Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 175

Thread: How true is the Bible?

  1. #121

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Nice catch on Constantine/Theodosius, Cyclops, I don't know how I managed to miss it. If Constantine had established Christianity as the empire's official religion, he would first need to punish himself.
    Constantine did establish Christianity as a favored religion, if not "the official" religion. Other than requiring offering sacrifice ficez for the empire and emperor, the empire as a whole did not have an official religion as such, just a.few pagan rituals everyone was expected to obsere, with an exception for the Jews. After Constantine, Christianity was made the only religion allowed, with an exception for the Jews.

    Firstly, Paul is claiming that he speaks more language than his audience*, not everyone else, which would be quite heretical. He's referring to the miracle of the Pentecost, which, generally speaking, has no historic value, as the affair violates several of the most principal laws of physics. However, even if someone personally perceives the fiery tongues of the Pentecost as a true fact, the conclusion that Paul spoke Latin is still arbitrary and based on subjective interpretation. According to the Acts of the Apostles, the only biblical chapter describing in detail the events, everyone heard them speak in his own language". This heavily implies that the alleged glossolalia consisted of the Apostolic speech being supernaturally understandable to everyone and not of the Apostles suddenly possessing the knowledge of every language in Earth. Of course, in different passages, like the Gospel of Mark, 1st Corinthians or even the Acts of the Apostles themselves, it is inferred that the Apostles (and Paul) did speak in different languages, which is another testament (to return to the topic) of how the Bible is marked by often irreconciliable contradictions, which will perplex our unfortunate theologians for centuries to come.

    *After all, he definitely spoke Aramaic, Greek and almost certainly Hebrew, so his statement was not necessarily hyperbolic or inaccurate.
    The claim.that Paul spoke Latin is not abritrary, even if unproven. If Paul was a Roman citizen as claimed, then it is entirely possible and likely he knew Latin, most peoople who had Roman citizenship at that time did speak Latin, being descended from Roman colonist of the Latinized Confederates. We don't know about those who were grants Roman citizenship could speak Latin or not, it would be likely that they could speak Latin if they were granted citizenship for their services to the empire, since Latin would make it easier to communicate with their Latin speaking bosses. While we have no evidence one way or the other if Paul spoke Latin, it would be a likely conclusion if we accept Paul being a Roman citizen. (Note, PAul never claims to be a Roman citizen in his letters, only in Acts does it claim Paul was a Roman citizen. That Paul was a Roman citizen is consistent with all ancient tradition and his alleged fate, but it is possible that claim.was wrong.)


    Proving a negative is pretty much impossible and the fact that the requirements for citizenship are not officially stated indicates that they were not codified. Especially in the east, the citizenship was casually granted to the members of the elite, in order to strengthen the Roman control of the region and to cement the relationship of the conquering commandder with a subgugated city or people. Knowledge of Latin was irrelevant, as long as the loyalty of the benefited aristocrats was guaranteed. I suppose it was a welcome perk that allowed direct communication, without the interval of interpreters being necessary, but what truly mattered was the establishment of client system between powerful Romans and the "nobility" of, in the case of Paul, recently annexed Anatolia.
    Actually, proving a negative would be easy in this case, since all you need to produced a single example of someone with a Roman citizenship who could not speak Latin, which is not impossible as you claim. And simply because we don't have records for any codified laws regarding the granting of citizenship, does not necessarily mean they don't exist. Lots of records were lost from those times. If you are going to make an assertion, it is up to you to provide evidence to back it up. You have repeatedly made claims without any evidence to support them. Even if something is not specifically written down, there may still be N unspoken understanding. Although there isn't any formal requirement written down to know English to become a US citizen as far I know, it was generally understood that person becoming a US citizen would know English. Laws are written down when a need exist, if most of those.granted Roman citizenship knew Latin during their course of rendering service to the empire, there would be no need to codify the requirement. It would be interesting to know the extent, in any, Latin was known to those granted Roman citizenship in the Greek speaking East. And even if Paul did know Latin, it does not mean he could have written letters in it the same.way he was able to with Greek.

    Finally, Paul often employed professional scribes to write his letters, he could have had a scribe write and translate his letter into Latin.. There are far better grounds to reject the Seneca letters than the claim Paul.did not know Latina, such the language and ideas in them were are different from Senaca's genuine letters.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; July 14, 2019 at 05:49 PM.

  2. #122
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,110

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Constantine did establish Christianity as a favored religion, if not "the official" religion. Other than requiring offering sacrifice ficez for the empire and emperor, the empire as a whole did not have an official religion as such, just a.few pagan rituals everyone was expected to obsere,...
    That's not right. The Roman cult of the Emperor was by definition a State Religion. It justified Imperial rule through divine auctoritas, and sacrifice to the Emperor as a God was required, sometimes under pain of death. Likewise the older system of Roman cults such as the Flamines, Pontifexes ect were embedded in and part of the operation of the state structure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    with an exception for the Jews. After Constantine, Christianity was made the only religion allowed, with an exception for the Jews.....
    Jews experienced periodic persecution under Roman rule, both pagan and Christian. Theodosius ended funding for pagan cult activities and allowed Christians to persecute pagans, but the story is a long one (IIRC the Neoplatonists still had academies, an explicitly pagan institution, persisting into the 6th century) and paganism persisted beyond the fall of the Western Empire.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  3. #123
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,025

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Yes Paul being a bit of a talker and without the use of modern printing applications would have found it very difficult to talk and write at the same time so he would have others perform that task for him just as the Bible tells us. Now I'm not saying he rattled off at speed for his letters don't give a hint to that, rather taking his time to make sure his points were getting through to the listeners or readers. Today's preachers usually study beforehand what they are going to elucidate from his letters and in most cases these sermons are based on just a few verses from each chapter of them so that we understand not just the wording but the background as well. Remember this was a guy totally grounded in the Pharaseical side of Judaism who like a top prosecutor went after Christians like there was no tomorrow. Until the events on the road to Damascus he hadn't a clue as to what it was like to be a Christian so unless his conversion was supernatural it would be very difficult to accept what he was and what he became. The disciples at Jerusalem as were other Christians not only fearful but suspicious of him as they heard of what he was now doing and so it toOk a faceto face meeting to dispel any further doubts.

  4. #124
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ¡Ay Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,540

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Constantine did establish Christianity as a favored religion, if not "the official" religion. Other than requiring offering sacrifice ficez for the empire and emperor, the empire as a whole did not have an official religion as such, just a.few pagan rituals everyone was expected to obsere, with an exception for the Jews. After Constantine, Christianity was made the only religion allowed, with an exception for the Jews.
    Not really, that only happened with the Edict of Thessalonica, several years after Constantine's death and the fall of his dynasty. Constantine, himself not a Christian, hardly favoured the Christian religion, although Eusebius of Caesaria later tried really hard to distort historical events, in order to promote his narrative of a sincerely Christian emperor. Constantine simply pandered to the Christian church, in order to reinforce his position as a ruler of the eastern portion of the Roman state.
    If you are going to make an assertion, it is up to you to provide evidence to back it up. You have repeatedly made claims without any evidence to support them.
    Nope, it was you who claimed that Paul's Roman citizenship meant that he could also speak Latin. So far, however, you have not provided any indication for this statement, apart from appealing at incredulity, which is a logical fallacy of no real value. Meanwhile, I mentioned a couple of indications about why Paul's knowledge of Latin was probably elemtary, such as the fact that the Epistle to the Romans is written in Greek, and I still continue to believe that, when Roman officials casually distributed the Roman citizenship among the members of the elite willing to collaborate with the new regime, the knowledge of Latin was a totally insignificant factor.

  5. #125

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    We're talking of events of 2,000 years ago, more or less. A person educated in history won't demand "Source" like it is demanded for things of XVIII/XIX French Revolution/Napoleonic era, or even Medieval Times, all history focused people know that many documents and/or Books can easily be lost in the process of the rise and fall of civilizations.

    (easy example: tomb of Alexander The Great still not found, accounts written about him have mismatches, but we don't say Alexander didn't exist. had we been born in a timeframe close to Alexander's period, place of the tomb would likely be obvious or at least much easier compared to today)

    What we know is:

    1) Roman Citizenship wasn't easy to get. Someone who didn't speak Latin would likely have a very, very hard time justifying it.
    2) St. Paul wanted to spread his message to the most people possible
    3) Latin was possibly the most popular language in Roman Empire, shouldering with Koine Greek

    Makes sense that someone who wants to reach the most people possible from area X will at least bother to learn the most popular means of communication in area X.

    Following this logic, makes sense to say that St. Paul probably knew at least a little bit of Latin.

    And Thus, the burden of proof falls within the ones claiming that Roman Empire granted Roman Citizenship to people that in spite of being educated in several languages, and displaying the ability to speak/learn multiple languages, and yet wouldn't speak/learn Latin or have such a thing demanded from him?

    It's a point that has little authority. Burden of proof is on that anti-logical conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Not really, that only happened with the Edict of Thessalonica, several years after Constantine's death and the fall of his dynasty. Constantine, himself not a Christian, hardly favoured the Christian religion, although Eusebius of Caesaria later tried really hard to distort historical events, in order to promote his narrative of a sincerely Christian emperor. Constantine simply pandered to the Christian church, in order to reinforce his position as a ruler of the eastern portion of the Roman state.
    Ok so you're claiming that 1) Constantine didn't make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire 2) Constantine didn't even favour Christianity in Roman Empire 3) St. Paul didn't speak Latin despite being well connected with Rome

    Sorry but burden of proof really falls on you now. Hard to grasp if you even believe what you say or if you are just "having fun" on EMM.
    Last edited by fkizz; July 15, 2019 at 05:03 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  6. #126
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,110

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    We're talking of events of 2,000 years ago, more or less. A person educated in history won't demand "Source" like it is demanded for things of XVIII/XIX French Revolution/Napoleonic era, or even Medieval Times, all history focused people know that many documents and/or Books can easily be lost in the process of the rise and fall of civilizations.

    (easy example: tomb of Alexander The Great still not found, accounts written about him have mismatches, but we don't say Alexander didn't exist. had we been born in a timeframe close to Alexander's period, place of the tomb would likely be obvious or at least much easier compared to today)
    So you;re arguing that the sources are cloudy, then making highly specific claims? You're asserting technical points about Roman citizenship. If you make the assertion its up to you to prove them or qualify/retract your assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    What we know is:

    1) Roman Citizenship wasn't easy to get. Someone who didn't speak Latin would likely have a very, very hard time justifying it.
    You know this: source? Or opinion? We share the same opinion, you've just expressed it poorly.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    2) St. Paul wanted to spread his message to the most people possible
    We do have sources for this: in Romans 11 he declares himself the apsotle to the gentiles. In Acts 22 the narrator says Paul was tasked to "go to the gentiles. Actually this is the but where its asserted Paul was a Roman citizen: Paul never mentions it himself in his letters (neither the authentic ones nor the forgeries).

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    3) Latin was possibly the most popular language in Roman Empire, shouldering with Koine Greek
    Koine was indubitably the most common language in the Roman Empire c. 40 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Makes sense that someone who wants to reach the most people possible from area X will at least bother to learn the most popular means of communication in area X.

    Following this logic, makes sense to say that St. Paul probably knew at least a little bit of Latin.

    And Thus, the burden of proof falls within the ones claiming that Roman Empire granted Roman Citizenship to people that in spite of being educated in several languages, and displaying the ability to speak/learn multiple languages, and yet wouldn't speak/learn Latin or have such a thing demanded from him?
    In think we agree its likely Paul knew some Latin, if he held a political position (he was part of the temple hierarchy), but you have positively asserted he did, so the onus is on you. He did know Koine as we have his letters, well written ones too. Even his leter to the Romans is in (guess what?) Koine. Not Latin. So there's a hint his Latin was not as good as his Koine.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    It's a point that has little authority. Burden of proof is on that anti-logical conclusion.
    No, logically the onus of proof is on the person making an assertion: this is a principle o roman civil law :ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat .

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Ok so you're claiming that 1) Constantine didn't make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire 2) Constantine didn't even favour Christianity in Roman Empire 3) St. Paul didn't speak Latin despite being well connected with Rome
    Are you claiming Constantine did make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? because if you are you're wrong. It was Theodosius, that is undisputed historical fact. If you have facts to the contrary please present them.

    Constantine de-criminalised Christianity and patronised Christian councils (forcing them to stop squabbling with some bizarre compromises): he may have converted but this is disputed. For most of his life he honoured Sol Invictus, not a Jewish deity.

    You assert Paul was well connected to Rome, but we have one letter to the Romans (he's twice as connected to the Galatians, do you assert he spoke Gallic?) and the peregrinations mentioned in Acts actually don't cohere with Paul's account of his own life; he may never have visited Rome (although the tradition is quite strong and I think he probably did).

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Sorry but burden of proof really falls on you now. Hard to grasp if you even believe what you say or if you are just "having fun" on EMM.
    Once again this does not fit the tenor of this board, and the rudeness of your posts throws the ignorance they display into high relief. May I recommend basic reading before commenting on these issues? It will save time typing out rebuttals of the numerous silly mistakes you have posted.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  7. #127

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    @Cyclops
    Well depends on which point of view you consider most legitimate, which you have not made clear.

    First, do you consider legitimate the use of Biblical passages as authentic historic documents or not? From your longterm pro-atheism posting history seems the answer would be "no", so why do you use them now? Not very coherent.

    The moment you start using the Bible to state your point on History affairs, that speaks volumes on what you're slowly beginning to accept, even if at an unconscious level. It has already begun.

    Now for which one of two Emperors actually made Christianity the official state religion? It's a discussion of autistic semantics from here on, but I guess such thread de-rail was intended from the beginning things turned a bit more pro-Bible. As for the Theodosious/Constantine dialect, one basically officially aproved on paper what the other did in practice.

    Technically for Theodosious to aprove Nicene Christianity, such a thing had to exist first, and its existence required the First Council of Nicea, which was enabled and aproved under Constantine, and made use of Imperial Authority to give legitimacy and protection to the First Council of Nicea. So as you know without Constantine, Theodosious would have no manneouver for further official legitimization of Christianity. By Theodosious time, you have the Second Council, which tautologically speaking, requires a first one, that comes from Constantine time.

    In some other Emperors that are previous to Constantine, it was 100% normal to persecute/torture/kill/enslave/burn alive/arrest/maim christians instead of giving them Imperial Honors for their Christian Councils, so Constantine in practice did an unexpected 180º degree turn and set in practice the gears for a Christian Rome which is kind of a big deal. (so big it still affects our lives today)

    It's theology and you'll have to ask the Church(es) Clerics why they consider Constantine as more important to making Christianity rise in Rome to a State Religion, even if final formality was aproved by Theodosious authority.
    Plus this is EMM rather than Vestigia Vestutatis, the focus should be on spirituality, philosophy and metaphysics. (Or what the Churchs claim and why)

    And the ones doing borderline "genius" claims of "Constantine didn't even favour Christianity" are obviously the ones that deserve the most burden of proof on them. Because it sounds more like "funposting" than anything else.

    Obviously it's a different league of dialogue compared to your witty Constantine/Theodosious dialect.
    Last edited by fkizz; July 15, 2019 at 08:46 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  8. #128
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,025

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    My own knowledge of Constantine comes from the Decline and Fall by Gibbon and so from that my gathering of thoughts centres around Constantine seeing something more political than Spiritual to be had from this growing religion all across his empire. Indeed Gibbon tells us that Constantine made a Christian his main councilor and that is why he started to meddle with the faith. This took a great deal of pressure off the growing churches yet there is no evidence that Constantine was ever converted, no not even on his deathbed. The claim that he was comes from an Arian bishop who supposedly heard his confession so one can make out of that what one wants. What is quite Biblical though is that God used Constantine just as He used other Emperors or Kings in the fulfilling of His will concerning His people in bringing them through life's horrors.

  9. #129
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,110

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    @Cyclops
    Well depends on which point of view you consider most legitimate, which you have not made clear.
    "It depends..." no it doesn't. I have made observations about your posts, this nonsense does not answer any of them. If you are unable to defend your points I take them as conceded.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    First, do you consider legitimate the use of Biblical passages as authentic historic documents or not? From your longterm pro-atheism posting history seems the answer would be "no", so why do you use them now? Not very coherent.
    I suggest you re-read my posting history, where I have stated numerous times that I am an agnostic. I am extremely comfortable "using" Bible passages to debate the truth of the Bible as they are directly relevant.

    Bible passages are not necessarily "authentic historic documents". that varies from case to cased. If they are used to support an argument they are fair game for discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    The moment you start using the Bible to state your point on History affairs, that speaks volumes on what you're slowly beginning to accept, even if at an unconscious level. It has already begun.
    I'm using history to comment on the Bible, and on your obvious basic errors of fact.

    I don't accept your "reasoning", but do you accept by the same token that talking about "truth in the Bible" means you are subconsciously coming to accept that its not "true"?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Now for which one of two Emperors actually made Christianity the official state religion? It's a discussion of autistic semantics from here on, but I guess such thread de-rail was intended from the beginning things turned a bit more pro-Bible. As for the Theodosious/Constantine dialect, one basically officially aproved on paper what the other did in practice.
    Autistic? What a stupid insult. The pagan Roman state religion continued for many decades after Constantine, until it was abolished by Theodosius. Parade your ignorance and your insults elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Technically for Theodosious to aprove Nicene Christianity, such a thing had to exist first, and its existence required the First Council of Nicea, which was enabled and aproved under Constantine, and made use of Imperial Authority to give legitimacy and protection to the First Council of Nicea. So as you know without Constantine, Theodosious would have no manneouver for further official legitimization of Christianity. By Theodosious time, you have the Second Council, which tautologically speaking, requires a first one, that comes from Constantine time.
    Indeed, Constantine ordered a church council. He was also Pontifex Maximus. As Emperor he oversaw all religions in his domain.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    In some other Emperors that are previous to Constantine, it was 100% normal to persecute/torture/kill/enslave/burn alive/arrest/maim christians instead of giving them Imperial Honors for their Christian Councils, so Constantine in practice did an unexpected 180º degree turn and set in practice the gears for a Christian Rome which is kind of a big deal. (so big it still affects our lives today)
    Constantine's tolerance of Christianity was an improvement but he was not the first to show some favour. The Edict of Serdica preceded Constantine's edict of toleration by two years. Toleration and even favour is not the same as establishing Christianity as the State religion.

    Toleration does no equal establishment. The ignorance of history you display is painful to read.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    It's theology and you'll have to ask the Church(es) Clerics why they consider Constantine as more important to making Christianity rise in Rome to a State Religion, even if final formality was aproved by Theodosious authority.
    Plus this is EMM rather than Vestigia Vestutatis, the focus should be on spirituality, philosophy and metaphysics. (Or what the Churchs claim and why)
    Its not theology, its history that Constantine did not make the Christianity the State religion of the Roman Empire. I don't need to ask the church, they are not the ones posting this nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    And the ones doing borderline "genius" claims of "Constantine didn't even favour Christianity" are obviously the ones that deserve the most burden of proof on them. Because it sounds more like "funposting" than anything else.
    Address the point, not your hurt feelings. Show that Constantine favoured other religions less. In fact he minted coins with the symbol of Sol Invictus for most of his reign. He also minted coins proclaiming his own divinity. how does that make Christianity the state religion? How does that show he favoured Christianity over other religions? How does it show he was a Christian?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Obviously it's a different league of dialogue compared to your witty Constantine/Theodosious dialect.
    Alright is clear English isn't you first language so errors like "dialect/dialogue" and rethoric/rhetoric may not be "funposting". However basic historical errors and stupid insults like "autistic" are not acceptable here.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  10. #130

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?


    Autistic? What a stupid insult. The pagan Roman state religion continued for many decades after Constantine, until it was abolished by Theodosius. Parade your ignorance and your insults elsewhere.



    Indeed, Constantine ordered a church council. He was also Pontifex Maximus. As Emperor he oversaw all religions in his domain.




    Address the point, not your hurt feelings. Show that Constantine favoured other religions less. In fact he minted coins with the symbol of Sol Invictus for most of his reign. He also minted coins proclaiming his own divinity. how does that make Christianity the state religion? How does that show he favoured Christianity over other religions? How does it show he was a Christian?
    Constantine built a number of Christian churches in Rome, in Jerusalem. Can you name any pagan temples built by Constantine? Also, Constantine destroyed and damaged a number of pagan temples, such as the Temple of Aphrodite, while he did not damage any Christian worrzhip sites after the Edict of Milan. That does certainly demonstrates he favour Christianity over other religions. Since coins were used by the general populace, the.majority who were pagan, it wouldn't be surprising he had pagan inscriptions on his coins used by the largely pagzn population of the empire. But is it was a lot easier to mint some coins with pagan inscriptions, than construct a number of churches as he did.
    And use of existing pagan imagery does not necessarily show where Constantine's loyalties were. You can imagery of famous pagan myths decorating the residences of the Renaissance, but that was not because they were secret pagans.

    While.Constsntine did not ban pagan religion.(which would have been a very unwise move given that the vast majority of his empire was still pagan, his construction of churches and a lack of building pagan temples on a simar scale.does demonstrates he clearly favored Christians. notThe fact is Constantine did formally convert at the end of his life, when there would have been little political gain for him, since he was shortly going to die. And his damagin and destruction of pagan sits but not Christian ones does indicate also he favored Christianity eventually. Note, since Sol Invictus was popular among the troops, the majority who were pagans and whose support he needed, it maid sense for him to keep that on his coins.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; July 23, 2019 at 09:16 PM.

  11. #131
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,025

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    So, some three hundred years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and some two hundred after John died the centre of Christianity went from Jerusalem to Rome and that on the pretext that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the Rock on which the church would be built. This is truly strange since there is not one bit of evidence that Peter was ever in Rome and had he been he would have found that Paul had already established in that city at least two bishops to serve its church. Going back to where that mistaken identity was placed on Peter came about when jesus asked the disciples who the people thought He was and then who they thought He was?

    Please note the wording here because it is of the most importance. Peter first to reply said, " You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus told him that he did not get that but from God and then called him Cephas which means rock or stone and then goes on to say that this Rock is what the church, His church would be built. So, was the Rock on which the church would be built Peter or what he said? Consider that all Scripture says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, that is that Jesus Christ alone through the Atonement is the only Saviour for the world and so that puts Peter's words into the perspective that they truly belong. Jesus Christ being the Christ, Son of the living God is the Rock that builds the church. Had Peter really been that Rock why was it that James, Jesus brother, took over the leadership of the church at Jerusalem and whom Peter was subject to? It took Paul to go to Jerusalem to sort them out and the agreement reached was that Peter would be the Apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

  12. #132

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    So, some three hundred years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and some two hundred after John died the centre of Christianity went from Jerusalem to Rome and that on the pretext that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the Rock on which the church would be built. This is truly strange since there is not one bit of evidence that Peter was ever in Rome and had he been he would have found that Paul had already established in that city at least two bishops to serve its church. Going back to where that mistaken identity was placed on Peter came about when jesus asked the disciples who the people thought He was and then who they thought He was?
    There is nothing strange about the shift to Rome, Rome was the most important city in the empire and the largest, so shifting the center of Christianity to Rome made sense. Also, Jerusalem was pretty much destroyed after after he 70 AD revolt, so any Christian leadership still there and the time would have been killed when he Romans reconquered the city. We have stois that Peter died in Rome, and we have no evidence that isn't true.

    Please note the wording here because it is of the most importance. Peter first to reply said, " You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus told him that he did not get that but from God and then called him Cephas which means rock or stone and then goes on to say that this Rock is what the church, His church would be built. So, was the Rock on which the church would be built Peter or what he said? Consider that all Scripture says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, that is that Jesus Christ alone through the Atonement is the only Saviour for the world and so that puts Peter's words into the perspective that they truly belong. Jesus Christ being the Christ, Son of the living God is the Rock that builds the church. Had Peter really been that Rock why was it that James, Jesus brother, took over the leadership of the church at Jerusalem and whom Peter was subject to? It took Paul to go to Jerusalem to sort them out and the agreement reached was that Peter would be the Apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.
    All the gospels consistently show Peter as the chief apostle. It was Peter that Jesus at the end of the Gospel of John that Jesus commanded to take care of the others, it was Peter who was in charge of the Church in Jerusalem that Paul met with and came to get his message approved, and it was Peter who was the first to convert the Gentiles. In light of all that, I would say that the Rock, which was what Peter (Cephas) meant, that Jesus built his church upon was Peter.


    Note, Paul went to Jerusalem to make sure that the message he was preaching was accurate, not to sort things out, to the Church leadership's approval, which was then in Jerusalem. Paul may have claimed he had an mission equivalent to Peter's, only to the Gentiles, but not even Luke, Paul's number one Fan boy, made that claim in Acts. Acts, despite devotion so much time to Paul, never actually calls him an apostle in the same sense that Peter was. As the time of Paul, the majority of Christians were converted from Jews, not Gentiles. It was probably only after the time of Paul that the majority of Christians were made up of former Gentiles. Originally, Christians were all former Jews.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; July 18, 2019 at 02:29 PM.

  13. #133
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,025

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Common Soldier,

    Hate to disagree but James the brother of Jesus became the leader at Jerusalem and it was him who had men go out to the churches saying that Gentiles had to be circumcised if they were to be Christian. Peter on one occasion was caught out eating with Gentiles if memory sreves me correct and retracted when some of these guys came to where he was at the time. There is no argument that Jesus asked Peter to feed His sheep, probably because Peter was the loudest of all the disciples and usually to put his foot in it whenever Jesus made a comment about His coming death. Remember Jesus telling him that he would deny Him three times as just one example? That said there is absolutely no doubt that Peter became a major figure in the church but he was never the head of it as that remained with Christ.

    There is no dispute either that the first churches consisted of overwhelming Jewish numbers which is why I always maintain that all the early letters sent out weould have been written in Hebrew. As Paul made his way round them it was to the Jew first and then to the Gentiles to proclaim the Gospel meaning that in time as the gentiles became the majority in these churches translations were made and it is these or copies of these that became our Bible. Nobody ever talks of these Hebrew letters or even if any still exist. Paul when he went to the Galatian church found that the men from James had been there ordering the circumcision thing and so we get his response and his journey to Jerusalem to sort things out. Now the question why James became the leader is so obvious. Jesus was in the kingship line back to David, was crucified and addressed as the King of the Jews and so it follows that James being the eldest brother and in Jewish tradition took up the mantle and not one disciple questioned it. James wasn't at that time converted and being a devout Jew under the Law was why the circumcision thing became an issue. As with Paul, it took something Supernatural to happen with James for him to become a believer.


    Now you may argue over these things but there is evidence that the Romans believed according to Gibbon that Jude's grandsons were the heirs to being king of the Jews and only after investigation and questioning of these two men did the Roman official observe that they were no threat to Rome. On responding to a question about them being kings their answer was that they already had a King His name being Jesus. As for Peter ever being in Rome that's wishful thinking for there is no evidence for that. That said Hislop tells us that the chief priest of the Pagan Roman religion was a man named Peter so is that where the confusion comes in? Could he on Rome's commitment to Christianity become the head whose name just happened to be Peter? The Decline and Fall by Gibbon as well as the Two Babylons by Hislop are good reads and they don't contradict the Bible in any way. Oh and Gibbon was not a Christian when he wrote his books but Hislop was.

  14. #134

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    We all played the scenario Battle of River Frigidus on Attila Total War that makes clear that paganism was still present on Roman Empire, that it only became officially christian with Theodosious. No esoteric or occult knowledge in this affair.

    My point was that Constantine did 180º turn on Christianity using Imperial power, and a point when killing/persecuting/torturing christians was 100% normal, a complete reverse happens, that historians even today struggle to explain why or how.

    The First Council of Nicea happens under Constantine permission and protection, something in which pre-Constantine time would be impossible.

    If Constantine made Christianity the mandatory official religion of the Empire, while banning paganism, he would have major revolts, because as Common Soldier very well explains, just because the Emperor turned Christian doesn't imply the citizens will turn christian overnight.

    Even Emperor Theodosious later on had problems with this affair, which were solved in River Frigidus.

    Point being, Constantine sets the precedent of linking Christianity with Imperial Echelons, and does what he realistically speaking can do. First Council of Nicea happens under Constantine, which is an Historical mark that most Churches acknowledge its importance.

    Theodosious makes Nicene Christianity the official religion, and Second Council of Nicea happens under Theodosious. It's called Second Council of Nicea instead of First for a reason. By Theodosious time it's no longer 100% normal to persecute/kill/torture christians, so he has a different political scene for his reign.

    Constantine started the practice, Theodosious carried on Constantine legacy and made the religion official.

    Point being, implying that Constantine has 0% importance for Christianity being the official religion of the Empire, while Theodosious has 100% of the merit, is Historically disonest. Without Constantine past efforts backing him up, Theodosious would have to start from ground zero, assuming he would even do so.

    Point being, Emperor Constantine is an extremely important figure in the process of Christianity becoming the Official Religion, and a reference that is always linked. He did major efforts for things to end up in such direction, which Theodosious caught up with later.

    Now claiming that Constantine wasn't even interested in Christianity is uhm.. Well whatever it is, speaks for itself.
    Last edited by fkizz; July 20, 2019 at 12:02 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  15. #135
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,025

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    fkizz,

    There is no doubt that Constantine saw something out of the ordinary with this new religion that was spreading across his empire and that is the prime reason he got involved and had as his main advisor a Christian who could advise him on this new thing. The thing is that up until the time of his death, Constantine never showed any signs of personal conversion having not long before murdered one of his close family. The bishop who took his so-called confession himself could be said not to have had a Christian conversion as his beliefs were Arian who didn't believe that Jesus was/is God, so what Constantine confessed to is anyone's guess.

    The thing to remember about all that was going on in the building up of the church in those times was that the Supernatural was very much evident when a pagan Emperor helps in the spread of Christianity just as other rulers have been used by God to further His will. Remeber too that Paul showed that power in raising the dead as well as many other things so being able to speak Latin would be no bother to him if and when he needed to use it.

  16. #136

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The pagan Roman state religion continued for many decades after Constantine, until it was abolished by Theodosius. Parade your ignorance and your insults elsewhere.
    Its not theology, its history that Constantine did not make the Christianity the State religion of the Roman Empire. I don't need to ask the church, they are not the ones posting this nonsense.
    Clearly False Dichotomy Fallacy is being applied here.
    Point being, repeatedly implying that Constantine has 0% importance for Christianity being the Official Religion of the Empire, while Theodosius has 100% of the importance, is Historically dishonest.


    We all played the scenario Battle of River Frigidus on Attila Total War that makes clear that paganism was still present on Roman Empire post-Constantine, that it only became officially Christian with Theodosius.
    No esoteric or occult knowledge in this affair, mainly if it's TW players in post-Attila release we're talking about.

    Not liking to repeat myself, but there's a reason Constantine is The Symbol for Christian conversion of the Roman Empire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Show that Constantine favoured other religions less.
    I stand by what Common Soldier posted.
    I'll wait until you have a counter to what he presented.

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    There is no doubt that Constantine saw something out of the ordinary with this new religion that was spreading across his empire and that is the prime reason he got involved and had as his main advisor a Christian who could advise him on this new thing. The thing is that up until the time of his death, Constantine never showed any signs of personal conversion having not long before murdered one of his close family. The bishop who took his so-called confession himself could be said not to have had a Christian conversion as his beliefs were Arian who didn't believe that Jesus was/is God, so what Constantine confessed to is anyone's guess.
    In Roman Imperial affairs, assassinations and counter-assassinations were very common.

    Making more than needed publicity of his Christian preferences could add him risk.
    In his time many religions existed, would be normal he would feel confusion on who had the best scripture.

    One could claim he does a 180º turn on Imperial treatment of Christianity during his lifetime merely for political gains.

    However, the fact Constantine personally chooses a Christian Confession when he has no Political Gains left for doing so (when he had little time left to live) speaks for itself. At minimum, he had at least a little bit of affinity for Christianity.
    Last edited by fkizz; July 21, 2019 at 05:30 AM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  17. #137
    Praefectus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,110

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Clearly False Dichotomy Fallacy is being applied here.
    No its not. There's an actual dichotomy between your historically incorrect statements, and the widely accepted ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Point being, repeatedly implying that Constantine has 0% importance for Christianity being the Official Religion of the Empire, while Theodosius has 100% of the importance, is Historically dishonest.
    Waffle and nonsense, I have done no such thing. Theodosius made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, you claimed otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    We all played the scenario Battle of River Frigidus on Attila Total War that makes clear that paganism was still present on Roman Empire post-Constantine, that it only became officially Christian with Theodosius.
    No esoteric or occult knowledge in this affair, mainly if it's TW players in post-Attila release we're talking about.
    I did not play that scenario. If your historical information is coming from TW games I have some bad news for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Not liking to repeat myself, but there's a reason Constantine is The Symbol for Christian conversion of the Roman Empire.
    Its because Eusebius of Caesarea wanted to paint his hero "the immortal Constantine" as a new Moses. There are Medieval writers who try to claim Julius Caesar and other famous pagans as "anima naturaliter Christiana", there are some earnest Christians who see facts as an obstacle to belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    I stand by what Common Soldier posted.
    I'll wait until you have a counter to what he presented.
    Please don't hide behind other posters, defend your own mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    In Roman Imperial affairs, assassinations and counter-assassinations were very common.

    Making more than needed publicity of his Christian preferences could add him risk.
    In his time many religions existed, would be normal he would feel confusion on who had the best scripture.
    In his time he favoured many religions. he was not the first to tolerate Christianity, the matter was a shibboleth among competing Imperial factions.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    One could claim he does a 180º turn on Imperial treatment of Christianity during his lifetime merely for political gains.
    He didn't do a 180' turn. He continued the policy of toleration Galerius began. Some imperial candidates promised to "get tough on Christians", others didn't. its a bit like the Jewish question in the 18th and 19th centuries.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    However, the fact Constantine personally chooses a Christian Confession when he has no Political Gains left for doing so (when he had little time left to live) speaks for itself. At minimum, he had at least a little bit of affinity for Christianity.
    The claim he converted on his deathbed is not firmly established. I'd agree though, he most likely had an affinity for Christianity. He may even have converted, although this is unlikely.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  18. #138

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by basics View Post
    Common Soldier,

    Hate to disagree but James the brother of Jesus became the leader at Jerusalem and it was him who had men go out to the churches saying that Gentiles had to be circumcised if they were to be Christian. Peter on one occasion was caught out eating with Gentiles if memory serves me correct and retracted when some of these guys came to where he was at the time. There is no argument that Jesus asked Peter to feed His sheep, probably because Peter was the loudest of all the disciples and usually to put his foot in it whenever Jesus made a comment about His coming death. Remember Jesus telling him that he would deny Him three times as just one example? That said there is absolutely no doubt that Peter became a major figure in the church but he was never the head of it as that remained with Christ.
    When Paul came to Jerusalem, Paul mentions getting approval from both Peter and James the Brother of Jesus, implying Peter was a couple,leader of the Church there. But unlike James, Acts reports Peter eventually leaving, perhaps going to Rome? (It does not say where Peter went to in Acts.). The Gospels and the later church tradition all have Peter as the leader of the early Christians. Paul criticized Peter from withdrawing from Gentiles Christians when some Christians from James arrived among the Galatians. But it is understandable why Peter did such a thing, since as a leader of the Church, Peter no doubt was trying to maintain peace among the various faction of the Christians, those who felt Christians had to observe Jewish Law, and those like Paul who rejected that. But for Paul, there could be no compromise,and his criticism of Peter was because, az and leader, Peter was setting a bad example.thst other Christians, even his good friend Barnabas, followed. Clearly, other Christians like Barnabas would not have followed Peter's example as Paul says they did in Galatians, if Peter did not have some leadership r


    the
    There is no dispute either that the first churches consisted of overwhelming Jewish numbers which is why I always maintain that all the early letters sent out weould have been written in Hebrew. As Paul made his way round them it was to the Jew first and then to the Gentiles to proclaim the Gospel meaning that in time as the gentiles became the majority in these churches translations were made and it is these or copies of these that became our Bible. Nobody ever talks of these Hebrew letters or even if any still exist. Paul when he went to the Galatian church found that the men from James had been there ordering the circumcision thing and so we get his response and his journey to Jerusalem to sort things out.
    If you read the Letter to the Galatians, Paul mentions his his visit to Jerusalem, and he said there was no talk about circumcism when the leadership of the Church of Jerusalm (Peter and James) gave their approval to Paul's message. That is why Paul felt so betrayed by Peter's action. There is no evidence that Paul went to Jerusalem a second to meet with the leadership in Jerusalem, although he did go again. Greek that Paul wrote in was the international language of the times, and even many Jews outside of Palestine would have known Greek better than Hebrew or Araimic. That is what there was a Greek translation of the Old Testsment. Many Jews even had only a limited knowledge of Hebrew. When Paul spoke in Hebrew at the temple, the crowd went silent according to Acts, because no doubt the crowd was impressed that he knew it. Even in Israel, Hebrew was likely more of a language of learning, and the very day person in Judea and Galilee likely spoke Aramaic. Mark, when Jesus is speaking to ordinary people, is shown to be speaking Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek.

    Now the question why James became the leader is so obvious. Jesus was in the kingship line back to David, was crucified and addressed as the King of the Jews and so it follows that James being the eldest brother and in Jewish tradition took up the mantle and not one disciple questioned it. James wasn't at that time converted and being a devout Jew under the Law was why the circumcision thing became an issue.
    I agree with your argument of why James became the leader of the early Church, along with Peter, that it was family connections. However, since Jesus was no longer dead, technically he was still King, and so there was no vacancy in the position. Paul was not at all impressed that James was Jesus brother, and he had a lot more respect for Peter than James. Paul addressed Peter as a peer, and talked to him as an equal, which Paul never did with James. Perhaps theaul acknowledged Peter got his commision from God, and since Peter was the apostle to the Circumcized, that made Peter the senior apostle, the mission to the Jews being more important at that time. Paul was very.much the junior apostle.

    Now you may argue over these things but there is evidence that the Romans believed according to Gibbon that Jude's grandsons were the heirs to being king of the Jews and only after investigation and questioning of these two men did the Roman official observe that they were no threat to Rome. On responding to a question about them being kings their answer was that they already had a King His name being Jesus. As for Peter ever being in Rome that's wishful thinking for there is no evidence for that. That said Hislop tells us that the chief priest of the Pagan Roman religion was a man named Peter so is that where the confusion comes in? Could he on Rome's commitment to Christianity become the head whose name just happened to be Peter? The Decline and Fall by Gibbon as well as the Two Babylons by Hislop are good reads and they don't contradict the Bible in any way. Oh and Gibbon was not a Christian when he wrote his books but Hislop was.
    We have evidence that Peter was in Rome, in the form of Church traditions and letters by early Church leaders. Granted, these early references are not in the Bible and of questionable relaibility, but Acts did say Peter left Jerusalem, and why could that location be in Rome? And without these early Church traditions and writings of Church Fathers, we wouldn't even know that Paul was martyred in Rome either. Nowhere in the Bible says that Paul was martyred, or where, although Paul hints in his letters he was probably going to be martyred, he doesn't say where. So by your same standard, we don't have any evidence Paul was martyred in Rome either.

    I think.Paul's.importance to the early Christians is overrated by Protestants somewhat because of Paul's importance to the New Testament. The majority of the NT is.madr up of Paul's letters because he was probably the only apostle who was well educated and knew how to write well. Other Apostles like Peter were specifically said to be uneducated in Acts, which is consistent with with Peter being a fisherman, you don't expect fisherman to be well educated. So naturally, Paul wrote more, and so more of his letters were preserved. But in a world where the vast majority of people did not know how to read, written works wouldn't be as important to the average Christians as it does to modern Christians who are expected to know how to read and the scriptures for themselves.

    Note, when Paul wrote his letters, he didn't think he was writing sacred scriptures, that was a judgement made after his time. I don't Paul would have been conceited enough to assert his writing was divine, and the same goes for the writings of the Gospels. They were simply writers saying something important as best they knew how, but if you could go back in time and ask them, the writers of the NT, except maybe Revelations, would not have thought of their writing as sacrdd, any more than a modern Christian writer like C.S. Lewis would have thought his writings were "sacred".
    Last edited by Common Soldier; July 21, 2019 at 06:59 PM.

  19. #139
    basics's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    9,025

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Common Soldier,

    Of course Peter was a prominant figure in the church at Jerusalem there is no disputing that but he was not its head as that is seen in the writings where his eating and discourse with Gentiles was questioned by James. Peter stopped and there are no writings to say that he took up any debate with James until the arrival of Paul at Jerusalem. In fact we know that James, Peter and John were the ones who interviewed Paul and only after hearing from Barnabus as to Paul's sincerity. It was here that the question of circumcising Gentiles was taken off the table. As for the Jews they were for the most already circumcised according to tradition.

    As for Peter being ever in Rome the Bible does not say it and since it is to the Bible that all things of God are concerned whether we like it or not it is to that Book that our knowledge lies. Of course for the men who wanted Rome to be at the centre of Christianity rather than Jerusalem the importance of that was obviously for power taking the word of God from God and putting it into the hands of men which we know the Roman Catholic Church is all about. I'm quite sure that if Peter were alive today he would utterly condemn what has been done in his name as regards that system.

    Now concerning the letters that were sent out to all the churches the reading of them in all the churches was important for the very reason that new believers had their new faith backed up by good Godly theology. Paul tells the Galatians that if anyone preaches what he does not that preaching is cursed so there is no doubt in his mind that what he had to say came directly from God and so could be taken as sacred. Indeed even Peter wrote that Scripture itself was not for private interpretation, rather by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the reader. So to the unbeliever Scripture can be the dead letter but to the new creature in Christ it's the living, vibrant word of God as though God Himself was saying it. Will have to go now but will come back on this matter again.

  20. #140

    Default Re: How true is the Bible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Waffle and nonsense, I have done no such thing. Theodosius made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, you claimed otherwise.
    You joined in defense of a side who wanted to remove Constantine from the process of making Christianity the Official Religion of the Empire. While he didn't settle down the final brick, he made a big part of the work of at least making Christianity the favored religion of the Empire, which gave room for Theodosius.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    I did not play that scenario. If your historical information is coming from TW games I have some bad news for you.
    What are you doing on TW game forums if you treat references to TW games in a pejorative manner?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The claim he converted on his deathbed is not firmly established. I'd agree though, he most likely had an affinity for Christianity. He may even have converted, although this is unlikely.
    Finally you're slowly getting there.
    Last edited by fkizz; July 22, 2019 at 06:00 AM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •