Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lefty

Church Buildings: Why do they exist?

Recommended Posts

Why to Church buildings exist?

 

Because throughout human history any group of people with a common interest have met at common places, usually buildings.

 

Pagan folks meet in pagan temples, Jews meet in synagogues, soldiers meet in barracks, Christians meet in Churches, tennis players meet at the tennis club house and so on and so forth.

 

Ex Christians meet in a virtual building apparently *Looks around* Why? Because people with common interests meet in common places.

 

That's my  cent worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

That's my  cent worth.

That makes perfect cents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, florduh said:

That makes perfect cents.

 

Yes.  I enjoy the dime we all spend together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  I enjoy the dime we all spend together.

Hope and change. I just coined that phrase. Still in mint condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, florduh said:

Hope and change. I just coined that phrase. Still in mint condition.

If you want a pun war, I will offer no quarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If you want a pun war, I will offer no quarter.

Nor I the obverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mwc said:

     The word made flesh.  Not the word made the gospel of John or the the bible.  If he's made flesh then that's where it ends...flesh.  How does that then become written text if it's not commanded to become written text?  How does this fleshy word become written word?

 

          mwc

 

 

Well, that would take interpretation, given that the word(s) presented (pun intended) are allegory or metaphor (I'm not sure which, but in either case they are infected with woo woo).  Usually, a competition develops between and among those who take up that interpretive challenge.  It's often entertaining to observe, although sometimes it's quite boring.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mwc said:

     The word made flesh.  Not the word made the gospel of John or the the bible.  If he's made flesh then that's where it ends...flesh.  How does that then become written text if it's not commanded to become written text?  How does this fleshy word become written word?

 

          mwc

 

 

What makes you think that's where it ends once "...he's made flesh"? That requires you to make as much an interpretation as anybody. And what makes you think that it was not commanded to become written text? How do you come to the conclusion "this fleshly word become written word"? My reading of the text tells me that it says the word was in the beginning and later was made flesh "...and dwelt among us...".

 

I never said any of this makes cents. 😎

 

I'm just relating my understanding of their story as I have read it. Besides, this is about my questioning of the church building concept.

 

What you are doing is the primary thing I have always hated most about way too many atheists. And now that I myself am an atheist, I find it even more aggravating. I find it immature and as they say..."unprofitable and vain".

 

If you want their explanation, ask them because I really have no desire to get into any debate with a fellow non-believer. You're coming across as wanting to ask for provocation reasons, I guess because you're bored maybe? As I have said, I don't care to play that game of yours. I would venture you are more interested in asking than actually engaging in reasonable dialog.

 

It's simple to sit back and toss out question after question when you no doubt have your own understanding. How about you offer some explanations. How could Christians end up with the church system based on what is written in their own bible texts? Where in the text does it say to build church buildings and hold services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Why to Church buildings exist?

 

Because throughout human history any group of people with a common interest have met at common places, usually buildings.

 

Pagan folks meet in pagan temples, Jews meet in synagogues, soldiers meet in barracks, Christians meet in Churches, tennis players meet at the tennis club house and so on and so forth.

 

Ex Christians meet in a virtual building apparently *Looks around* Why? Because people with common interests meet in common places.

 

That's my  cent worth.

 

You and I understand that about humans, but that doesn't mean what Christians do is actually doctrinal. My claim is that it is not doctrinal but rather a concept made up for reasons other than doctrine and in contradiction to what their book tells them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 11:51 AM, mwc said:

     Jesus wasn't impressed?  That's a high bar.  Jesus wasn't impressed by neither jack nor shit.  So that rules out everything in all of life.  I can't think of a single time where it is said jesus was impressed.  I don't know if jesus even mildy enjoyed anything.  He was rather dour.  He hated on fig trees that didn't give figs out of season.  I really don't know if he could be impressed.

 

     Having said that I also don't recall anything about saying the temple shouldn't exist.  I know there were things about how it wouldn't exist but that's not the same thing.

 

     But, I do agree that many people are more proud of their buildings that their mission.  But people without buildings can also use that as a source of pride just as well.  To show how they're doing things so much better, more correct, than those in the buildings.

 

           mwc

 

 

My apologies mwc.

 

I have felt frustrated at our conversion, and so I went back and read again what has been posted. My reply to this post is where I claimed you were being difficult. Reading back, I see that I misread what you had posted. I was feeling you were intentionally trying to "toss question after question..." when I see now that I didn't stay focused on understanding your point. You were not being difficult. You actually agreed with my point and simply added an observation of human pride. I had difficulty in reading comprehension. Please accept my apology. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Lefty said:

 

My apologies mwc.

 

Bah, MWC doesn't believe NZ exists, therefore he probably doesn't believe you exist, therefore he's been arguing with himself.

 

Now with that astounding line of reasoning I am off to bed :D 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Bah, MWC doesn't believe NZ exists, therefore he probably doesn't believe you exist, therefore he's been arguing with himself.

 

Now with that astounding line of reasoning I am off to bed :D 

     I still enjoy chatting with all of you, my imaginary friends, so I won't reason you away...yet.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lefty said:

 

My apologies mwc.

 

I have felt frustrated at our conversion, and so I went back and read again what has been posted. My reply to this post is where I claimed you were being difficult. Reading back, I see that I misread what you had posted. I was feeling you were intentionally trying to "toss question after question..." when I see now that I didn't stay focused on understanding your point. You were not being difficult. You actually agreed with my point and simply added an observation of human pride. I had difficulty in reading comprehension. Please accept my apology. 

     No need to apologize.  But I will accept it nonetheless.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lefty said:

 

What makes you think that's where it ends once "...he's made flesh"? That requires you to make as much an interpretation as anybody. And what makes you think that it was not commanded to become written text? How do you come to the conclusion "this fleshly word become written word"? My reading of the text tells me that it says the word was in the beginning and later was made flesh "...and dwelt among us...".

 

I never said any of this makes cents. 😎

 

I'm just relating my understanding of their story as I have read it. Besides, this is about my questioning of the church building concept.

 

What you are doing is the primary thing I have always hated most about way too many atheists. And now that I myself am an atheist, I find it even more aggravating. I find it immature and as they say..."unprofitable and vain".

 

If you want their explanation, ask them because I really have no desire to get into any debate with a fellow non-believer. You're coming across as wanting to ask for provocation reasons, I guess because you're bored maybe? As I have said, I don't care to play that game of yours. I would venture you are more interested in asking than actually engaging in reasonable dialog.

 

It's simple to sit back and toss out question after question when you no doubt have your own understanding. How about you offer some explanations. How could Christians end up with the church system based on what is written in their own bible texts? Where in the text does it say to build church buildings and hold services?

     You should read what you've said here and apply it to the church buildings.  Nowhere is it actually stated that anything should be written down but something was clearly written down (whether it is a fact or a fiction doesn't matter).  And nowhere is it stated (in those same documents) that church buildings should be built but church buildings were clearly built.  You then ask "And what makes you think that it was not commanded to become written text?"  Just substitute building churches in there to find your answer.  It would have to be extra-biblical if you require an explicit command exactly how the texts themselves came to exist without explicit biblical command (since such command would be present in the texts).

 

     I already offered an explanation.  It's an evolution of the temple/synagogue system that was already in-place.  There's no need for a specific command when it's just a way of life.  I would be more inclined to question why church buildings if meeting places of a type were specifically forbidden but they're not.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mwc said:

 I already offered an explanation.

 

Yes, you did. Thank you.

 

So, I THINK it appears we are on the same page then, that it is not written in the biblical text. That would then mean people did such things of their own accord outside of doctrine, which is my whole point.

 

I honestly cannot say, though I have indeed made the accusations, yet I don't know what each person's intent was when somebody started promoting meeting in a building rather than going house to house. As you say, believers of religion were already meeting in a set location in various religions. It may well be that they felt it was a better way to draw people in seeing people were already meeting at huge stone monoliths, etc in the pagan religions, as well as the Jewish temples. That falls in line with my contention that the church grew to become just like the world, which their own book tells them to avoid. Christians may have changed their religion from something pagan but they never separated from the world and those buildings are just one example of that lack of separation.

 

To me, it appears as another case of men making things up as they went along, and that is my point. With the Jewish temple, at least there are clear rules to temple worship. No such rules exist in Christianity. It's a personal meeting kind of thing and the temple is the individual believer. It is likely at some point somebody said they need a bigger house to meet in, and off they went. Out of that came what we see today, but what we have today should not exist. It's become a fraud just like the religion itself, in my humble opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lefty said:

 

Yes, you did. Thank you.

 

So, I THINK it appears we are on the same page then, that it is not written in the biblical text. That would then mean people did such things of their own accord outside of doctrine, which is my whole point.

 

I honestly cannot say, though I have indeed made the accusations, yet I don't know what each person's intent was when somebody started promoting meeting in a building rather than going house to house. As you say, believers of religion were already meeting in a set location in various religions. It may well be that they felt it was a better way to draw people in seeing people were already meeting at huge stone monoliths, etc in the pagan religions, as well as the Jewish temples. That falls in line with my contention that the church grew to become just like the world, which their own book tells them to avoid. Christians may have changed their religion from something pagan but they never separated from the world and those buildings are just one example of that lack of separation.

 

To me, it appears as another case of men making things up as they went along, and that is my point. With the Jewish temple, at least there are clear rules to temple worship. No such rules exist in Christianity. It's a personal meeting kind of thing and the temple is the individual believer. It is likely at some point somebody said they need a bigger house to meet in, and off they went. Out of that came what we see today, but what we have today should not exist. It's become a fraud just like the religion itself, in my humble opinion.

     Well, I'd like to say more since I've been the one annoying you the most one this topic but I'm out of time due to other obligations.  Anyhow, as I recall the disciples, in the Acts, went to the temple to pray.  Now, I know, you pointed out jesus wasn't impressed but that didn't seem to stop them.  It at least creates a plausible chain of events for the evolution I have in mind especially if we accept all the traditional dates and times as well as the accepted uses for these spaces.  Once the war comes and things are destroyed they need alternatives so they turn elsewhere.  Once they grow they gain money, power and influence and build their own spaces which are xian temples or churches.  Had Israel been restored early on this may not have occurred.

 

     Nowhere in the texts do I ever see any of these same disciples reading or writing.  There's not even a precedent for it.  Nothing to evolve.  No command.  Nothing.  But the texts magically appear and, now, along with that we're debating whether they allow for churches since these same texts which don't specifically state that they themselves should even exist should allow for church buildings.  So what is not specifically stated in these texts, including the texts themselves, just should not be is the end result.

 

     I'll try to respond as I can, as I say since I have these other obligations now getting in my way, so don't take it personally if my participation around the site is spotty.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understand, thanks. I'm starting to see where you are going with this. It is a bit tricky at least for me to articulate in print what is racing through my mind, but I do understand it's quite the puzzle you are touching on in proving something from text itself that shouldn't exist. Interesting angle that I haven't fully thought about much. I'm curious how it all plays out in the bigger picture of showing the fraud of religion in general.

 

I look forward to more! 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 3:33 AM, Lefty said:

why do they exist?

 

Do you want those people in your house? :HaHa:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, that's why I have gun turrets and trip wires at my perimeter! 😎

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     It doesn't really add anything but I have ran myself ragged looking for early churches.  So far I have seen the evolution from Roman basilica into xian basilica but nothing else.  I went to a church that claimed to have been built on the oldest home church but no evidence of the home remained.  It was just another basilica.  So, as it is nearly all churches I have seen are all designed on the Roman basilica design which was used for their judicial (and sometimes financial) use,

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mwc said:

     It doesn't really add anything but I have ran myself ragged looking for early churches.  So far I have seen the evolution from Roman basilica into xian basilica but nothing else.  I went to a church that claimed to have been built on the oldest home church but no evidence of the home remained.  It was just another basilica.  So, as it is nearly all churches I have seen are all designed on the Roman basilica design which was used for their judicial (and sometimes financial) use,

 

          mwc

 

 

So, what do you make of that? Sounds like you have found in your informal search that the church buildings didn't really get going till the Catholics started building their structures.

 

Then we look to Jerusalem, where virtually all "Christian" buildings are Catholic or some variant. Hell, the RCC even has control of what THEY claim is the "upper room" where it is alleged the gang all met one last time.

 

If one removed all the RCC structures there, then you'd be left with no old Christian buildings at all. While it is my personal guess, but I'd say that nothing started till the RCC came into existence in some form starting around the late first century or early second century. Till then, Christians I suspect were still going house to house, at least for the most part. I think it took a bit longer for "protestant" buildings started popping up shortly thereafter to compete for donations, I mean members. All of this is personal guessing based on what I have casually read here and there.

 

I also think it is a factor that we never hear of Islam slamming the RCC. Seems it's always Islam/Judaism. I guess the Templars back in the day thumped that Arabic noggin harder than we realize! 😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lefty said:

 

So, what do you make of that? Sounds like you have found in your informal search that the church buildings didn't really get going till the Catholics started building their structures.

 

Then we look to Jerusalem, where virtually all "Christian" buildings are Catholic or some variant. Hell, the RCC even has control of what THEY claim is the "upper room" where it is alleged the gang all met one last time.

 

If one removed all the RCC structures there, then you'd be left with no old Christian buildings at all. While it is my personal guess, but I'd say that nothing started till the RCC came into existence in some form starting around the late first century or early second century. Till then, Christians I suspect were still going house to house, at least for the most part. I think it took a bit longer for "protestant" buildings started popping up shortly thereafter to compete for donations, I mean members. All of this is personal guessing based on what I have casually read here and there.

 

I also think it is a factor that we never hear of Islam slamming the RCC. Seems it's always Islam/Judaism. I guess the Templars back in the day thumped that Arabic noggin harder than we realize! 😏

     I don't plan on flying to Jerusalem any time soon so I can't really answer that part of your question. :)

 

     I have been all over Rome looking though along with a very talented private guide (who has a background in all of this) and I have had no luck whatsoever.

 

     I enjoyed taking the scavi tour at the Vatican where I got a proper church education.  I do recommend it,  Really.  They talk nonsense but the necropolis is amazing,

 

     I was just in the home of a man who defeated the Turks.  I know I'll misspell this but it's the Polaza Collana.  This family is still favored by the popes.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Well, I'm back and I had no luck finding any home churches in Rome.  I can say that I was in more churches in the past few weeks than I have been in over the rest of my entire life.  The oldest church was St' John's in Lateran (which is far from a home) built by Constantine.

 

     Other churches try to tie themselves to older traditions but they have a hard time.  Most every church there is tied to some apostle or martyr in some way or another.  Out along the Appian Way is a small church (it's still pretty big), called Santa Maria in Palmis who have the "footprints" of jesus and catacombs.  The molds they made look like little alien feet or something it's rather hilarious.  They're behind bars with "Quo Vadis?" placed on them (since that's what Peter said in the story).  In the same church is an amazing sculpture so that was nice (even though it's of jesus...lots of things are...the art is still amazing).  Anyhow, in the catacombs they have a graffiti wall with Peter and Paul scribbled on it which predates the church itself but it's hard to date and there's a convoluted story about the whole thing depending on who you ask.  The prevailing story was Peter and Paul were killed, buried in Rome, but during an undetermined period of persecution had their bodies removed to this catacomb until they could be taken back for their permanent interment.  So pilgrims would stop here as a result.

 

     The problem was there was nothing that could date the graffiti to anything earlier than mid-3rd century when it was definitely known to be xian.  Before that, and at it's earliest levels, it was pagan (and the remaining tombs that we could see were just excellent...but they didn't allow us any photos in the catacombs although I have found some online so it must have been a recent decision or something...a number of sites were weird about pics and/or video so I can't just blame these folks).  The church itself dates to Constantine.

 

     We looked into the Church of St. Clemente which claims to have a house beneath but this was a strange place.  First, the church was nice and apparently the birth place Renaissance art.  They had a no photo policy and enforced it with security guards in the basilica and underneath by way of cameras embedded in stylish light pillars.  If you violate the policy they get on speakers and call you out and can have you removed.  Anyhow, the first level down is the old church.  Underneath that are two things.  One thing that is of interest to xians is the "house church."  But it's not a house.  I seen a number of ancient houses by this time and just prior, at Ostia Antica, the remains of warehouses.  This was a warehouse/storehouse or some sort.  There are some theories that it was actually a mint or similar.  It had a lot of running water still moving through in ways houses did not have.  Now, the other thing, right next door to the warehouse type building was another structure that the church came to acquire.  This was a house.  It had a courtyard and all the things a house would have.  In addition this house had added to it a Mithraeum.  A fairly nice one (I only had a chance to see three).  So the house had a Mithraeum while the warehouse had no markings of xian activity whatsoever until a church was built on top of it.  Why they kept the Mithraeum fully intact even though they were filling in the lower areas and building supports is a mystery to me.  They even chopped the top of their old church in filled it in including destroying the old artwork when they built the current church.  Yet the Mithraeum is pretty much pristine.

 

     Anyhow, I've heard of older churches in places like Syria but I'm not going to be the one to investigate those I don't think.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you really did some searching. I was thinking you were just doing some literary research to write a response. I'm jealous of you seeing all those old places. For Europeans, old places are all over and not that big a deal, but for an American who has never been across the pond, the oldest we see here is no more than maybe the 17th century.

 

Interesting that while it was an informal search, seems you have added to my assertions that any "churches" no older than about the 4th century are about all that can be found. Aside from the area of Rome, the next closest place would likely be in Turkey I'd venture to say and then of course in Jerusalem for the oldest structures. Even in Jerusalem, I have not heard of anything older than around the 4th century and they are all Catholic. To be fair, the early churches I'd guess were small nondescript buildings that have long since been replaced and built over by newer structures. A verified late 1st century or 2nd-century "church" likely won't be found.

 

A side note...I find it humorous that you found graffiti that mentions Peter and Paul. While there are indications in the Christian story that Paul went to Rome "...to appeal unto Ceasar...", from what I remember, there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. From what I understand, Peter in Rome is a total fraud created by the Roman Catholic Church for the tourist trade. A man named Paul? Maybe according to the story. I've never really looked into it, but I find it interesting that the RCC chose Peter as their champion and not Paul. with there being no indications Peter was ever in Rome yet the story says Paul was there.

 

How interesting that the only "proof" the RCC offers is stuff that cannot be proven as authentic and requires one to believe it to be proof. Of course, then you have a situation where the RCC itself could have been duped by fraudsters back in the day coming back from the Holy Land with artifacts that are a fraud.

 

Syria? Seems I remember seeing an article some time back that was about a house found there with a mosaic tile floor that is clearly Christian in design that dates back to around the 4th century (?), but I'm not familiar with anything older. I am no expert nor even a novice researcher so my knowledge is very limited.

 

So, my contention that the original "church" was to be house to house with no official "church buildings" still stands. I don't think anything earlier than around the late 3rd century will ever be found of any kind of official church buildings and those structures will no doubt be of early RCC origin. It is later on that the Protestants split off from the nutcases in the RCC to eventually form the later fundy movements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lefty said:

Wow, you really did some searching. I was thinking you were just doing some literary research to write a response. I'm jealous of you seeing all those old places. For Europeans, old places are all over and not that big a deal, but for an American who has never been across the pond, the oldest we see here is no more than maybe the 17th century.

     I took your question seriously and immediately planned a trip. ;)  Or...I had a trip planned but I did keep this thread in mind while I was there.

 

     This was my first trip abroad and I was thrilled to see everything that I've read about there in person.  Even seeing the bazillion churches was alright.  I'm very glad I had a guide with me for much of this since they could help explain what I was looking at or get me where I needed to go.  He was raised Catholic (no surprise) but admitted he only attended for social reasons (but, like most folks, stopped short of coming out as atheist even though everything he said was a purely historicist view).  Anyhow, we wound up being fairly compatible which worked well for me and my time there. 

 

18 hours ago, Lefty said:

 

Interesting that while it was an informal search, seems you have added to my assertions that any "churches" no older than about the 4th century are about all that can be found. Aside from the area of Rome, the next closest place would likely be in Turkey I'd venture to say and then of course in Jerusalem for the oldest structures. Even in Jerusalem, I have not heard of anything older than around the 4th century and they are all Catholic. To be fair, the early churches I'd guess were small nondescript buildings that have long since been replaced and built over by newer structures. A verified late 1st century or 2nd-century "church" likely won't be found.

     I tried to find something older.  Anything.  But I couldn't.  The xians turned everything they could into a church.  I became a bit of a running joke.  Even on the occasion I had another guide (in Paestum which was distant from Rome and the other person couldn't come along) I was talking to the guide there and we were talking about the temple when I asked if the xians converted it to a church and she laughed and told me they had.  It was hard to point to anything where that hadn't happened.  We were in Tivoli and dined next to two temples.  Along the top of one were xian symbols.  They had converted it into a church at some point.  They carved their symbols into everything.  Or almost everything.  If they carved their symbols into houses they're now lost or were confused for other symbols (since, while walking around, I found nearly all their symbols in pre-existing items...and the chi-rho I found while browsing online in an old Greek coin so it pre-dates them too).

 

18 hours ago, Lefty said:

A side note...I find it humorous that you found graffiti that mentions Peter and Paul. While there are indications in the Christian story that Paul went to Rome "...to appeal unto Ceasar...", from what I remember, there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. From what I understand, Peter in Rome is a total fraud created by the Roman Catholic Church for the tourist trade. A man named Paul? Maybe according to the story. I've never really looked into it, but I find it interesting that the RCC chose Peter as their champion and not Paul. with there being no indications Peter was ever in Rome yet the story says Paul was there.

     Peter coming to Rome is in the Acts of Peter.  But Peter and Paul are everywhere in the city.  Many of the apostles are actually.  We drove by (it wasn't worth stopping) a little "shrine" (a little building of sorts) that marked where John was boiled in oil but didn't die.  There were things like this everywhere.  All sorts of things where, for some reason, a wayward apostle came to Rome and some stupid shit happened.  Peter and Paul are the real stars of the show though.  The only person who one-ups them is Mary.  She's queen of city although not in the earlier churches.  She seems to get the spotlight a bit later.

 

     One of the things I really liked about my visit is I discovered there were two "worlds."  Like usual there is the rich and poor.  The elites and others.  In this case though you have the regular folks in the churches getting those stories and seeing those images (with a few minor exceptions).  However, the upper class, which includes the church and pope, their houses and quarters don't have any xian imagery at all.  Not one thing (except maybe in the public areas out front but I'm talking about their own personal areas).  When you go to the Vatican it's full of all the polytheistic (pagan) stuff they pulled off the streets and hid away but still made available for themselves and visiting dignitaries (as a show of power and to keep the general population from having these items).  But in other places like Castel Sant'Angelo and some palaces they don't paint the biblical stories but instead paint the Greco-Roman stories all over the walls/ceilings (and some fairly erotic ones at that).  So as they're building churches and painting those with all sorts of bible tales and sculptures for the people inside their own places their are still decorating using Greek stories/art, even the old polytheistic works of art, but nothing biblical at all.  Essentially, the new religion is for masses while the old religion is alive and well in the upper crust even while they're pushing the new religion and condemning their own, old, ways.

 

18 hours ago, Lefty said:

How interesting that the only "proof" the RCC offers is stuff that cannot be proven as authentic and requires one to believe it to be proof. Of course, then you have a situation where the RCC itself could have been duped by fraudsters back in the day coming back from the Holy Land with artifacts that are a fraud.

     There's a number of things, "artifacts," that no one questions as legit.  So, the guide we had was trained in history and archaeology.  He knew the methods and, even then, he would point to some bones and talk about how they were this or that person.  So I would ask how that was known and he'd talk about DNA and whatnot.  And I'd ask if they tested known relatives of the person in question.  At which point he'd kind of go quiet and it would dawn on him where I was going.  Usually we'd be on the same page about this time.  My impressions were most people were on "pilgrimages" of sort to the city so my questioning that these bones were "saints" or whatnot were not something people tended to do or even wanted to do.  It never even crossed their minds to do.  In a few cases there was no real reason to question if the bones were the person since they found them in-situ (or so they said) but these were some later martyr sorts not anyone important (to anyone outside Catholicism).  There were similar artifacts supposedly embedded in mosaics and whatnot but regarded them as curiosities more than anything.  I'm sure what I said about the bones applies to these other things though.  I doubt the people put any thought into the legitimacy of these things at all and even though it is a matter of faith I doubt they see it that way.

 

18 hours ago, Lefty said:

Syria? Seems I remember seeing an article some time back that was about a house found there with a mosaic tile floor that is clearly Christian in design that dates back to around the 4th century (?), but I'm not familiar with anything older. I am no expert nor even a novice researcher so my knowledge is very limited.

     I believe there was supposed to be a house church in Syria but with ISIS in the area I don't know if it still exists.  I don't really know anything about it and I would hope it was actually a house and not some other structure being passed off as a house (like I ran into).

 

18 hours ago, Lefty said:

So, my contention that the original "church" was to be house to house with no official "church buildings" still stands. I don't think anything earlier than around the late 3rd century will ever be found of any kind of official church buildings and those structures will no doubt be of early RCC origin. It is later on that the Protestants split off from the nutcases in the RCC to eventually form the later fundy movements.

     I think there's a difference between a movement that originally met in houses and saying that this translates into the only way they should ever meet.  As I said above the xians converted nearly everything into a church at some time.  Not all of these were large basilicas either.  The little temple I mentioned was converted in the middle ages and was maybe 30 or so feet in diameter.

 

        mwc

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.