Total Posts:198|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theophilus of Antioch

bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 9:28:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why didn't Theophilus mention in the three books that he wrote to his friend Autolycus the name Jesus or Christ or a virgin birth or a resurrection?

He was writing to an intelligent and educated Pagan and trying to convert him to christianity, why wouldn't he even mention the man he is supposed to believe is god or at the very least the son of god?

This guy was the Patriarch of Antioch, bishop.

He wrote his books in circa 180CE and he was a convert, why didn't he know about JESUS?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:31:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 9:28:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
Why didn't Theophilus mention in the three books that he wrote to his friend Autolycus the name Jesus or Christ or a virgin birth or a resurrection?

He was writing to an intelligent and educated Pagan and trying to convert him to christianity, why wouldn't he even mention the man he is supposed to believe is god or at the very least the son of god?

This guy was the Patriarch of Antioch, bishop.

He wrote his books in circa 180CE and he was a convert, why didn't he know about JESUS?

What you're saying is not exactly true.

It is true that Theophilus does not mention the name "Jesus" anywhere in the three books, which I find unbelievably disappointing and bizarre.

But to say that he never mentioned Jesus is incorrect.

First of all, he does mention Jesus by one of his titles: "the Word" --particularly extensively in Book 2, Chapter 22.

But again, I do find it odd that he doesn't speak more about Christ.

Also, he quoted a number of the sayings of Jesus, so it's not as though he completely left him out.

As far as the resurrection, there was some discussion about resurrection in Book 1, but, yeah--only the most vague references to the particular resurrection of Christ.

All in all, if these three books were written as an apologetic argument for Christianity, then my assessment is that they're an epic fail.

However, I really don't know enough about the history of these books to guess how authentic they are.

Frankly, I'm not too concerned about extra-Biblical texts. But yeah, those three books are an epic fail, in my opinion.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 4:30:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 9:28:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
Why didn't Theophilus mention in the three books that he wrote to his friend Autolycus the name Jesus or Christ or a virgin birth or a resurrection?

He was writing to an intelligent and educated Pagan and trying to convert him to christianity, why wouldn't he even mention the man he is supposed to believe is god or at the very least the son of god?

Prove that the recipient of his writings was "intelligent". Were tests conducted on him? If so, which ones?

This guy was the Patriarch of Antioch, bishop.

Prove that he existed and was the alleged "Patriarch" of Antioch.

He wrote his books in circa 180CE and he was a convert, why didn't he know about JESUS?

Prove that he didn't know about Jesus.

*****

See how it works?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 8:01:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 4:30:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 9:28:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
Why didn't Theophilus mention in the three books that he wrote to his friend Autolycus the name Jesus or Christ or a virgin birth or a resurrection?

He was writing to an intelligent and educated Pagan and trying to convert him to christianity, why wouldn't he even mention the man he is supposed to believe is god or at the very least the son of god?

Prove that the recipient of his writings was "intelligent". Were tests conducted on him? If so, which ones?

This guy was the Patriarch of Antioch, bishop.

Prove that he existed and was the alleged "Patriarch" of Antioch.

He wrote his books in circa 180CE and he was a convert, why didn't he know about JESUS?

Prove that he didn't know about Jesus.

*****

See how it works?

Come on, Anna. That looks like you are disallowing the question because you don't have an answer. After all, he is using the same standards of evidence you use, no?

I'd like to hear what you have to say if you are familiar with it.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 8:01:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/29/2014 4:30:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 9:28:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
Why didn't Theophilus mention in the three books that he wrote to his friend Autolycus the name Jesus or Christ or a virgin birth or a resurrection?

He was writing to an intelligent and educated Pagan and trying to convert him to christianity, why wouldn't he even mention the man he is supposed to believe is god or at the very least the son of god?

Prove that the recipient of his writings was "intelligent". Were tests conducted on him? If so, which ones?

This guy was the Patriarch of Antioch, bishop.

Prove that he existed and was the alleged "Patriarch" of Antioch.

He wrote his books in circa 180CE and he was a convert, why didn't he know about JESUS?

Prove that he didn't know about Jesus.

*****

See how it works?

Come on, Anna. That looks like you are disallowing the question because you don't have an answer. After all, he is using the same standards of evidence you use, no?

I'd like to hear what you have to say if you are familiar with it.

No, I'm using the same standard of RESPONSE that he uses. It was meant as a joke.

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once. All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 8:23:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:01:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/29/2014 4:30:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 9:28:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
Why didn't Theophilus mention in the three books that he wrote to his friend Autolycus the name Jesus or Christ or a virgin birth or a resurrection?

He was writing to an intelligent and educated Pagan and trying to convert him to christianity, why wouldn't he even mention the man he is supposed to believe is god or at the very least the son of god?

Prove that the recipient of his writings was "intelligent". Were tests conducted on him? If so, which ones?

This guy was the Patriarch of Antioch, bishop.

Prove that he existed and was the alleged "Patriarch" of Antioch.

He wrote his books in circa 180CE and he was a convert, why didn't he know about JESUS?

Prove that he didn't know about Jesus.

*****

See how it works?

Come on, Anna. That looks like you are disallowing the question because you don't have an answer. After all, he is using the same standards of evidence you use, no?

I'd like to hear what you have to say if you are familiar with it.

No, I'm using the same standard of RESPONSE that he uses. It was meant as a joke.

Yea, I got the point. ;-)

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once. All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

Fair enough. Thx.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 9:51:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 9:28:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
Why didn't Theophilus mention in the three books that he wrote to his friend Autolycus the name Jesus or Christ or a virgin birth or a resurrection?

He was writing to an intelligent and educated Pagan and trying to convert him to christianity, why wouldn't he even mention the man he is supposed to believe is god or at the very least the son of god?

This guy was the Patriarch of Antioch, bishop.

He wrote his books in circa 180CE and he was a convert, why didn't he know about JESUS?

That's astounding. He know plenty of Greek thought and the Hebrew OT but nothing at all about Jesus. In Book 1 he has a perfect opportunity:

Chapter 12. Meaning of the Name Christian.

And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

Even when discussing the origin of the name of his religion there is no mention of Jesus or even the Christ. It's about being annointed with oil! From a bishop of the new church!

How can this be?
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 10:11:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There was no "Jesus Christ" until the Churchmen created him from the legends coming from Yeishu ben Pantera, the "historical Jesus" who lived a hundred years earlier. A personality did create the "Q" parts of the Gospels and a missing Sayings Gospel may well existed along with the Gospel of Thomas, most definitely NOT a Churchman creation.

All of Pauline Christianity rests on fables that only are taken seriously because the Roman Empire took them seriously. All authority even today can be traced back to Roman Empire acceptance of Pauline Christian texts and theology. Bible scholars unwittingly keep this ruse going as do our resident Bible Authorities who use the same false history as the Pauline Bible scholars. But it never was real history. Only Churchmen propaganda written after the Churchmen gained churches to tell their tall tales to. That's why there was no real interface between Jews and Gentile Christians who went with the Gentile Churchmen and their mythology of Jesus Christ.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 12:49:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is also Athenagoras writing circa 2nd half of the 2nd century, a Greek philosopher and Christian.

http://www.newadvent.org...

Not a single mention of Jesus. He talks extensively about the Trinity and the Son of God, but the concept seems to be that the Son of God is the Logos (Word). Not a hint of a human incarnation named Jesus.

Athenagoras was making a passionate appeal for justice for Christians carefully explaining their customs and beliefs. Yet nothing about the person supposedly at the core of Christianity.

Can a Christian explain this thunderous silence?
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 1:08:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 12:49:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
There is also Athenagoras writing circa 2nd half of the 2nd century, a Greek philosopher and Christian.

http://www.newadvent.org...

Not a single mention of Jesus. He talks extensively about the Trinity and the Son of God, but the concept seems to be that the Son of God is the Logos (Word). Not a hint of a human incarnation named Jesus.

Athenagoras was making a passionate appeal for justice for Christians carefully explaining their customs and beliefs. Yet nothing about the person supposedly at the core of Christianity.

Can a Christian explain this thunderous silence?

Don't hold your breath dee, I'm not.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 1:46:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 1:08:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 12:49:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
There is also Athenagoras writing circa 2nd half of the 2nd century, a Greek philosopher and Christian.

http://www.newadvent.org...

Not a single mention of Jesus. He talks extensively about the Trinity and the Son of God, but the concept seems to be that the Son of God is the Logos (Word). Not a hint of a human incarnation named Jesus.

Athenagoras was making a passionate appeal for justice for Christians carefully explaining their customs and beliefs. Yet nothing about the person supposedly at the core of Christianity.

Can a Christian explain this thunderous silence?

Don't hold your breath dee, I'm not.

It's amazing isn't it? They will argue for days about the name Chrestus in a single line of a historical text by a Roman author but when they are confronted with four whole books about early Christianity by Christians (one being a bishop!) and no mention of Jesus at all, they have nothing to say. Only sovereigngracereigns had enough, well, grace to make an honest comment.

Not only is Jesus a myth, but the insistence by some Christians here that they are impartial and applying proper historical methodology, that too is a myth.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:09:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once.

What an inadequate response from someone who pretends to be interested in early Christianity. And your standard defence when confronted with something which might be difficult or embarrassing - "I know nothing". You are the ultimate skeptic. So ingrained are your beliefs that you either feign ignorance, demand endless 'proofs' or question every little thing until people give up in frustration. There is no excuse. Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3:

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus).

All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

This is what passes for informed debate? A Christian bishop was "a bit out there"? That should make every Christian feel warm and comfortable about their religion given this is how it started. Gee.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:14:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:09:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once.

What an inadequate response from someone who pretends to be interested in early Christianity. And your standard defence when confronted with something which might be difficult or embarrassing - "I know nothing". You are the ultimate skeptic. So ingrained are your beliefs that you either feign ignorance, demand endless 'proofs' or question every little thing until people give up in frustration. There is no excuse. Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3:

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus).

All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

This is what passes for informed debate? A Christian bishop was "a bit out there"? That should make every Christian feel warm and comfortable about their religion given this is how it started. Gee.
Like peeing in your wetsuit dee, it gives you a nice warm feeling but is meaningless to everybody else.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:21:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 4:30:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 9:28:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
Why didn't Theophilus mention in the three books that he wrote to his friend Autolycus the name Jesus or Christ or a virgin birth or a resurrection?

He was writing to an intelligent and educated Pagan and trying to convert him to christianity, why wouldn't he even mention the man he is supposed to believe is god or at the very least the son of god?

Prove that the recipient of his writings was "intelligent". Were tests conducted on him? If so, which ones?

This guy was the Patriarch of Antioch, bishop.

Prove that he existed and was the alleged "Patriarch" of Antioch.

He wrote his books in circa 180CE and he was a convert, why didn't he know about JESUS?

Prove that he didn't know about Jesus.

*****

See how it works?

This is a first. Someone parodying themselves.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:42:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:09:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once.

What an inadequate response from someone who pretends to be interested in early Christianity. And your standard defence when confronted with something which might be difficult or embarrassing - "I know nothing". You are the ultimate skeptic. So ingrained are your beliefs that you either feign ignorance, demand endless 'proofs' or question every little thing until people give up in frustration. There is no excuse. Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3:

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus).

All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

This is what passes for informed debate? A Christian bishop was "a bit out there"? That should make every Christian feel warm and comfortable about their religion given this is how it started. Gee.

What do you want me to do? Read all of the writings of Theophilus which apparently contain no reference to Christ or Christianity? I'm not doing that. I read them once about eight or ten years ago - and now I'm supposed to re-read them to confirm the absence of something and come up with a reason for it?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:43:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:21:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/29/2014 4:30:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/29/2014 9:28:24 AM, bulproof wrote:
Why didn't Theophilus mention in the three books that he wrote to his friend Autolycus the name Jesus or Christ or a virgin birth or a resurrection?

He was writing to an intelligent and educated Pagan and trying to convert him to christianity, why wouldn't he even mention the man he is supposed to believe is god or at the very least the son of god?

Prove that the recipient of his writings was "intelligent". Were tests conducted on him? If so, which ones?

This guy was the Patriarch of Antioch, bishop.

Prove that he existed and was the alleged "Patriarch" of Antioch.

He wrote his books in circa 180CE and he was a convert, why didn't he know about JESUS?

Prove that he didn't know about Jesus.

*****

See how it works?

This is a first. Someone parodying themselves.

Sorry, but I was "parodying" bulproof. I do not recall asking someone to "prove" the unprovable.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:53:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:09:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once.

What an inadequate response from someone who pretends to be interested in early Christianity. And your standard defence when confronted with something which might be difficult or embarrassing - "I know nothing". You are the ultimate skeptic. So ingrained are your beliefs that you either feign ignorance, demand endless 'proofs' or question every little thing until people give up in frustration. There is no excuse. Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3:

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus).

All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

This is what passes for informed debate? A Christian bishop was "a bit out there"? That should make every Christian feel warm and comfortable about their religion given this is how it started. Gee.

Perhaps I'm too busy looking for a reference to Jesus in III John.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:58:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:42:41 AM, annanicole wrote:

What do you want me to do? Read all of the writings of Theophilus which apparently contain no reference to Christ or Christianity? I'm not doing that. I read them once about eight or ten years ago - and now I'm supposed to re-read them to confirm the absence of something and come up with a reason for it?

Yes, why not? Aren't you curious?
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 6:58:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:42:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:09:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once.

What an inadequate response from someone who pretends to be interested in early Christianity. And your standard defence when confronted with something which might be difficult or embarrassing - "I know nothing". You are the ultimate skeptic. So ingrained are your beliefs that you either feign ignorance, demand endless 'proofs' or question every little thing until people give up in frustration. There is no excuse. Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3:

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus).

All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

This is what passes for informed debate? A Christian bishop was "a bit out there"? That should make every Christian feel warm and comfortable about their religion given this is how it started. Gee.

What do you want me to do? Read all of the writings of Theophilus which apparently contain no reference to Christ or Christianity? I'm not doing that. I read them once about eight or ten years ago - and now I'm supposed to re-read them to confirm the absence of something and come up with a reason for it?

Ahh so ancient CHRISTIAN writings by Bishops trying to convert people to christianity that don't even mention a jesus or a christ can be dismissed because an early christian forged a passage for a jewish historian allegedly referring to a jesus that a Christian Bishop had never heard of.

Now you simply can't get more impartial than that Annie.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:01:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:43:58 AM, annanicole wrote:

Sorry, but I was "parodying" bulproof. I do not recall asking someone to "prove" the unprovable.

You need to self-monitor more.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:16:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:58:55 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:42:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:09:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once.

What an inadequate response from someone who pretends to be interested in early Christianity. And your standard defence when confronted with something which might be difficult or embarrassing - "I know nothing". You are the ultimate skeptic. So ingrained are your beliefs that you either feign ignorance, demand endless 'proofs' or question every little thing until people give up in frustration. There is no excuse. Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3:

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus).

All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

This is what passes for informed debate? A Christian bishop was "a bit out there"? That should make every Christian feel warm and comfortable about their religion given this is how it started. Gee.

What do you want me to do? Read all of the writings of Theophilus which apparently contain no reference to Christ or Christianity? I'm not doing that. I read them once about eight or ten years ago - and now I'm supposed to re-read them to confirm the absence of something and come up with a reason for it?

Ahh so ancient CHRISTIAN writings by Bishops trying to convert people to christianity that don't even mention a jesus or a christ can be dismissed because an early christian forged a passage for a jewish historian allegedly referring to a jesus that a Christian Bishop had never heard of.

Now you simply can't get more impartial than that Annie.

Oh, I didn't "dismiss" it. I said I am not familiar with it, and do not feel that it is worth the time to study it. I would, however, ask the following questions:

(1) Was Theophilus defending Christianity at all, or espousing the benefits of monotheism over the pagan gods, i. e. was he mainly seeking to discredit paganism without trying to sell Christianity.

(2) Was Theophilus "debating" a narrow point with whoever he was writing - a point which did not necessitate any discussion of Jesus?

(3) Was Theophilus answering particular questions or objections regarding a point which would not have necessitated mentioning Jesus?

(4) Did Theophilus employ other words which would be connected as descriptors of Jesus in the NT - and of no one else?

(5) Was Theophilus a unitarian?

(6) Did Theophilus manage to mention John the Baptist, or Peter, or Paul, or Pilate, or Herod, or John? If not (and I do not know), does this imply that these people likewise did not exist?

Now the answers to those questions would probably solve it. I do know that the book of III John was written to a particular person - and there was no need in mentioning Jesus.

Anyway, you do not have to re-copy the questions. Just put the number and the answer, and I'll figure it out.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:19:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 7:01:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:43:58 AM, annanicole wrote:

Sorry, but I was "parodying" bulproof. I do not recall asking someone to "prove" the unprovable.

You need to self-monitor more.

Monitor this: the likelihood that you've actually read the writings of Theophilus is next to zero. You could have, but I sincerely doubt it. We'll find out - for the few questions I asked cannot be answered by someone who's never read all of his writings. I, on the other hand, have read them: I simply do not remember much about them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:25:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 6:58:55 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:42:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:09:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once.

What an inadequate response from someone who pretends to be interested in early Christianity. And your standard defence when confronted with something which might be difficult or embarrassing - "I know nothing". You are the ultimate skeptic. So ingrained are your beliefs that you either feign ignorance, demand endless 'proofs' or question every little thing until people give up in frustration. There is no excuse. Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3:

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus).

All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

This is what passes for informed debate? A Christian bishop was "a bit out there"? That should make every Christian feel warm and comfortable about their religion given this is how it started. Gee.

What do you want me to do? Read all of the writings of Theophilus which apparently contain no reference to Christ or Christianity? I'm not doing that. I read them once about eight or ten years ago - and now I'm supposed to re-read them to confirm the absence of something and come up with a reason for it?

Ahh so ancient CHRISTIAN writings by Bishops trying to convert people to christianity that don't even mention a jesus or a christ can be dismissed because an early christian forged a passage for a jewish historian allegedly referring to a jesus that a Christian Bishop had never heard of.

Now you simply can't get more impartial than that Annie.

One does not convert a pagan to Christianity by rambling about a virgin birth, sinless life, and resurrection. One would begin or attempt a conversion of a pagan, especially a pagan who worshiped multiple gods, by discrediting, by pointing out inconsistencies, and the like - and challenging a person on the point of monotheism, indeed on the very nature of God. If one cannot succeed at that, then there's no use in going into all of the other.

So I'd like to ask - and this is based upon what I can remember - is that what Theophilus was trying to do?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:27:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 7:19:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/30/2014 7:01:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:43:58 AM, annanicole wrote:

Sorry, but I was "parodying" bulproof. I do not recall asking someone to "prove" the unprovable.

You need to self-monitor more.

Monitor this: the likelihood that you've actually read the writings of Theophilus is next to zero. You could have, but I sincerely doubt it. We'll find out - for the few questions I asked cannot be answered by someone who's never read all of his writings. I, on the other hand, have read them: I simply do not remember much about them.

I didn't request that you ask questions Anna. This is your modus operandi to annoy and frustrate and obfuscate, thereby avoiding the central issue. Your job is to explain the complete absence of the name Jesus in the three books. They're not that long. You can skim if you like. Don't ask me to do your work for you. Go ahead, explain.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:34:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 7:25:43 AM, annanicole wrote:

One does not convert a pagan to Christianity by rambling about a virgin birth, sinless life, and resurrection. One would begin or attempt a conversion of a pagan, especially a pagan who worshiped multiple gods, by discrediting, by pointing out inconsistencies, and the like - and challenging a person on the point of monotheism, indeed on the very nature of God. If one cannot succeed at that, then there's no use in going into all of the other.

So I'd like to ask - and this is based upon what I can remember - is that what Theophilus was trying to do?

Oh, he goes on and on about a sinless life. He also has a chapter on resurrection, just not the resurrection of Jesus - seeds and the Moon and stuff. But why not find out for yourself?
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:34:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 7:25:43 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:58:55 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:42:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:09:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once.

What an inadequate response from someone who pretends to be interested in early Christianity. And your standard defence when confronted with something which might be difficult or embarrassing - "I know nothing". You are the ultimate skeptic. So ingrained are your beliefs that you either feign ignorance, demand endless 'proofs' or question every little thing until people give up in frustration. There is no excuse. Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3:

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus).

All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

This is what passes for informed debate? A Christian bishop was "a bit out there"? That should make every Christian feel warm and comfortable about their religion given this is how it started. Gee.

What do you want me to do? Read all of the writings of Theophilus which apparently contain no reference to Christ or Christianity? I'm not doing that. I read them once about eight or ten years ago - and now I'm supposed to re-read them to confirm the absence of something and come up with a reason for it?

Ahh so ancient CHRISTIAN writings by Bishops trying to convert people to christianity that don't even mention a jesus or a christ can be dismissed because an early christian forged a passage for a jewish historian allegedly referring to a jesus that a Christian Bishop had never heard of.

Now you simply can't get more impartial than that Annie.

One does not convert a pagan to Christianity by rambling about a virgin birth, sinless life, and resurrection. One would begin or attempt a conversion of a pagan, especially a pagan who worshiped multiple gods, by discrediting, by pointing out inconsistencies, and the like - and challenging a person on the point of monotheism, indeed on the very nature of God. If one cannot succeed at that, then there's no use in going into all of the other.

So I'd like to ask - and this is based upon what I can remember - is that what Theophilus was trying to do?

You discount a Christian Patriarch in favour of a well established forgery.

What else do you people need to do to support your LIES?

Or maybe you could engage the discussion regarding Theophilus, no?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:56:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:31:32 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:

What you're saying is not exactly true.

It is true that Theophilus does not mention the name "Jesus" anywhere in the three books, which I find unbelievably disappointing and bizarre.

But to say that he never mentioned Jesus is incorrect.

No, it's correct.

First of all, he does mention Jesus by one of his titles: "the Word" --particularly extensively in Book 2, Chapter 22.

Isn't it more likely that the later* introduction of Jesus was retrofitted to the concept of the Trinity? They had the Holy Ghost impregnate Mary and Jesus be the incarnation of the Logos.

But again, I do find it odd that he doesn't speak more about Christ.

Also, he quoted a number of the sayings of Jesus, so it's not as though he completely left him out.

Again, isn't it more likely that these pre-existing sayings were put into the mouth of Jesus by later* scribes?

As far as the resurrection, there was some discussion about resurrection in Book 1, but, yeah--only the most vague references to the particular resurrection of Christ.

I couldn't see any mention.

All in all, if these three books were written as an apologetic argument for Christianity, then my assessment is that they're an epic fail.

However, I really don't know enough about the history of these books to guess how authentic they are.

Frankly, I'm not too concerned about extra-Biblical texts. But yeah, those three books are an epic fail, in my opinion.

* Later, or some other parallel outpost of Christianity (I believe there were competing churches early on with the one in Rome finally gaining the ascendancy).
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 8:15:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 7:34:57 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 7:25:43 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:58:55 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:42:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:09:46 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:18:15 PM, annanicole wrote:

.... and I do not recall what Theophilus said, or what he didn't say. It's been years since I read his writings - and even then, it was only once.

What an inadequate response from someone who pretends to be interested in early Christianity. And your standard defence when confronted with something which might be difficult or embarrassing - "I know nothing". You are the ultimate skeptic. So ingrained are your beliefs that you either feign ignorance, demand endless 'proofs' or question every little thing until people give up in frustration. There is no excuse. Here are the links for Books 1, 2 and 3:

http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.newadvent.org...

Please explain to us conspiracy theorists how a Bishop of the early Christian Church can write thousands of words trying to persuade someone to convert to Christianity and neglect to mention Jesus. How is that possible? (There is only one answer. He had never heard of Jesus).

All I recall is that I thought he was a bit "out there".

This is what passes for informed debate? A Christian bishop was "a bit out there"? That should make every Christian feel warm and comfortable about their religion given this is how it started. Gee.

What do you want me to do? Read all of the writings of Theophilus which apparently contain no reference to Christ or Christianity? I'm not doing that. I read them once about eight or ten years ago - and now I'm supposed to re-read them to confirm the absence of something and come up with a reason for it?

Ahh so ancient CHRISTIAN writings by Bishops trying to convert people to christianity that don't even mention a jesus or a christ can be dismissed because an early christian forged a passage for a jewish historian allegedly referring to a jesus that a Christian Bishop had never heard of.

Now you simply can't get more impartial than that Annie.

One does not convert a pagan to Christianity by rambling about a virgin birth, sinless life, and resurrection. One would begin or attempt a conversion of a pagan, especially a pagan who worshiped multiple gods, by discrediting, by pointing out inconsistencies, and the like - and challenging a person on the point of monotheism, indeed on the very nature of God. If one cannot succeed at that, then there's no use in going into all of the other.

So I'd like to ask - and this is based upon what I can remember - is that what Theophilus was trying to do?

You discount a Christian Patriarch in favour of a well established forgery.

What else do you people need to do to support your LIES?

Or maybe you could engage the discussion regarding Theophilus, no?

I tried to. I asked a number of what-should-be fairly easy questions regarding his writings. I haven't seen an answer to a one of them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 8:20:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 8:15:01 AM, annanicole wrote:

I tried to. I asked a number of what-should-be fairly easy questions regarding his writings. I haven't seen an answer to a one of them.

Why should we do your legwork for you? Do it yourself.

Besides, we evil atheists might lie to you. :-)
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 8:21:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 7:27:27 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/30/2014 7:19:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/30/2014 7:01:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/30/2014 6:43:58 AM, annanicole wrote:

Sorry, but I was "parodying" bulproof. I do not recall asking someone to "prove" the unprovable.

You need to self-monitor more.

Monitor this: the likelihood that you've actually read the writings of Theophilus is next to zero. You could have, but I sincerely doubt it. We'll find out - for the few questions I asked cannot be answered by someone who's never read all of his writings. I, on the other hand, have read them: I simply do not remember much about them.

I didn't request that you ask questions Anna. This is your modus operandi to annoy and frustrate and obfuscate, thereby avoiding the central issue.

The central issue would be answered, for the most part, by the answers to those five or six questions. They are the central issue. The issue it not, "Theophilus didn't mention Jesus. Therefore, Jesus never existed." A number of reasons could explain it, and I feel that those questions will deal with at least most of them.

I forgot to ask if there are (or were) other writings of Theophilus that not are extant.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."