Cornering: Does Knowing When Christianity Begin Make You a Christian?

There is a Facebook discussion going on on a page I cannot see, but this is the question sent to me from someone who can:

Is the person who said this a Christian? I’m anxious to hear from all of my FB friends! “Christianity was not invented by Constantine at the council of Nicia, it was invented by God with the resurrection of Christ”

Since when does one statement make someone a Christian? Especially such a fact-based one. Since neither of those answers are correct, how could answering them either make one or keep one from being a Christianity? Knowing the exact date when Christianity began (there is no exact date) does not make you a Christian any more than believing in the Historical Jesus does.

Does it come down to believing in a literal resurrection? Hardly. I’ve seen people who don’t believe be better Christians than those who do. Separation. Corning. That is what these debates are all about.

You Might Also Like

13 Replies to “Cornering: Does Knowing When Christianity Begin Make You a Christian?”

  1. Amen to that, Looney. I imagine the person means well, but honestly, why does the ability to be a Christian come down to such a nonsensical thing?

  2. I've heard that line before, Steph. Suddenly in 325 Constantine created a state religion. It is the type of people who believe that Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is a documentary.

  3. or Paul 'invented' the 'Christ myth'. grrrrr

    By the way I don't like this comment thing, filling in everything each time … grrrrr!

  4. “Historical J….”?!?
    Using that contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes dependancy upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.

    While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
    Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and (“spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.

    There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with “30-99 C.E.”).
    Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.

    Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.

    What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period… in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.

    To all Christians: The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?

  5. Your 'history' is built on little more than an assumption of history needed to support your flaw theoretical attempt to supplant the truth with your own views. Giant conspiracies sell books and make for interesting movies, but they do not do well in the realm of truth and logic.

    I laugh and your gesture of 'informing' which is little more than a shrill lie wrapped in a long winded attempt to recreate history to suit your ends.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.