Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps • Hacker News Board

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#291

Post by sickofparadox » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 11:03 AM UTC

NemoNobody wrote: post #280

sickofparadox wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This was speaking to the dead, and expecting a response, and thus a sin in some way I am not sure of. Catholics believe that people in heaven are not dead, and can hear your prayers for intercession (this is the case with most protestants too). Jesus said, after all, that he is the God of the living not the God of the dead[1], and that those in heaven will be reborn in a new and everlasting life. Catholics further b…

The dead are dead - they cannot hear those prayers. God may be able to but if he hears our laments to our lost loved ones, even if we ask them to help us, I cannot conceive how he could anything but pity us, he loves us after all. People punish - Jesus loves. That's a super easy way to see the lies from the truth

If the dead are dead than the promise of Christ is a lie. Unworkable theologically.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#292

Post by karencarits » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 2:07 PM UTC

ImJamal wrote: post #155

wslh wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the oldest historical mentions of Jesus is by Josephus [1][2]. There is, however, scholarly discussion about whether parts of his references to Jesus were altered by later Christian scribes [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=jose...

The traditional view held by Christians is that the Gospel of Matthew was written within 10 years of Jesus' death. Modern scholars (often atheists) do not believe it though.

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard anyone claim that they written so early. For Catholics at least, I think it's a point that the Church and some Tradition are older than the Gospels, i.e. that the Gospels are written by the Church, for the Church (not the other way around)

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#293

Post by xerox13ster » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 2:25 PM UTC

NemoNobody wrote: post #252

graemep wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would interpret that as all of redeemed humanity, not just all Christians.

Your interpretation is correct - every single one of us was redeemed at the Cross. Essentially, Jesus came here to correct a kind of mistake. God laid down laws and then people laid down further laws and eventually all the people, even those living by the law, were guilty of having committed sin - breaking the established laws of God and that crime meant their souls would be claimed by Satan, as being people "of the…

Then why can’t I wear my tie dye shirt at most churches?

I’ve completely fallen out of the church and Christianity. I do believe in a force that exists and acts and behaves as we described God as I grew up, which is in us and all things and all around us throughout all of creation, but I do not believe that that is God. I just call that the Universe now.

Wastky concerts are more my church than anywhere else in the world. I feel connected and holy in his crowds. I wear my clothes until they’re threadbare because of that song.

When I analyze my life now, I recognize it as what Jesus commanded us to do, but none none none of what I have motivated myself to do has been motivated by Christianity or God‘s calling.

Watsky broke me free from the Christian church, but he shaped my behavior to be more Christian than it ever would’ve been then when I was in and a part of Christianity and taking my teachings from the Bible.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#294

Post by cogman10 » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 4:39 PM UTC

bandie91 wrote: post #288

cogman10 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may have misinterpreted what you are saying. When I read this > there is no evidence of anything in the Bible I interpreted it as you saying "Nothing in the bible has corroborating evidence". Not "the bible is not evidence for anything". The bible mentions the sun and we have corroborating evidence that the sun does indeed exist. The bible's mention of the sun alone isn't evidence for it's existence. That said, the…

why hold a specific set of writings to a different standard than other books from the same area and timeframe? all texts hold a non-zero evidential value regardless to how people treat those texts outside of academic processes. you don´t take them at face value of course but neither other texts.

> why hold a specific set of writings to a different standard than other books from the same area and timeframe?

I don't? I know more about the bible than other writings at the time just because of upbringing/curiosity but I don't particularly hold it in high regard.

> all texts hold a non-zero evidential value regardless to how people treat those texts outside of academic processes. you don´t take them at face value of course but neither other texts.

I agree. How strong the evidence for a writing will is will be based on corroborating evidence and other writings.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#295

Post by cogman10 » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 4:42 PM UTC

RMPR wrote: post #279

cogman10 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may have misinterpreted what you are saying. When I read this > there is no evidence of anything in the Bible I interpreted it as you saying "Nothing in the bible has corroborating evidence". Not "the bible is not evidence for anything". The bible mentions the sun and we have corroborating evidence that the sun does indeed exist. The bible's mention of the sun alone isn't evidence for it's existence. That said, the…

> but rather the fact that the bible makes errors in his history likely to cover up well known facts about him at the time. Out of curiosity what errors are you referring to?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42452217

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#296

Post by ImJamal » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC

karencarits wrote: post #292

ImJamal wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The traditional view held by Christians is that the Gospel of Matthew was written within 10 years of Jesus' death. Modern scholars (often atheists) do not believe it though.

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard anyone claim that they written so early. For Catholics at least, I think it's a point that the Church and some Tradition are older than the Gospels, i.e. that the Gospels are written by the Church, for the Church (not the other way around)

Catholics traditionally held Matthew was written shortly after Jesus' death (there is some debate about the actual date). Many modern Catholics, accept the modern scholarship nowadays though. There are traditions created prior to the gospels regardless of the dating. I would also mention the Bible explicitly states there are non-written traditions in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Irenaeus said "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

There is some debate on Peter's death, but it is usually placed in 64-68 AD. Paul died either 64 or 65 ad. This is prior to when modern scholars state.

I don't have a quote, but Eusebius said he thought it was written about 12 years after Jesus' death.

There are plenty of other early Christians who took the position that the gospels were prior to 70 AD, but I am on my phone and don't want to try to find them. I was looking for a Catholic one that I previously saw that said it was 5 years, but couldn't find it.

As far as I can tell, every prominent Christian until the 1800s thought they were earlier than modern scholars say.

The reason I am using the 70 AD date is because of the temple being destroyed then. One of the arguments modern scholars use is that Jesus prophesized that the temple was going to be destroyed. Since God does not exist, Jesus could not have known that and as such it had to be written after 70 ad.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#297

Post by wqaatwt » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 11:08 PM UTC

Hilift wrote: post #56

bjackman wrote: post #28

I find it pretty cool how the spread of Christianity can be tracked so finely that a 50 update in earliest arrival time is exciting! I started listening to a podcast called "the history of the early church" to learn a bit more about that but unfortunately I think the target audience was Christians interested in theology rather than nerds interested in history. Recommendations for books etc are welcome!

I think the more interesting developments occurred after the fall of the western Roman empire. The eastern empire (Constantinople) had frequent arguments and disputes with the west over nearly everything, including Christianity. The eastern Orthodox church refers to itself as the "Catholic Church" in internal documents. After the west fell in 476, they continued to present themselves as "the" Catholic church, which w…

The Catholic church also consider itself to be Orthodox, just like the Orthodox Church is Catholic. Technically both are still the same same church (e.g. relative to Protestant churches) they just can't agree who is in charge.

The "Great Schism" wasn't even that great at the time, there were plenty of schisms that proceeded it, it just happened to be the last one and nobody really knew what it mean for the next few hundred years.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#298

Post by wqaatwt » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 11:20 PM UTC

gostsamo wrote: post #74

kamikazeturtles wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the fact that Christians from Western Europe looted Constantinople in 1200 play a role in the Eastern Roman Empire's decision to stop identifying themselves as part of the Catholic Church, or were there already deep theological and political divides?

The schism was in 1053

It really wasn't obvious at the time, though and it took at least 100 years or more for the split to become permanent.

e.g. There is currently a schism between the Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church which technically is not that different. Does that mean that the Russian Church is no longer Orthodox?

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#299

Post by wqaatwt » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 11:24 PM UTC

Hilift wrote: post #202

paganel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1054, in fact, but the 1204 ransacking of Constantinople certainly didn't help with how the "Franks" (because that's how the Catholics were mostly called) were seen by the Christian-Orthodox (if it matters I'm a Christian-Orthodox myself). I was reading a travelogue written by a Russian monk (? not sure, either a monk or a wealthy boyar predisposed to the Holy stuff) who was visiting Constantinople sometimes in the e…

If you read Wikipedia, there was the Massacre of the "Latins" in Constantinople in 1182. That almost certainly made it easy to make it a revenge play for the Venetians and associates. What I find most interesting is the Romans were unbeatable in battle, even the Byzantines. However, maintaining a large military presence was expensive and politically difficult to manage. So they used annual mercenaries from the north…

> even the Byzantines

They were, though? Adrianople, Yarmoud, Manzikert, Myriokephalon etc. it's just that the empire was extremely resilient and was generally able to recover from disasters which would have led to the collapse of most other states.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#300

Post by wqaatwt » Thu, Dec 19, 2024, 11:30 PM UTC

kamikazeturtles wrote: post #61

Hilift wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more interesting developments occurred after the fall of the western Roman empire. The eastern empire (Constantinople) had frequent arguments and disputes with the west over nearly everything, including Christianity. The eastern Orthodox church refers to itself as the "Catholic Church" in internal documents. After the west fell in 476, they continued to present themselves as "the" Catholic church, which w…

Did the fact that Christians from Western Europe looted Constantinople in 1200 play a role in the Eastern Roman Empire's decision to stop identifying themselves as part of the Catholic Church, or were there already deep theological and political divides?

In the 1180s the Empire was governed by a French princess (regent for her son) and her late husband was very pro-western/latin. The relations between the Catholic crusader states and the Byzantine empire were also very good and Italian merchants controlled most of its economy.

Then.. an anti-western emperor came to power had all the Latins/Italians in Constantinople massacred (>10% of the population) and things went pretty much downhill from there. It was very rapid, though. There were of course disagreements before the late 12th century but both sides generally acknowledged that they were part of the same Christian word/universal empire (even if they didn't quite agree who was in charge).