• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Contrary to Biblical History: Canaanites are alive and well

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blah-blah-blah. Nothing you said contradicts my point:

My point was that there was no Official Christian Bible™ prior to Constantine's fabrication committee.

That wasn't your point, as you made a great song and dance of emphasising earlier. Moving the goalposts is at least preferable to denying reality though, so it's a start.

Unfortunately, you are still wrong with even this new point though as there wasn't an Official Christian Bible after what you term 'Constantine's fabrication committee'.


Prior to that? You had nothing but a vast contradicting collection of Friend-of-a-Friend stories, myths and legends.

No. You had a variety of sources, many of which were almost universally accepted as authentic along with others that there was some disagreement about.

Pretty much the same situation you had when Constantine died too.

NOT something you would expect if there was an a actual GOD behind ANY of it.

Personally, I don't care as I was discussing your historical illiteracy and inability to understand even your own sources, rather than Divine Providence

The fact that there was no Official Christian Bible™ until 300 years after the alleged events?

There still isn't an Official Christian Bible™ 2000 years later, and even the Official Catholic Bible™ took much longer than 300 years to become 'official' (although referring to this as a 'fabrication committee' would still be inane) .

Is just about all the proof you need to show there could not be any god behind this myth.

If you are hostile to myths, why do you insist on spreading your own ones though?

You could make exactly the same arguments by using actual history rather than your imaginary, conspiracy theory version.

You wouldn't then look so foolish when you 'LOL' at people who, correctly, point out your basic errors and suggest you re-read your own sources (starting with the first 2 paragraphs...).
 
The CC was created by Pope Innocent III , All prior popes are historical fictional, only the Roman Emperors where called 'Pater Patria' abbreviated as 'PA PA' ( Pope), note' Pope Pius I and Antoninius Pius' existing at the same time in Rome. It seems Catholic Church as being pumping out historical fiction since the 11th century CE.

So you are claiming that the series of conflicts between Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII didn't happen?

And all sources connecting Urban II to the Crusades are complete fabrications?

190-Hat02.jpg
 

Magus

Active Member
You can't trust history written under the authority of the Catholic Church, 'Pope Gregory' as identical authority with an Emperor and able to enthrone European monarchs.

Roman Emperors where also 'Priests', they were known as Pater Patria ( PAPA) and Pontifax Maximus, for example, Antoninus Pius.
Rc8j55QxiEC23yJdK9rFm4W6G4Tzba.jpg

This his coin, with 'Pater Patria' , He was a Priest .

You really believe 'PAPA Antoninus Pius' and PAPA Pius I ' existed at the same time and place?
 
Last edited:
You can't trust history written under the authority of the Catholic Church, 'Pope Gregory' as identical authority with an Emperor and able to enthrone European monarchs.

The Catholic Church wasn't some omnipotent totalitarian entity capable of controlling thought the world over and creating or erasing history with a click of its fingers.

Roman Empire, Byzantine-Rome, Holy Roman Empire, Normans, Franks, Goths, etc. etc. all in on this fantastical conspiracy and managed to coordinate their stories perfectly so as not to give the game away...

You really believe 'PAPA Antoninus Pius' and PAPA Pius I ' existed at the same time and place?

I don't know anything about him, I'm just going for the low-hanging fruit of the very well documented stuff that had major long term effects throughout Europe.

Obscure Pope's from the 2nd C are not really the be all and end all of your claims...
 

Magus

Active Member
Don't know. It was the best part of a millennium before the 12th C though.

Why do you think it was Innocent III rather than any of the 100 odd other Popes who came before him?

Batu Khan ( Mongol Emperor) ( Trade Empire) took over eastern parts of Europe, during this time, trade cities appeared all over Europe, Novgorod, Riga , Visby, Danzig, Lubeck, Hampurg, Brugge and London , This European trade empire was known as the 'Golden Horde', which need a treasury, the Vatican ( treasurer of Batukhan) , it seems Innocent III succeeded Batu Khan .

This is why the 'Dragon' started to appear in European heraldry too, for example, the White Dragon in London ( Trade City), introduced through trade, East to West.

In other words, it was all about Money.
 
Batu Khan ( Mongol Emperor) ( Trade Empire) took over eastern parts of Europe, during this time, trade cities appeared all over Europe, Novgorod, Riga , Visby, Danzig, Lubeck, Hampurg, Brugge and London , This European trade empire was known as the 'Golden Horde', which need a treasury, the Vatican ( treasurer of Batukhan) , it seems Innocent III succeeded Batu Khan .

This is why the 'Dragon' started to appear in European heraldry too, for example, the White Dragon in London ( Trade City), introduced through trade, East to West.

In other words, it was all about Money.

How do you think the Catholic Church managed to fabricate a historical record so well that even modern historians believe such texts were written many centuries before you claim they were? Before modern transportation and communication technologies, how did they manage to coordinate those from Sweden to North Africa to all be singing from the same fictitious hymn sheet?
 

Magus

Active Member
How do you think the Catholic Church managed to fabricate a historical record so well that even modern historians believe such texts were written many centuries before you claim they were? Before modern transportation and communication technologies, how did they manage to coordinate those from Sweden to North Africa to all be singing from the same fictitious hymn sheet?

How many people in the 11th century could read and write?
 
How many people in the 11th century could read and write?

Enough to leave historical records that would need to be altered when the Church started to write fiction in the 13th C. These later fabrications were so good that even modern historians can't notice they are medieval forgeries.

Even those who lived in places not under the 'control' of the Catholic Church agreed to play ball and rewrite their own histories to be congruent.
 

Magus

Active Member
Enough to leave historical records that would need to be altered when the Church started to write fiction in the 13th C. These later fabrications were so good that even modern historians can't notice they are medieval forgeries.

Even those who lived in places not under the 'control' of the Catholic Church agreed to play ball and rewrite their own histories to be congruent.

history written by the victors
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The CC was created by Pope Innocent III , All prior popes are historical fictional, only the Roman Emperors where called 'Pater Patria' abbreviated as 'PA PA' ( Pope), note' Pope Pius I and Antoninius Pius' existing at the same time in Rome. It seems Catholic Church as being pumping out historical fiction since the 11th century CE.
Maybe try this, and then scroll down to 7.1 and onward: Catholic Church - Wikipedia
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Old Testament pretty much debunk Christianity, so the Catholic Church are obviously very sensitive regarding the documents of the OT, they don't wanna undermine their fascist imperialistic policies.
:rolleyes:

Oh, the above speaks so well for itself, but not in a way that you'd likely be pleased with.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Who was the first historical POPE that existed?
Depends. The title of "Pope" was not used at first, but it is a reference to the Bishop of Rome, whereas there's a chain of them going back into the first century. Ignatius of Antioch told Clement of Rome that the Roman church had a special designation as being the spiritual leader of the church, whereas he stated that, because Rome is where Peter presided and was martyred with Paul, they have a special designation.

However, the setup of the early church was no where near as formalized as it was to become much later.

BTW, just a reminder that I am not Catholic, but I have studied early church history for roughly four decades now, including using primary sources.
 
gnatius of Antioch told Clement of Rome that the Roman church had a special designation as being the spiritual leader of the church, whereas he stated that, because Rome is where Peter presided and was martyred with Paul, they have a special designation.

Although outside of the 'West' the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople often considered themselves equal in status.

Seeing as the Pope didn't exist until the 13th C though, the Pentarchy must have gotten quite confused about who the 5th member actually was :D
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Although outside of the 'West' the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople often considered themselves equal in status.
That early structure more resembled the Orthodox structure of today, whereas the Bishop of Rome was considered the first amongst equals which, granted, is an oxymoron. Much like in American politics, we often say "all politics is local", the same kind of drive existed in the church. So, how this got played out is that they each tended to emphasize their own sovereignty but payed at least lip-servce to the Bishop of Rome being the spiritual leader-- of sorts.;) ["family" disputes can be hellish, if you know what I mean]

Seeing as the Pope didn't exist until the 13th C though, the Pentarchy must have gotten quite confused about who the 5th member actually was :D
Distance created both challenges and divisions, no doubt, but it's interesting that most of the churches that were separated eventually reunited with either the Catholic or the Orthodox Church over the last few centuries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top