also times where the Parthians persecuted their Christian communities.)

But none of that means that the growth equaled or exceeded the growth within the Roman Empire.

The ten tribes are a non-issue for me. I suspect they were absorbed and assimilated into their captors civilization, with little to no known impact on that civilization. I was only responding to the claim that Christianity found a fertile ground in the East because the descendant so of the ten tribes somehow were more receptive because they had a different understanding of messianic prophesies than did the Jews in Judea.

Where do you get that the "fact remains that someone from the East showed up to visit the baby Jesus." I think the best evidence is that any account of Jesus' birth in the New Testament is not historical.

I suspect that the claim that it "seems credible" can be a reason in itself to be skeptical.

I don't think there was as much barrier between the empires as people suppose. The delegation of wise men didn't seem to have difficulty getting into Jerusalem, and my guess is trade caravans came and went - if necessary, by going through Arabia or by jumping on a ship in the Red Sea. While I suppose there were probably guards on the main road, from a practical standpoint the border was too big to guard or fortify.  The main barrier was just desert. I've never read of heavy fortifications at the border.

I don't know why you doubt the story of Yeshua's birth. Do you doubt the rest of the gospel? As for sources of Christian numbers, those are just going to be estimates based on the number of bishops, etc. At the time of Constantine it seems the best estimate available is that there were around 1200 bishops in the empire. Even if you use 400 members per bishop that only comes to 480,000 Christians. Further, it has been demonstrated that Eusebius for instance sometimes embellished. After Constantine had his son Crispus killed, he changed his history in his next edition to hide the act. What I'm saying is there is not much reason to believe western history is that much more accurate than what we know in the East. So if you are skeptical because I believe the history of the Church of the East "seems credible" there are certainly equal if not greater reasons to be skeptical of history handed down by the West. The whole history of the early Church was I believe somewhat slanted by the rise of the Roman State Church, which enforced creeds by law, and had a vested interest in maintaining a certain view of the Godhead which had evolved into being, so went through a period of burning opposing works, etc. While i know there were certain rulers within the Parthian Empire who did not favor various groups such as Jews or Christians, as a whole it was a much more tolerant society than that of Rome. Where did the Hebrew Christians go when Rome sent legions to destroy Jerusalem? Those who escaped probably either went south into Arabia or East into Parthia. Same for the Jews. The Syrians also had commonalities with the Parthians - probably moreso than the Greeks or the Romans - and it would be natural for Syrian Christians to go East. While Rome did invade Parthia a few times, it was never able to retain any holdings in Parthia, but more or less just invaded and grabbed all the wealth they could before retreating. If a king fell, the people just elected a new one. it was a very resilient governance, which Christians would have definitely favored over Rome for its first three centuries.

While you view war as a barrier to the spread of Christianity, I believe it was probably a catalyst for the first 300 years of Christianity, as Rome did adopt a rather militant attitude toward Christianity, while its neighbor, Parthia, did not. If I were a Christian, I know where I would rather live. I just do not understand the reasoning behind assuming that Christianity grew faster in the West than in the East, when practically everything about the Parthian Empire was more amenable to the religion, and there is a history there of stories similar to Genesis, as well as a good chance of significant portion of the population having Hebraic blood and culture. This was all completely foreign to Greeks, and especially Romans. Really, the only reason Romans began to accept Christianity is because Constantine made it the legally favored religion. Then Roman citizens began "converting" in masses. However, I don't believe the religion they were converting to was all that much like that founded by Christ 300 years before.  By that time the religion had begun to adopt the pomp and trappings Yeshua had warned against, whereas in the East the religion never became the official state religion, and grew naturally. Nevertheless, we know that by the time of Muhammed, there were large numbers of Christians in the East. Much moreso than Judaism. Not only the History of the Church of the East but the Islamic writings make this clear.

Edited April 23, 2018 by RevTestament

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, Lagrange said:

https://ismailignosis.com/2013/03/29/the-crucifixion-in-shia-ismaili-islam/

I find Islamic groups like these to be fascinating, especially the sufis. You are already more familiar with these examples than I am, but Jenkins mentions a few:

"In so many ways, Sufi practices parallel those of the monks and hermits, in lands that had been overwhelmingly Christian. Even the name suggests continuity. Sufi derives from the Arabic word for “wool,” the material of an ascetic’s garment. This costume followed the practice of the Nestorian churches, whose bishops and higher clergy were expected to wear wool, rather than linen or silk, as a sign of simplicity and devotion. Both types of holiness, Muslim and Christian, were “wooly".

Edited April 24, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Lagrange]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

"In so many ways, Sufi practices parallel those of the monks and hermits, in lands that had been overwhelmingly Christian. Even the name suggests continuity. Sufi derives from the Arabic word for “wool,” the material of an ascetic’s garment. This costume followed the practice of the Nestorian churches, whose bishops and higher clergy were expected to wear wool, rather than linen or silk, as a sign of simplicity and devotion. Both types of holiness, Muslim and Christian, were “wooly".

Sufism and Shi'a share a lineage through Imam Ali and also share the cosmology that Imam Ali presumably taught, cosmology that includes things quite akin to the Adam-God doctrine of all things.  Things get interesting with Ali because Ali is placed in an Imamic lineage that includes Melkhizedek. The result is a window on Islam that few of us imagine even exists.  

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

18 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

So the answer is yes we should ignore all the evidence

What evidence is being ignored?

[CMZ]

On 4/23/2018 at 4:16 AM, Marginal Gains said:

You don’t know that, you don’t know where tithing goes. Unless you have financial reports you’d like to share with the group?

You're right. It must go to him.