At 2/5/10 02:43 PM, poxpower wrote: You do realize that debating what version of Christianity is the real one is about as relevant / mature as pointing out flaws between the Harry Potter books and the movies?

Imperial Star Destroyer vs USS Enterprise?

I tried to explain that "real" Christianity has long since been lost, but clearly failed. I'm not gonna get involved anymore only because I'm quite certain I'll spend 99% of my posts adding to or correcting people's Roman history.......

Then again, I was arguing with someone who said:

At 2/4/10 03:37 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Objectivity is relative to ones world view.

And there's not much you can do with someone who says something like "Objectivity is relative".

My only remaining question, if Objectivity is relative, what the hell does that make Subjectivity?

At 2/5/10 06:49 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Now. What is dishonest is passing off your own restricted definition of Christianity as the unimpeachable truth.

Lets try this a different way... What do you say Christianity is?

6. ... and you decide I'm talking about your "core tenants" argument?

That's what it relates back to. The chronology was there to argue in part how true Christianity differs from other offshoot religions... simply a different avenue toward the same core argument... clearly no longer relevant.

Just because you've made more than one argument doesn't mean I'm referring to any one of your choosing at any particular time for you to skew off somewhere else.

I never denied the other one... Did you get the relativity of our individual world views thing?

That's binary. It's a tad different from a hierarchy.

You're the one saying there's a hierarchy; I'm saying Christianity is an entity unto itself with parasitic religions trying to latch on through your "parent group" definition.

That aside, I'm also alittle concerned that you're getting this "opinion vs opinion" vibe from my 'not-mutually-exclusive contexts' argument.

That was just a launching point.

Am I concerned accurately or are we just getting into a objective-subjective feedback loop because I mentioned objectivity?

Probably an objective-subjective feedback loop...

Don't you see I'm trying to reconcile here? I understand where you are coming from; I get your argument so stop pretending I don't. If I shared your world view I would agree with you, what you don't seem to realize is that if you took the time to understand my world view you'd see where I'm coming from and agree with me. However I realize (having typed that out) that the best we can hope for is one of those annoying "agree to disagree" endings... *sigh*

2. Don't tell me it's about honesty when it's so crystal [edited] clear that it's about entitlement.

Your close, it's about enlightenment, but that's just the bigot in me talking.

"It's inaccurate because it's untrue." Was the subjectivity suppose to be implied by the period?

I haven't been very clear about the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.

To each of us we are being objective (relatively speaking); to the other we are being subjective.

Does that clear it up, or are you going to refuse to be objective on my objectivity vs. subjectivity argument?

Claiming something as objective and being objective are two different things. You know... it's like labels.

You know what else has labels? CANDY!!! :D

Mr Innocent strikes again! I've completely forgotten that you're actually telling people they're wrong.

Well I can't get through to you my world view so I'm forced to reconcile. Don't worry; I still think plenty of people are very wrong (including you :)

-----------

At 2/5/10 01:29 PM, Ravariel wrote: Uh, no. Sorry. That is actually completely the opposite. Subjectivity relates to personal perspective. Objectivity relates to physical "fact". Postmodern shenanigans and philosophical debates about the possibleness of such a state aside, objectivity, by definition, is unaltered by perspective or "worldview" whatever that might mean in your personal context.

Okay, I can accept that. Thank you for the clarification.

-----------

At 2/5/10 04:36 PM, Imperator wrote: And there's not much you can do with someone who says something like "Objectivity is relative".

My only remaining question, if Objectivity is relative, what the hell does that make Subjectivity?

Ravariel was kind enough to clear that matter up as you can read above. If you want a more detailed description of what I was talking about and how it applies you can read my debate with Bacchanalian.

At 2/4/10 03:39 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: If you recall Rome was martyring Christians from 64 AD on to the time of Constantine, I don't think Christians of the time were too concerned about hurting Rome's feelings. If the Bible was written to favor the Roman perspective (and it wasn't) then it would have been written before 64 AD when there was hope of converting Romans, after that you could be killed just for being a Christian (and presenting Romans with Biblical text even if it was "biased to favor the Roman perspective").

When were the gospels written though? They are NOT contemporary to Christ, they are NOT written by the Apostles, this much history agrees on. As to when abouts they were written it's hazy. But to say the Crucifixtion story isn't trying to shift blame from the Roman official (Pilot) onto the Jews is just plain bad reading comprehension. As far as "why would you favor the Roman perspective if the government doesn't like you?" it's pretty simple actually: Conversion.

I mean, if I come up to you, as a Roman, and tell you the basic precepts of Christianity, and tell you how Christ died...aren't you going to either be a) really pissed that someone insinuated your leaders could kill the greatest person in the history of the world? or b) really sad and self hating that it was Romans who put this guy to death and therefore feel unworthy to be counted among the faithful?

You have to remember the size and scope of Rome and the Roman state and culture at that time. If you wanted to spread Christianity in any sort of meaningful way you pretty much HAVE to preach to Romans, so therefore you have to find someone to blame for the crucifixtion that ISN'T a Roman. Since the Jews were the party he first aggrieves, and they're the ones who bring him before Pilot...well hey, let's make up a ceremony there's no evidence for it ever existing (news travels slow in those days and fact checking this minor detail would be difficult), and a nip and a tuck and suddenly it's the Jews that killed Christ instead of accurately fingering the Romans for (in their eyes) putting a dissenter and political annoyance to death.

John is last. And you're right but only partially. They were written many years after Christ's death but by people who were actually there.

Thank you for the clarification. You're wrong however. John is the only gospel that seems to be dated to anything close to contemporary (within 70 years...but even that isn't a smoking gun placing it as something written by a contemporary, or a first hand source). The others date later. Also and again, they survive because they're the ones that got voted into the new testament, there are other "heretical gospels" that were cast out and attempts were made to destroy them.

The problem with this part of the argument is you switch from articles of faith to things that are provable.

You say Jesus is the Son of God. Article of faith, I can't definitively prove one way or the other.

You say the Gospels are actual history written by Jesus's contemporaries. That can be proven one way or another, and it's been proven false in almost all cases. Plus again these are part of "greatest hits" collection in the larger tapestry of tracts that comprised the history of Jesus that was circulated before the formalization of the Church as we know it now.

What meaning did Paul change?

Paul was the first to preach that Jesus is the Son of God that we can trace to. Prior to him the Christian sect was an apocalyptic sect. They believed Jesus to have been a completely mortal and temperal leader. To have descended from the line of David and to be made divine King (and by this I mean God saying "it is your right" not "you have my blood") of Jerusalem (The Throne of David). This was the original meaning of Messiah. They preached the world would now end because Jesus was stopped from taking his thrown. Paul is the one who has the revelation that makes him more then such.

By putting words in my mouth you can make it seem like I said anything you want... neat trick.

It's not putting words in your mouth if it's an accurate statement of what you're doing.

I believe you are referring to the 'Gnostic gospels' when you refer to "the stuff that got left on the cutting room floor". I will get to those.

Those and any other texts that are pertinent to Jesus that were left out.

We know the people that wrote the letters and the places they are writing to did exist and the letters they wrote line up with the rest of scripture.

That proves nothing. If I write you a letter and sign my name to it and in that letter and I said that a fire breathing dragon told me I was the king of his magical realm, does that make it true? Because it seems like under your logic it does since you could verify my name and where I live. Oh wait, it'd have to be in a book that is not independently sourced for you to believe it...I forgot that crucial bit.

That's how a lot of history is determined.

No it isn't. History is determined by those who win battles, what's politically expedient, but more so through verifiable FACTS. Not "because we said so".

What misinterpretations? What did Christ really teach?

I don't honestly know. That's my entire point. All we know is what the Bible SAYS he taught. A document that is not sourced historically, that was written and distributed in the manner of pamphlets and pieces of fiction and with many contradictory facts and diversions between accounts (even where they agree doesn't necessarily mean anything other the author of one gospel had access to at least one other so he could keep the big details intact). There's also the bits where Jesus is said to be a man of peace, but then acts in the manor of a rebel (asking his men to take up swords, going into the temple and overturning the money changers tables). The inconsistency of action calls authenticity into question.

Now that doesn't mean he didn't exist (as some argue) the fact that so much is written about him to me lends credence to the fact that he did. I would even agree that he was obviously some sort of spiritual leader (though it also seems to me there's a very political side too that has been downplayed). But beyond that? How do we really know anything about him since all of our sources come from a biased perspective that maximizes his importance for their own benefit (it'd be like saying a biography on a particular person is the only source you need to understand them or their life). It's just plain bad research to assume that a single source on a person is all you'd need to know. Especially a source that is a pastiche and something of a "best of" of other sources.

Sorry to double post, but there was a lot to reply to

And the sources of this "other independent research", how do we know they are any more accurate than the historical accounts in scripture?

Because they're backed up by multiple sources, archaelogical evidence, documentation, things like that? Instead of a book that's written and assembled by many different people that needed no process of fact checking or research beforehand for veracity?

Because they are "independent" they must be unbiased? I can provide you with plenty of reasons why your sources would be biased against Christianity.

Great, please do so. But please keep in mind I'm not saying they're pure and without ANY bias, let's face it, everything has a bias to some degree. History is surely written by the winners. But again it's from multiple sources instead of just one like scripture. It can be backed up by more then just the church (which has every reason to want to discard any evidence that disagrees) saying "this is how it is". If you're going to argue some conspiracy against Christians though please don't bother unless you have some amazingly good evidence.

Plenty in the Bible is verified. For example I can give you coordinates on Google Earth to find the ruins of cities mentioned in the Bible. Here's Ephesus mentioned in Revelation Chapter 2: 37 56'27.50" N 27 20'19.50 E

See above about the fire breathing dragon story: JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE VERIFIABLE PLACES AND PEOPLE DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ALL TRUE!!! It's like you have no understanding of how creative writing works, or any of that. Just because you can show me the location of certain places (and even in a lot of cases these aren't always backed up because most of the researchers tend to be Christian Scientists who are only out to prove the validity of the Bible, which makes calling them scientists laughable since it is not the goal of science to prove one theory or idea dominant over others. It is the goal of science merely to know the truth).

There were many Gnostics that sought to deny the deity of Christ, so naturally there would be some writings circulating around that disagree with scripture, once again these are known as the 'Gnostic gospels'.

But by the same token the deists would want to suppress the Gnostics because they sought to deny the deity of Christ and since the deists were the ones that gained the power to do so...

Once again, it's not proof that the "right" side of the debate won. It's just proof that one side got the power to suppress the other and they're viewpoint became dominant.

Christianity was already established well before Constantine and the Council of Nicea. The problems started primarily because of the 'Gnostics' and 'Gnostic gospels' which sought to deny the deity of Christ.

It was not established to the degree it became under Constantine and everything he subsequently did. The Gnostics were honestly just another sect out there who granted muddied the waters, but were not really a threat. Especially since they ultimately were stamped out when the deists gained power. This is the problem with your argument and your version of history, it's totally and completely filtered through your beliefs of what Christianity is or should be. Belief is not the same as fact. Just as you can interpret your version becoming dominant as "the will of God" or more simply "the truth asserting itself" I can just as easily point to more mundane and temperal factors doing it.

And actually Christianity in Rome began to fall apart (from a doctrine point of view) when Constantine and his successors politicized it. This gave rise to Catholicism.

In you opinion. In point of fact Christianity is STRENGTHENED when the powerful Roman machine adopts it. It becomes a religion that has had staying power like very few others, it spreads like wildfire because it was made the religion of the state (so to be Roman automatically meant you had to be Christian). While Rome and Catholicism certainly put their own twists on it, they still held the essential doctrine of the deist philosophy and the central teachings...they just wrapped their own dogma around it. Just like every other Christian sect in the history of ever has done. You all follow the same core beliefs, you just have some differences in method of worship and ideological points. But you agree on the core stuff.

What about the Bible is not reliable? Or rather what makes other non scriptural documents any more reliable?

I've answered this so many times previously it doesn't need to be answered again. If it does then it's pretty obvious you're not fully paying attention to what I'm saying, and that'd be a terrible shame since even though I'm disagreeing with your every point I am taking the time to read and comprehend them properly :)

Christianity started as a fulfillment of the old law of Judaism.

Again according to your beliefs. No concrete evidence.

Paul was a Jew who bought Roman citizenship.

But is still a Roman.

Paul was not the first person to believe in the divinity of Christ, Christ's apostles believed long before Paul.

Says The Bible and that's it...so again, not a valid and iron clad source for anyone but those who are predisposed through their faith to believe in it's veracity.

Thank you. But the Bible was not assembled after Constantine "converted", even if it was, Constantine had nothing to do with it.

As a physical book? It completely was. I'm not saying the Gospels were written by him, they weren't. The material was out there. But he's the guy that sat the Bishops down and said "I am building the one true Christian Church...you guys figure out what that church will be". He sets that into motion and from that we get Catholicism and from that we get the Protestants and from them we get basically every sect out there today. You don't know your history, if you cracked a history book or any source that wasn't built around reinforcing the veracity of scripture you maybe wouldn't make such common errors.

I believe you are referring to the 'Gnostic gospels' when you refer to "the stuff that got left on the cutting room floor". I will get to those.

There are more than just "Gnostic" texts that were left out.

Including the supposed "Q Document", which is a lost earlier text and the basis for Matthew and Luke.

Then there's of course the Gospel of Thomas, sharing many quotes with the 4 canonical gospels, and written in the same time period as some of the earlier ones (Thomas is around 60-70AD).

Course you also have the "First" gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews.

We won't get into Trinitarian vs non-trinitarian (non-trinitarian being the older of the beliefs), Modalism, Monarchianism, or Marcionism, Montanism, Donatism, etc etc etc.

Should we bother bringing up a Christianity family tree again? Well why not right? I mean, you mentioned Arianism, so it'll be good for everyone else to see where it falls on the map.

At 2/5/10 05:52 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Lets try this a different way... What do you say Christianity is?

- One God
- Jesus as son of God
- Bible (particularly the New Testament) as divine Word

Bake for several years.

Note: "correctness" was not an ingredient.
Note: this is only a description of what defines the parent-group

That's what it relates back to. The chronology was there to argue in part how true Christianity differs from other offshoot religions... simply a different avenue toward the same core argument... clearly no longer relevant.

Here we have an argument that your two arguments were really just one argument... justifying your treatment of them as one argument, to the extent that you didn't 'pull a fast one on me' by switching to one while I was talking about another.

Wait for it...

I never denied the other one

... right. There IS more than one argument (even if one precedes or is part of another).

Do you realize why it might be disingenuous of you to reply to my refutation of one of those arguments as if I was refuting the other? Do you realize why it might be disingenuous to treat two arguments as effectively singular one second than then dual the next?

Do you realize that, in the midst of you contradicting yourself to make sure the debate never settles on something, saying things like 'you're just trying to "reconcile"' is really disingenuous?

... Did you get the relativity of our individual world views thing?

If I disgree... does that mean I didn't get it?

You're the one saying there's a hierarchy

Liar.

"I am indeed using a "hierarchical classification that relies on current (and forseeably constant) attributes for comparison" (Though I realize you see it as the second one)."

Liar.

I'm saying Christianity is an entity unto itself with parasitic religions trying to latch on through your "parent group" definition.

The parent-group definition is not inherently a qualifier of validity.

"Catholisism is a type of Christianity" is not saying that the catholics have it right or that they're saved.

That was just a launching point.

How is it even a launching point? The two concepts have next to nothing to do with each other.

Probably an objective-subjective feedback loop...

Do you know what I'm referring to when I say that?

Don't you see I'm trying to reconcile here? I understand where you are coming from; I get your argument so stop pretending I don't. If I shared your world view I would agree with you, what you don't seem to realize is that if you took the time to understand my world view you'd see where I'm coming from and agree with me.

If you thought non-mutually-excluding-context was a launching point for subjectivity you're really not getting it. If you think the "parent group" definition attributes validity to the beliefs within, then you're really not getting it.

If you think only believing one truth makes you a bigot then you're really not getting that either.

If, from my objection to you not-being-objective, you figured it was because I was only seeing "opinion vs opinion" then you're not getting that either.

Your close, it's about enlightenment

Who's?

And you've done this twice now. First with the 2 part argument mess. Now with this.

Do you understand why it is disingenuous of you to reply to...
"it's so crystal [...] clear that it's about entitlement."
with...
"it's about enlightenment"

Do you?

Does that clear it up, or are you going to refuse to be objective on my objectivity vs. subjectivity argument?

If I refuse it, does that mean you didn't clear it up?

Well I can't get through to you my world view

Christianity should only be reserved for those who are going to be saved. Since only the true christians will be saved, only the true christians should get the name.

"Christianity", by historical chronology denotes the original form (and thus the truest form), and by atemporal semantics denotes the truest form, closest to Jesus's message.

The Bible itself says that the untrue christians should not have the name.

If you're not a true explicit thing, then you're not that thing. If you're not a true Christian, you're not a Christian. If you're not a true Christian, it's disingenuous to call yourself one.

so I'm forced to reconcile. Don't worry; I still think plenty of people are very wrong (including you :)

I guess I can't be facetious with you.

"Everything that I have been trying to do is geared around expressing what I see from my world view" is disingenuous when most of this thread has been geared toward correcting other people's world views.

Actually one more thing...

Do you realize that (how) it's disingenuous to tell me to stop pretending that you don't get my argument...

"I get your argument so stop pretending I don't."

... and then present to me TWICE a false dilemma in which I either 1) agree with you or alternatively 2) do not understand you.

"if you took the time to understand my world view you'd [...] agree with me"
"Does that clear it up, or are you going to refuse [...]"

Do you?

At 2/6/10 10:40 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Actually one more thing...

Do you realize that (how) it's disingenuous to tell me to stop pretending that you don't get my argument...

"I get your argument so stop pretending I don't."

... and then present to me TWICE a false dilemma in which I either 1) agree with you or alternatively 2) do not understand you.

"if you took the time to understand my world view you'd [...] agree with me"
"Does that clear it up, or are you going to refuse [...]"

Do you?

See, you just don't understand.
His view is correct from his world view, which is objective to itself, subjective to you. But he disagrees with your world view, because it is subjective, and not based on the objective truth, which is aligned to his world-view, which he finds objective.

The bottom line is you and avie have been very good at showing substantial corrections to his "objective" look at history, and he's just too much of a wuss to say he feels his world view is absolute truth, and everyone else is wrong.

I don't think it's disingenuous so much as arrogant. He talks of the "correct" translations and interpretations, yet knows no Greek nor Hebrew. He talks of objectivity, but uses his own emotions as the basis for his definition of Objective Truth. He wants to look like he values opinions, but really it's his way or the highway. He sees Truth as how he defines it, and False as how anyone else defines it differently, but he won't come out and admit that.

Actually, alright, maybe it is disingenuous after all......

Sorry for the delay, and the multiple posts.

At 2/5/10 09:28 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'm going to use select parts of your post as launching points to respond to most of your arguments, (in most cases indirectly) and also argue the main themes of what we're debating. I also have deleted many of your responses completely or in part when responding to them would only bear repetition, I have read and considered everything (thank you for doing the same :). I'm trying to save space however if you feel I have left out something important then feel free to bring it back up again. Also, I'm sorry for the length, I had a lot to fit in (and I even left some stuff out :P).

When were the gospels written though?

Each one at different times, however I believe it can be demonstrated that they were all written within the 1st century. I don't deny that the Gospels were written and/or assembled later than the time of Christ though. I will be touching on this in various parts of my response.

Conspicuous in their absence from the Bible are the Execution of James in 62 AD, Nero's persecutions in 64 AD, the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. All of these are significant events undoubtedly relevant to the writers of the epistles yet are not mentioned (the epistles frequently refer to [and take for granted] the accounts in the Gospels). This is not proof but it implies that the Gospels (or information therein) were already established before the Epistles were written which was probably before 62 AD.

The only way around this is to say that every single one of the 27 New Testament books was written deliberately to deceive. If these documents were indeed false it would have been recognized at the time and they would have been disregarded just like the Gnostic gospels were. The way around this is to assert that every single early church father who quoted from scripture or who wrote about Christ's teachings was in on some conspiracy, which is nonsense.

Take Ignatius of Antioch, born in 35 AD, certainly contemporary with the People of the time of Christ, certainly capable of finding out if the accounts were true and was martyred for his faith. When Nero's persecutions started Christians were being martyred left and right for their faith. People, some of whom were contemporary with Christ himself, went to their death because they refused to bow down to anyone other than Christ. Either these people were deceived or they knew Christ to be who He said He was and were willing to die for their commitment to Him. Furthermore if there were "true" accounts floating around that could even cast a shadow of a doubt in any of them then why would they still go to their death for something that they didn't know to be true?

They are NOT contemporary to Christ, they are NOT written by the Apostles, this much history agrees on. As to when abouts they were written it's hazy.

I agree, the Gospels were not directly written contemporary to Christ and every bit of information contained in them would not necessarily have been written directly by the apostles.

But to say the Crucifixtion story isn't trying to shift blame from the Roman official (Pilot) onto the Jews is just plain bad reading comprehension. As far as "why would you favor the Roman perspective if the government doesn't like you?" it's pretty simple actually: Conversion.

Unless it's actually a true account... the problem for the Jews was that Jesus was fulfilling prophesy; the Romans wouldn't have cared about this. However the Romans would have cared about keeping the Jews just happy enough not to revolt.

and suddenly it's the Jews that killed Christ instead of accurately fingering the Romans for (in their eyes) putting a dissenter and political annoyance to death.

The Romans never had a problem with Jesus during His lifetime (at least not that I'm aware of); they had a problem with His followers and therefore Jesus but only after He was already dead (I assume that's when they started slandering Him). After all, why didn't the persecutions of Christians start before 64 AD when their leader was supposedly stirring up trouble? Why did it take the Romans over 30 years before they finally started to do something about Christians if they were such a big problem when Jesus was alive?

Also and again, they survive because they're the ones that got voted into the new testament, there are other "heretical gospels" that were cast out and attempts were made to destroy them.

It's more likely that they survived because they were immediately recognized as authoritative as they (for the most part) came directly from the apostles. There may have been a vote or votes that took place as a final decision for some but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't an exclusive decision. In other words they wouldn't necessarily have voted down a Gnostic gospel in favor of one that we now see in scripture. The Gnostic gospels already weren't accepted (in fact they were openly rejected) long before the Bible was assembled and likely weren't even considered for canonization.

The Muratorian Fragment dates to approximately 170 AD and mentions most of the books of the Bible that we have today (listed below). Already by 170 AD most of the Bible was assembled and established. This fragment also mentions a few very interesting things which are quoted below.
*In order of mention or inference (as far as I have been able to determine): Luke, John, Acts,1 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, 2 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, Revelation, Philemon, Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Jude and two epistles of John. The fragment is missing the beginning so it cannot not be definitively determined if Matthew and Mark were mentioned however the quote immediately following indicated two Gospels prior to Luke.
*"The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ," This confirms what biblical scholars already believed, that 'Luke' was written by a physician named Luke (a friend of Paul) who was contemporary with the time of the apostles immediately after Christ's death.
*"that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various elements may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels" This tells us that John was involved in writing the Gospel that bears his name. It also gives us some insight into the process by which the Gospels may have been assembled.
*"Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For 'most excellent Theophilus' Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence - as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter" This shows that Luke and Acts were written as the same account by the same person, just as biblical scholars have believed. This quote also implies that Luke wrote 'Luke' after approximately 62 AD when Peter was martyred, still contemporary with eyewitnesses though. Furthermore it implies that Luke undertook an investigation to determine the true accounts of what happen, these accounts are confirmed by Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (whom I will come back to later).
*"since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John" Paul was a predecessor which means he did not invent Christianity.
*"yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth" The Christian Church was already established and organized before Rome became involved.
*"There is current also [an epistle] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion" The Gnostic gospels and other false writings were already recognized as forgeries and for the most part disregarded.

You say the Gospels are actual history written by Jesus's contemporaries. That can be proven one way or another, and it's been proven false in almost all cases. Plus again these are part of "greatest hits" collection in the larger tapestry of tracts that comprised the history of Jesus that was circulated before the formalization of the Church as we know it now.

There were Christians and there were Churches immediately after Christ's death, before Rome got involved, recognizing the authoritative teachings of Christianity. The Gnostic gospels resulted in a lot of confusion but by in large the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels stayed consistent.

How did Paul convince people who knew Jesus, who witnessed His works, who heard His teachings, who watched Him die that He was divine when these people would have known He was not?

See above about the fire breathing dragon story: JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE VERIFIABLE PLACES AND PEOPLE DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ALL TRUE!!! It's like you have no understanding of how creative writing works, or any of that. Just because you can show me the location of certain places

*Okay, let's take Ephesus a step further (again, I'll be using this as a launch point), we've already determined that it exists and where it is on the map. Ignatius (if you'll remember from my last post was martyred in approximately 108 AD) wrote an epistle to the Ephesians: "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia,"
*As a side note he clearly accepted Christ as Lord and took for granted that the Christians in Ephesus did too: "by the will of God the Father, and of our Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour"
*In his epistle he quotes from many of the books, which are now in the Bible, multiple times:
"who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God," - from Ephesians 5:2
"ye may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing," - from 1 Corinthians 1:10
"For even Jesus Christ does all things according to the will of the Father, as He Himself declares in a certain place, "I do always those things that please Him."" - from John 8:29
*This last one is interesting because it is a quote by Ignatius in the first century (or very early 2nd century) of Jesus as read in the Gospel of John. This clearly demonstrates that he accepted the authority of the (biblical) epistles and the documentation of Jesus' life which is in the Gospels (and he was contemporary with them so he would have the ability to determine if they were no more than 'creative writing').
*Also in the epistle to Ephesus written by Ignatius, he makes reference to or quotes from Matthew, John, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, Luke, Romans, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and many books from the Old Testament. Many of these he quotes from multiple times in his epistle.
*Even if they had not yet been 'canonized' into scripture they were recognized as authoritative by people (in this case Ignatius) who would have been able to verify their validity. Furthermore there were many forgeries floating around that they did recognize as forgeries, so clearly they did have the ability to authenticate these writings.
*Back to Ephesus... Twice are there Epistles written to Ephesus in the Bible, 'Ephesians' and 'Revelation 2:1-7'. That there was a church there that the apostles would have written to is supported by the epistle written by Ignatius to the same place that even quotes the epistle written by Paul to Ephesus.

(and even in a lot of cases these aren't always backed up because most of the researchers tend to be Christian Scientists who are only out to prove the validity of the Bible, which makes calling them scientists laughable since it is not the goal of science to prove one theory or idea dominant over others. It is the goal of science merely to know the truth).

This is not necessarily so; Oxford educated British Archeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939), an atheist, set out to prove the Bible fraudulent. After 15 years of research including expeditions to Asia Minor and Palestine he wrote a book called; "Saint Paul, the Traveler and the Roman Citizen" in support of the Biblical accounts. He is quoted; "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians." He converted to Christianity.

No it isn't. History is determined by those who win battles, what's politically expedient, but more so through verifiable FACTS. Not "because we said so".

What I meant was when several accounts agree (other conditions notwithstanding).

There's also the bits where Jesus is said to be a man of peace, but then acts in the manor of a rebel (asking his men to take up swords, going into the temple and overturning the money changers tables). The inconsistency of action calls authenticity into question.

I looked in all four Gospels and can't find where it supposedly says Jesus asked His men to 'take up swords'...
Anyway, He didn't start a war, there's no indication anyone was so much as hurt; he was cleaning up (so to speak). There were money changers (and others) desecrating the temple of God, He simply kicked them out. Now I have no doubt He was angry but it was certainly justified. I equate it to, for example, someone selling hotdogs or setting up an ATM on the grave of Abraham Lincoln.

How do we really know anything about him since all of our sources come from a biased perspective that maximizes his importance for their own benefit

These sources are not biased if it's true.

I can provide you with plenty of reasons why your sources would be biased against Christianity.

Great, please do so.

Because when you're a Christian you have to give yourself over to a higher power, you have to admit that you aren't good enough, you can no longer just do whatever you want because you 'feel' like it, you can no longer decide what your own morality is going to be as it suits you, you can no longer seek after your own lusts and (this is the biggest one for most people) you have to give up your pride and accept how small and insignificant you are on your own (and realize your life isn't just about yourself). If an all powerful creator exists then you need to find out what He wants, and what He wants is more than some people are willing to give so they deny Him and continue to make their own choices based on their own secular morality.

Selfishness, pride, lust, greed, vanity... all these are reasons to be biased against Christianity. I argue that some even knew (or believed) that God is real and that Christ is His Son and in a desperate attempt to hold on to their sin without guilt or fear they distorted and made up their own versions of Christianity for their own purposes so they could still feel good about their lives and their beliefs when in fact they were just lying to themselves. This, I believe, is why the Gnostic gospels exist in the first place.

This is not proof of anything and I'm not claiming it is. It's also not contrived; I'm speaking from personal experience.

It was not established to the degree it became under Constantine and everything he subsequently did.
In you opinion. In point of fact Christianity is STRENGTHENED when the powerful Roman machine adopts it. Etc...

Catholicism does not follow what's contained in the Bible which is the foundation of Christianity and that foundation was already established long before Rome adopted Christianity. After that, politicized, corrupted Christianity known as Catholicism was strengthened. True Christians have always been persecuted, in large part by Catholicism. Furthermore, Christianity was already spreading rapidly, so much so that in 64 AD the Romans took enough notice to start persecuting Christians and not just a few groups that were around but tens of thousands were killed over the years.

At 2/6/10 01:52 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

To preface this; yes, I realize I have misspoken a few times which has resulted in some confusion (I'm even sorry for all the wasted time). I'm tired of trying to clarify and am even more tired of debating what I said; I am dropping my attempt to reconcile our mutual understandings of what the issue is based on and am reverting back to the original argument. Can we get back to debating the topic at hand now?

- One God
- Jesus as son of God
- Bible (particularly the New Testament) as divine Word

Bake for several years.

In a nut shell, yes.

Note: this is only a description of what defines the parent-group

And the religions that call themselves Christian but don't accept these things, what do you call them?

The parent-group definition is not inherently a qualifier of validity.
"Catholisism is a type of Christianity" is not saying that the catholics have it right or that they're saved.
If you think the "parent group" definition attributes validity to the beliefs within, then you're really not getting it.

Subjectively it is (or... does) and that's the reason why it's wrong.

Do you understand why it is disingenuous of you to reply to...
"it's so crystal [...] clear that it's about entitlement."
with...
"it's about enlightenment"
Do you?

It's about the truth (enlightenment of the truth) and yes part of that is entitlement. The meaning of Christianity is entitled to the name Christianity. However I am not arguing because of entitlement, I'm arguing because of the truth and how it is disingenuous to call Catholicism Christianity.

Christianity should only be reserved for those who are going to be saved. Since only the true christians will be saved, only the true christians should get the name.
"Christianity", by historical chronology denotes the original form (and thus the truest form), and by atemporal semantics denotes the truest form, closest to Jesus's message.
The Bible itself says that the untrue christians should not have the name.
If you're not a true explicit thing, then you're not that thing. If you're not a true Christian, you're not a Christian. If you're not a true Christian, it's disingenuous to call yourself one.

Pretty much, so where's the problem?

"Everything that I have been trying to do is geared around expressing what I see from my world view" is disingenuous when most of this thread has been geared toward correcting other people's world views.

And I would love to correct your world view but that starts deeper than some shallow debate about the specifics of a name.

I might regret this but perhaps it would be helpful to simplify my argument.

Earlier in this thread someone posted that "Hitler was a radical Christian".

No he was not! ...because he did not fit the criteria to be defined as a Christian.

That is my argument simplified down to a single, specific, relevant occurrence of applicability.

At 2/8/10 04:16 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: To preface this; yes, I realize I have misspoken a few times which has resulted in some confusion

Just imagine how much less confusion there would be if you had said, appropriately at the time in which a contradiction was noted or objection made, "I misspoke" rather then trying to recast something wrong as something right or jump to another issue. I always figured something primarily interested in the truth would do... well... that.

Can we get back to debating the topic at hand now?

Sure. But I'm still reserving the right to bring up old quotes. If you disagree with whatever I quote from you, then let me know for once eh?

In a nut shell, yes.

Actually I should correct that. The second one should say "Jesus as the Messiah."

And some exception has to be made for derivations prior to the conglomeration of the Bible, as the Bible didn't exactly exist.

And the religions that call themselves Christian but don't accept these things, what do you call them?

My original list before just correcting it, I'm pretty sure, still applied to Catholics and Mormons.

Is there a group you had in mind?

Subjectively it is (or... does) and that's the reason why it's wrong.

We've been over this. I word is not wrong simply because people (subjectively) misuse it. You continually say you argue against the use of a parent-group definition, but actually argue against the misuse of the parent group definition. In other words, you're not arguing against the parent-group definition. You're arguing against the false approppriation of your own ideal/denotation-of-truth definition.

It's about the truth (enlightenment of the truth) and yes part of that is entitlement.

No it's not. You can very easily be righteous without laying claim to a title that denotes your righteousness - particularly when the word exists already outside of the context you're seeking to restrict it to.

The meaning of Christianity is entitled to the name Christianity.

Good thing words can have more than one meaning then eh!?

However I am not arguing because of entitlement, I'm arguing because of the truth and how it is disingenuous to call Catholicism Christianity.

"yes part of [truth] is entitlement"

By your definition of truth you are arguing because of entitlement. Infact... you're also arguing because of salvation.

"What it comes down to is an essential part of Christianity: salvation."

Oh and here's a good one on entitlement...

"we have something (Christianity) very original, very much the 'one truth' and then comes along some contrivance(s) that gets associated with it and were supposed to accept that, welcome it in brotherhood, let it share the (once) pure name of Christianity?"

You can't tell me entitlement is a part of truth when your own words show explicitly that entitlement is an interest amended to and following truth.

Pretty much, so where's the problem?

What? You mean I have understood your position? You had me convinced I didn't!

Problem: Normatives are not positives.
Problem: Christianity is not only defined as the one true Christianity.
Problem: The Bible and prophecy, as sources for righteousness, are irrelevent sources for any definition of Christianity that does not denote righteousness.
Problem: Binary semantics do not preclude hierarchical semantics or really any non-mutually-excluding semantics.

And I would love to correct your world view but that starts deeper than some shallow debate about the specifics of a name.

See what I'm talking about? Rather than, "Yes, saying my argument was geared toward expressing my world view, while rather telling everyone they're wrong, was disingenuous. I am really geared toward [ pick former or latter ]" ...

... I get, "I would love to correct your world view."

Which by the way... is a sudden and also disingenuous re-contextualization of your own use of "world view" from the last post you made. Do you have Alzheimer's? Are you doing this on purpose? Do you understand what you're saying?

That is my argument simplified down to a single, specific, relevant occurrence of applicability.

That's not a simplification. It begs all the same issues we've discussed. It's an appeal to extremes, guilt by association, logical fallacy. Being "evil" does not preclude one from being Christian.

At 2/8/10 06:55 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I always figured something primarily interested in the truth would do... well... that.

Whoops. "Someone"

That's not a Freudian slip. That's just muscle memory kicking in inappropriately.

Might as well.....

At 2/8/10 04:14 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: There were Christians and there were Churches immediately after Christ's death, before Rome got involved, recognizing the authoritative teachings of Christianity. The Gnostic gospels resulted in a lot of confusion but by in large the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels stayed consistent.

You miss the context of this historical change. The reason the Gospels stayed consistent is because Christianity was made to conform to them. Not vice versa.

That's why you have Gnostics in the first place.

When you look at it historically, non-trinitarianism is the OLDER of the two belief structures. So if we're discussing consistency, then non-trinitarianism is the "true" form of Christianity.

This is not necessarily so; Oxford educated British Archeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939), an atheist, set out to prove the Bible fraudulent. After 15 years of research including expeditions to Asia Minor and Palestine he wrote a book called; "Saint Paul, the Traveler and the Roman Citizen" in support of the Biblical accounts. He is quoted; "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians." He converted to Christianity.

Where did you come by this information? You have a quote, yet no reference. This is not the expectations I have of a truth seeker, but of a preacher pushing a pre-established agenda.

I looked in all four Gospels and can't find where it supposedly says Jesus asked His men to 'take up swords'...

There's your problem. There are more than 4 Gospels. See my above links for books that didn't make the cut.

Anyway, He didn't start a war, there's no indication anyone was so much as hurt; he was cleaning up (so to speak).

"So to speak" huh?
Which passage? I'll tell you what the Greek suggests. Because right now we are looking at English idioms, which is a false presentation of the text. Slang does not translate well.

There were money changers (and others) desecrating the temple of God, He simply kicked them out. Now I have no doubt He was angry but it was certainly justified. I equate it to, for example, someone selling hotdogs or setting up an ATM on the grave of Abraham Lincoln.

It is disingenuous to give an equation when you do not understand the context of the event. You will need to show how it is a "simple" action before claiming it as such. Because from what I have learned, there is nothing "simple" about forceful removing of persons from places of worship. Especially in Roman times, where religion was seen as central to, and sponsored by, the state itself.

These sources are not biased if it's true.

A subjective opinion. If a statement is true, then there is no bias. But there is bias, because the debate of what type of person Jesus may or may not have been is inherently subjective.

In you opinion. In point of fact Christianity is STRENGTHENED when the powerful Roman machine adopts it. Etc...

This is true. The growth of Christianity was by no means without Roman support. Just as it's preservation to our modern day is due in part to the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire, Western Christian monks, and Islamic scholars.

Catholicism does not follow what's contained in the Bible which is the foundation of Christianity

The foundation of Christianity is non-trinitarianism. What follows in the Bible does not follow the foundation of Christianity.

and that foundation was already established long before Rome adopted Christianity.

I agree with you here. What I cannot fathom is how you missed the part where the adoption of Roman Catholicism eliminated these foundations from our record. We do not have the Q document, but it is fairly clear it existed.

After that, politicized, corrupted Christianity known as Catholicism was strengthened. True Christians have always been persecuted, in large part by Catholicism.

I'm not sure this even makes sense. When Roman Catholicism became the state sponsored religion, it was in part due to the compromises of other belief structures, and the ecumenical councils from which today's (and by today's, I mean ALL of today's) denominations are based. I'm not sure you get to make the claim of persecution of "true Christians", when they were in on it.....

The Bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and Carthage were massively influential and powerful, and fought each other constantly over Christian doctrine. This is entirely WHY Catholicism was adopted, and why it was adopted as a middle ground.

Furthermore, Christianity was already spreading rapidly, so much so that in 64 AD the Romans took enough notice to start persecuting Christians and not just a few groups that were around but tens of thousands were killed over the yea

Your evidence for this is?
I ask you, because this stuff is right up my alley. I also ask because I know where those numbers come from, and I'm convinced you don't.

So I would like to see your source for this information......before I completely destroy it and make you look like a charlatan bullshitter.

At 2/8/10 09:10 PM, Imperator wrote: So I would like to see your source for this information......before I completely destroy it and make you look like a charlatan bullshitter.

There is no source. Roman Catholic tradition has no sources, just "blind faith" in the rituals. Such as, adopting pagan celebration dates as feast days and holidays. Merely evidence for the concept of evolution itself.

Religion has evolved. It couldn't infect new minds without mutant revisions.

The concepts hurting Christian churches today, mainly Roman Catholic, are the virtue of Chastity and the vow of poverty. Sex and money are on the rise today. Could you suppress these desires?

Thats why religions are trying to harness the vastness of comprehendable space, like the earth, sun and solar system. God used to be voiced though the higher power, the king, the pope, or other authority figures... but scientific advances have expanded reality past space and time. True believers in a higher power could today only be the ones who accept that God himself created and controls the farthest reaches of space.

... I understand I didn't make a point and this is just a rant... what did I get myself into posting in this thread!?!?!

At 2/8/10 09:10 PM, Imperator wrote: Where did you come by this information? You have a quote, yet no reference. This is not the expectations I have of a truth seeker, but of a preacher pushing a pre-established agenda.

Well the conservapedia article uses this source... Ramsay, William M. "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" (1915) for that quote.

The book itself is available on line.

At 2/8/10 10:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/8/10 09:10 PM, Imperator wrote: Where did you come by this information? You have a quote, yet no reference. This is not the expectations I have of a truth seeker, but of a preacher pushing a pre-established agenda.

Well the conservapedia article uses this source... Ramsay, William M. "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" (1915) for that quote.

The book itself is available on line.

lol you referenced Conservapedia

Conservapedia has got to be one of the most biased websites I have ever seen, the Hitler article associates Hitler with Evolution and Atheism, don't even mention there atheist article

They even admit there seriously biased.

At 2/8/10 11:29 PM, Warforger wrote: lol you referenced Conservapedia

Conservapedia has got to be one of the most biased websites I have ever seen, the Hitler article associates Hitler with Evolution and Atheism, don't even mention there atheist article

They even admit there seriously biased.

Never heard of Conservapedia but after looking at it they are completely out of touch it seems like. Apparently if you believe in Evolution then you are atheist. This apparently means that atheists have more common sense.

At 2/8/10 09:54 PM, Gunner-D wrote: ... I understand I didn't make a point and this is just a rant...

Yeah. About that. We do like substance. At least I do.

At 2/8/10 11:29 PM, Warforger wrote: lol you referenced Conservapedia

I know about Conservapedia. I wasn't looking for evidence, just the reference.

It's kind of interesting actually. I went to Wikipedia first and there was no mention of his religious affiliation or conversion. Then it dawned on me. If Wikipedia didn't... :P

I am curious what Josh McDowell's source was though, for the conversion story that Thunderbolt relayed to us.

At 2/8/10 04:12 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Each one at different times, however I believe it can be demonstrated that they were all written within the 1st century. I don't deny that the Gospels were written and/or assembled later than the time of Christ though. I will be touching on this in various parts of my response.

Oh good, because the fact that you're willing to admit I'm not wrong in my contention that the source that is far removed from the primary subject (christ), which is crucial to my assertion it is not a reliable document, means you have to do a lot of work to make the case that it is.

Conspicuous in their absence from the Bible are the Execution of James in 62 AD, Nero's persecutions in 64 AD, the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. All of these are significant events undoubtedly relevant to the writers of the epistles yet are not mentioned (the epistles frequently refer to [and take for granted] the accounts in the Gospels). This is not proof but it implies that the Gospels (or information therein) were already established before the Epistles were written which was probably before 62 AD.

I don't dispute the existence or prevalence of the gospels information. Or that other documents floated as well. I have NEVER argued that the stuff isn't out there, what I'm questioning is why you feel they are truthful and accurate when no one really has the ability or the evidence to say as such. It is all down to being an article of faith to BELIEVE they're accurate, and belief is not fact.

The only way around this is to say that every single one of the 27 New Testament books was written deliberately to deceive.

That's a faulty leap really. They were pretty obviously written to codify and record what was probably being passed around orally till then. The conclusion you draw is faulty at best. Possible, but again, proof

I honestly have no interest in arguing any of your other points because again you present no relevant facts and you argue everything once more through the lens of your faith. You flat out deny the Gnostic gospels could be valid. You say the people who crucified Jesus had no problem with him (makes perfect sense). It would frankly be a waste of my time because you don't consider my points honestly, you just try to argue against them with more supposition and pandering to your faith and world view that is obviously an unshakeable part of your life. If you don't want to have your faith argued under the lens of trying to view it as "what can we actually prove" vs. the more "what does this belief do for the world and the faithful" in an honest manner then really you should stop wasting everybody's time and being disingenuous in saying you do.

Because all your really interested in is trying to convert us and prove how "right" you are, when you're arguments have got more holes and logical fallacies then swiss cheese. Good day to you sir :)

I'm an atheist, and I've been one for about a year now. Most of the theists in this thread I noticed are Christians. I'd like to ask why you are Christians? Why aren't you Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, or Hindu?

My guess is because you were raised into that religion. A large portion of people who believe in a religion believe in the same religion as their parents. Why? Well, they don't think for themselves. They were raised not to.

Another problem.. is how long people have kept the religion of their parents. Have you all heard of the inquisition? No? Look it up.
The inquisition is the probably the main reason you are all Christians. Had it not happened, you would be pagans (maybe muslims).

Basically, what I'm trying to get to.. is there is no good reason to believe any one religion is true over all others. From my standpoint, there is no good reason to believe any religion is true at all.. (because there isn't).

So, theists, I ask you... Why is YOUR religion the one true religion?

At 2/9/10 01:12 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Because all your really interested in is trying to convert us and prove how "right" you are, when you're arguments have got more holes and logical fallacies then swiss cheese. Good day to you sir :)

Um... Swiss cheese has a lot of logical fallacies?

At 2/9/10 01:40 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Um... Swiss cheese has a lot of logical fallacies?

I was trying for a whitty metaphor and yeah...didn't work out so well for me there.

At 2/8/10 10:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Well the conservapedia article uses this source... Ramsay, William M. "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" (1915) for that quote.

The book itself is available on line.

Thanks!
That's what I thought. Archaeologists are generally pretty good; The idea that he went around and blabbed about wanting to disprove the Bible didn't sit right. I mean, I know Heinrich Schliemann set out to find Troy, prove Homer right and all that, but he was an odd duck as it was.

Archaeologist sets out to prove Bible wrong, ends up Christian?
This is too much of a fairy tale ending for me, the reference coming from conservapedia doesn't help.

This is right up there with Romulus Augustus, the ironic "last emperor" of Rome. It's a historical pun, the de jure last emperor was Julius Nepos in 480....or Constantine XI in 1453 if you include the Eastern Empire.

Nice stories, but more myth than truth. Confections of convenience rather than accuracy.

At 2/8/10 09:54 PM, Gunner-D wrote:.

... I understand I didn't make a point and this is just a rant... what did I get myself into posting in this thread!?!?!

Yeah thanks. You added fuck all to the conversation.

He actually does have a source for those numbers of Christian martyrs, it's just that his source is a very prejudiced analysis.

Course he's gonna come back and just tell me I'm "not getting it" or being confrontational or some other stuff.....all while telling me, born and raised Roman Catholic.....that Catholics aren't Christian.

My eyes can only roll so far TL!

I think it really doesn't mater weather you believe in god or not. We are all equal. Since all religions promote peace and other trates that are considered good by most people like:not killing people, not being mean to people, ect. However some people misinterpret there religion and harm others who are not of the same beliefs. The good thing about atheism is that it can not be misinterpreted, the bad thing is that the strengths of religion (discussed earlier in paragraph) may not be present in atheists.

If someone believes in no harm they still will not kill someone even if they do not believe in god(s).

Oh and some people believe Islam promotes barbarism,Islamic terrorists from the middle east usually are desperate and are unable to read so they can't understand the Islamic version of the bible and are only hearing the voice of the terrorist leaders saying that the only way to practice there religion is to kill Americans, read "Three Cups of Tea" if you want more details(really good book).

At 2/9/10 05:02 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/8/10 09:54 PM, Gunner-D wrote:.

... I understand I didn't make a point and this is just a rant... what did I get myself into posting in this thread!?!?!

Yeah thanks. You added fuck all to the conversation.

He actually does have a source for those numbers of Christian martyrs, it's just that his source is a very prejudiced analysis.

Your right that was a boat load of 'fuck all'.

Heres some more. (citing no sources of course)

Martyrdom was a leading force in the spread of Christianity. When one would be killed under persecution, 100 would be converted. Traditionally, we would think these actions have to do with non-violence and self-sacrifice that were central tenants of the example of Jesus.

However, what if the REAL force of martyrdom's power of conversion was more like that of today's Islamic extremists?

In early Christian context, a small group of Jewish, Christ-following rebels in any Roman controlled territory, keeping their anti-establishment anti-Caesar views secret from the public, attack the infidel (whether it be Roman soldiers, tax collectors, or anti-Christian persecutors), but eventually submit to the clutches of Roman power and are put to death for their actions/beliefs et cetera? This act of martyrdom alone could spur massive conversion in the ancient world.

But let's say they were captured and given a trial to the public. This rebel Christian leader would not be allowed to express their side of the case (possibly only though minor outbursts before being silenced by force), be sentenced as guilty, and killed in public while shouting the name of Jesus.

The public's reaction: "That guy believed in Jesus? Wasn't he that guy who fought the Roman's in Judea through peace and was killed for it?(Automatically equating this trial with the persecution of Jesus) I don't like the Romans anyways..." Thus a convert and rebel is born.

Luckily in this country, we don't think acts of violence are ways of getting people to see our point of view... (Thinking about our current wars)... oh wait...

Here's some food for thought.
In the Bible, it says that after Cain was exiled, he went to live in the land of Nod, and took a wife there. This doesn't make sense. Other than Cain, Adam, and Eve, at the time, nobody else was alive. The Bible is full of nonsense. Why do you live by it?

At 2/9/10 06:49 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: Here's some food for thought.
In the Bible, it says that after Cain was exiled, he went to live in the land of Nod, and took a wife there. This doesn't make sense. Other than Cain, Adam, and Eve, at the time, nobody else was alive. The Bible is full of nonsense. Why do you live by it?

you're probably going to have to look into some Jewish theology for that... and there are probably Christian explanations for it coming from the aforementioned theology.

At 2/8/10 06:55 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Sure. But I'm still reserving the right to bring up old quotes. If you disagree with whatever I quote from you, then let me know for once eh?

Deal.

Actually I should correct that. The second one should say "Jesus as the Messiah."

Jesus being the Son of God is rather essential otherwise anything He did would not have mattered, however He is also the Messiah. So sure, but it's dependant on how you intend to use this definition.

And some exception has to be made for derivations prior to the conglomeration of the Bible, as the Bible didn't exactly exist.

I would say that; some exception can be made for doctrinal confusion or misinterpretation where it is non essential to salvation. Does that work? Probably not...

My original list before just correcting it, I'm pretty sure, still applied to Catholics and Mormons.

Technically, based solely in the strictest sense of your definition Catholicism may apply, but I didn't answer it in a definitive way for a reason, because there are some additional restrictive specifics. Salvation for example, which Catholicism doesn't inherently teach.

Mormons don't really even consider themselves Christian (at least not the ones who actually know what their following), even if they did they still wouldn't fit even your definition.

Is there a group you had in mind?

Not really, but now that I'm thinking about it apostates come to mind, though that might be a step up for some.

We've been over this. I word is not wrong simply because people (subjectively) misuse it. You continually say you argue against the use of a parent-group definition, but actually argue against the misuse of the parent group definition.

Actually, I think you're right.

No it's not. You can very easily be righteous without laying claim to a title that denotes your righteousness

I get that and you are right but it's not necessarily about righteousness... The reason this is an issue (again, using Catholics as an example) is that there are hundreds of millions of Catholics out there who have a desire to follow Christianity and believe that Catholicism is 'a' way or even 'the' way to do that, when in fact Catholicism is a distortion. I don't like the idea that nearly a billion people on this planet may go to hell because of some deception! Sorry to bring emotion into this again but try and understand this from my perspective... untold numbers of people are going to die because of ignorance and because they've been lied to, how would you feel if this was done using and slandering your family name (for example)?

Did you think I was being arrogant all this time? Apparently Imperator did. Sure it all matters, I do care about the name of Christianity but I wouldn't be debating this just for that. I'm debating this because it's something I care about; or rather it's a surface issue of a much larger issue which I care about.

Good thing words can have more than one meaning then eh!?

Sometimes it's not such a good thing.

"yes part of [truth] is entitlement"

By your definition of truth you are arguing because of entitlement. Infact... you're also arguing because of salvation.

"What it comes down to is an essential part of Christianity: salvation."

Oh and here's a good one on entitlement...

You can't tell me entitlement is a part of truth when your own words show explicitly that entitlement is an interest amended to and following truth.

But I don't care about entitlement, and the truth is all encompassing. I do care about salvation though, my own of course but also that of others (I was being serious when I asked you if you wanted to know how to be saved, and the offer stands).

What? You mean I have understood your position? You had me convinced I didn't!

That's when I was trying to reconcile... I'm a lot of work, I know it.

Problem: Normatives are not positives.
Problem: Christianity is not only defined as the one true Christianity.
Problem: The Bible and prophecy, as sources for righteousness, are irrelevent sources for any definition of Christianity that does not denote righteousness.
Problem: Binary semantics do not preclude hierarchical semantics or really any non-mutually-excluding semantics.

Okay, I'm going to try a different approach, instead of trying to explain what I really meant which is frustrating and can take away from what the topic at hand really is I'm going to say that you're right. The world has a very loose, very disingenuous definition for Christianity which is in a large part in contrast with what it means to be a true Christian.

See what I'm talking about? Rather than, "Yes, saying my argument was geared toward expressing my world view, while rather telling everyone they're wrong, was disingenuous. I am really geared toward [ pick former or latter ]" ...

I was just playing along, that's all.
Anyway, hopefully I've cleared things up by now.

Which by the way... is a sudden and also disingenuous re-contextualization of your own use of "world view" from the last post you made.

Do you have Alzheimer's?

No, but the rainbow fairy wings made bicycles taste of happy! :D
(The non-seriousness of your question warranted a non-serious answer.)

Are you doing this on purpose?

Believe it or not, no... you just read into things way too much. Do you go to school for debating or something?

Do you understand what you're saying?

Yes, before it was abstract now the context denotes a concrete usage. I'm sorry to switch things up on you like that, should I have warned you?

That's not a simplification. It begs all the same issues we've discussed. It's an appeal to extremes, guilt by association, logical fallacy. Being "evil" does not preclude one from being Christian.

I'm going to try something here... you appear to be right and I appear to have been mistaken about what the example I gave really was. So forget I ever said it was a simplification. Eh?

It still is a 'single, specific, relevant occurrence of applicability' however. Unless I am mistaken on any of those points as well?

Matthew 7:16 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
In other words, one way to tell if someone is a true Christian or not is by their works, Hitler as evidenced by his works was not a Christian. Being evil can preclude one from being Christian, especially if you give into it.

-------

At 2/8/10 09:10 PM, Imperator wrote: ......before I completely destroy it and make you look like a charlatan [censored].

I would love to have a debate with you and respond to some of your arguments but there are a few things I just can't get around, the above quote for example. It seems apparent that you have no intention of doing any other than attacking me. Have I done something to offend you? Is it because I didn't take you seriously? Is it because I am a Christian? These are rhetorical questions; I don't need to know your answer.

I do want you to know I harbor no ill will toward you; I simply see it as fruitless to carry on any sort of discourse as neither of us are likely to get anything out of it.

-------

At 2/9/10 01:12 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Because all your really interested in is trying to convert us and prove how "right" you are, when you're arguments have got more holes and logical fallacies then swiss cheese. Good day to you sir :)

It seems that you really don't want to continue so I will respect that and make this brief.

I would very much like for you to be saved and accept Christ as Lord but I was not debating from that premise. I know you didn't ask but still, if at any point you would like to know how to be saved you can contact me and I will be happy to give you any information you request on the subject.

Also I would like to thank you for pushing me to do some serious research; I know you don't necessarily agree with my conclusions but I have learned a lot and have you to partially thank for that.

Good day to you as well sir :)

At 2/9/10 01:28 PM, Smokey651 wrote: I'm an atheist, and I've been one for about a year now.

What's your backup plan?

Most of the theists in this thread I noticed are Christians. I'd like to ask why you are Christians? Why aren't you Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, or Hindu?

I believe you mean "most of the theist" (as in 'singular')... Yeah that's me. :P

My guess is because you were raised into that religion. A large portion of people who believe in a religion believe in the same religion as their parents. Why? Well, they don't think for themselves. They were raised not to.

I believe that upon examining the individual lives of many Christians you would conclude differently. I would have my parents to credit for a lot of things including my faith if I had ever cared or paid any attention to them; however I didn't and spent most of my teenage life running away from God before I turned back to Him.

Another problem.. is how long people have kept the religion of their parents. Have you all heard of the inquisition? No? Look it up.
The inquisition is the probably the main reason you are all Christians. Had it not happened, you would be pagans (maybe muslims).

I am very familiar with the Inquisition however I'm not sure from where you draw your conclusions... Could you please explain?

Basically, what I'm trying to get to.. is there is no good reason to believe any one religion is true over all others. From my standpoint, there is no good reason to believe any religion is true at all.. (because there isn't).

Unless of course one of them is true, then you'll need to figure out which one and start following it.

So, theists, I ask you... Why is YOUR religion the one true religion?

That's a very broad question with many possible avenues of answering. Rather than just taking a shot in the dark to try and give you the answer you are looking for I'd prefer to answer specific questions. That is if you care that much to ask them? :)

-----------

At 2/9/10 06:49 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote: Here's some food for thought.
In the Bible, it says that after Cain was exiled, he went to live in the land of Nod, and took a wife there. This doesn't make sense. Other than Cain, Adam, and Eve, at the time, nobody else was alive. The Bible is full of nonsense. Why do you live by it?

The Bible does not specifically mention the berth of a lot of people that certainly existed however it does infer some of them by stating at the end of verse 4, in chapter 5, when referring to Adam "and he begat sons and daughters".

The Bible only directly mentions three offspring of Adam and Eve. It indirectly mentions that they had "sons and daughters", possibly hundreds considering how long they lived. That's right; this means Cain's wife was his sister.

-----------

Regarding Sir William Mitchell Ramsay:

I have not been able to verify that he was at one point an atheist using non Christian sources (which I imagine is all many of you would accept), for the purposes of this statement I cannot conclusively determine if at one point he was or not. I have no reason to doubt the claim that he was at one point an atheist, in fact a statement by Sir William Mitchell Ramsay himself in his book "St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen" would seem to support this. You can make your own conclusions.

"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it,... It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth."

I verified this quote using 'Google Books', it starts on the bottom of page 7 and continues into page 8.

Regardless of his spiritual status this quote does demonstrate his initial intentions toward his investigation. The point is that he set out to disprove the credibility of 'Luke' and as a result of his investigation ended up supporting it.