A question for Christians

[JesuSlavex]

The location of a book, the number of these books/the ease of getting one, the number of followers a religion has, none of them are proof of a true religion.

Quoted for truth

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Will Durant, Robert Frost, James Baldwin, Thomas Jefferson, Mahatma Gandhi...

Absurdity at work... These people are honored and highly regarded therefore I have to listen to them.

Instead of referring to early Church Fathers, the doctors of the Church, such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St.Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. John of Damascus, who lived then and there, I am supposed to listen to "Mahatma Gandhi" ...

Furthermore, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes record that a man who had studied with them for a three year period, had betrayed them, and was spreading 'lies' about their faith. This person is simply referred to in these writings as "The Liar". Most scholars who have studied these scrolls agree Paul could be the only one they are referring to.

Inconclusive wishful thinking at best. And most scholars agree... Great for them, only if we could avoid committing the appeal to anonymous authority... Sorry, there is no way of knowing and there is no record of St. Paul belonging to them.

Numerous scriptures back this up.

Let's see them.

The Bible and several other historical manuscripts record that there was much disagreement between Paul and some of the disciples and leaders of the early church. Even James, Jesus's brother, rebuked Paul for his teachings and commanded him to cleanse himself according to the law of Moses..

Now if this is NOT in ignorance of the Scriptures, I don't know what is. Read Acts 15. St. Paul was in disagreement with certain Pharisee converts who required Gentiles to hold onto the law of Moses, St. Paul said that this was not required as we were saved through the mercy and grace of Christ and St. James actually approved St. Paul's position. All in the Bible, read it.

In all Paul wrote (Up for debate as its unprovable) 14 of the books that make up the New Testament. Kind of makes you wonder.

Somehow Christian Church approved these, how gullible... They didn't know anything but we do.

Ok, lets entertain that for a few minutes. I'm completly up for throwing out the Mithras angle. But you have to explain the 12 or so other Gods that came well before christianity who shared the same traits and requirements as illegitimate.

I don't have to explain anything. Whoever makes the claim Christianity borrowed from pagan religion explains us how and why.

AND explain why pagan holidays share the same timeframes as the christian calender.

This is no brainer. To encourage pagans converts and to suppress the pagan religion.

And just as a note, the pagans have been celebrating those holidays long before Yahweh stepped foot on this earth.

Doesn't make a bit difference. It is gullible to say that Christianity borrowed date of Christmas from pagans. Or instead of honoring Diana, we do honor St. Nicholas of Myra. They simply took those dates, didn't borrow them.

In todays church Jesus is a brand like Coke or Pepsi. Jesus is not present day christianity. Paul is.

Which Gospel (read Greek, Euangelion) did Paul write?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The location of a book, the number of these books/the ease of getting one, the number of followers a religion has, none of them are proof of a true religion.

What is?

 

[b&wpac4]

What is?

I think you would agree with me that popularity is not a reason to believe anything is true.

 

[Gardenia]

What is?

Ah, now that could be a whole thread onto itself, and I'm sure we'd never agree on the specifics on what is. However, I think most of us can agree on at least some parts of what is not - and I have seen many here say that popularity is not a factor, and I agree with that.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

No I didn't think popularity was a reason, though, someone argued that here?

 

[Gardenia]

That is what it seemed to me WingsOfEagles07 was originally trying to say. That if these other Gods were true, why can't you go down to a bookstore or wal-mart and pick up a holy text of their religion. (Which again, in many cases you can do this.. so.. a poor argument in more ways than one.)

Then the subject of being consistent was brought up, which seems totally irreverent to how easy a text may be to obtain, or in essence how popular a religion is - especially considering how many of the more "popular" religions argue about how the texts and such of the others are not consistent and all that..

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

That is what it seemed to me WingsOfEagles07 was originally trying to say. That if these other Gods were true, why can't you go down to a bookstore or wal-mart and pick up a holy text of their religion.

You can probably order them online...

 

[b&wpac4]

You can probably order them online...

You don't get to make both arguments. If popularity is not important to finding the truth, than it is possible that a book only available online at one site could still be the truth.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

You don't get to make both arguments.

No actually it was not my argument... I must say though I won't fall for any false dilemmas no matter how subtle one might provide as a challenge... Thanks.

 

[b&wpac4]

No actually it was not my argument... I must say though I won't fall for any false dilemmas no matter how subtle one might provide as a challenge... Thanks.

What false dilemma? Are you paranoid?

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Again, you can find the holy texts of many other religions, not just books written about said religions. The argument that you can go into a book store and buy a Bible, so Christianity is from the one true God makes absolutely no sense. Now, if you find the other books inconsistent, well that's your own opinion - and to be frank has pretty much nothing to do with where you can buy these books. Many people disagree with how you find other religions' texts, and there are those who disagree that your Bible is from God and consistent.

The location of a book, the number of these books/the ease of getting one, the number of followers a religion has, none of them are proof of a true religion.

That is not my argument. Because I know that, it is fallacious, I was 'just saying.' But yes, all other books other than the Bible can be shown inconsistent. Why? (LOL --> Do your homework.) This is not my opinion either. It truly can be show inconsistent without opinion. As for people saying there are inconsistencies with the Bible that is because they don't understand. Then your going to say well you don't understand there book(s). Well, in a religion there are "key things" to look for to see if it is consistent, and no other book other than Bible has these "key things." Like I said, ---> Do your homework.

 

[b&wpac4]

Well, in a religion there are "key things" to look for to see if it is consistent, and no other book other than Bible has these "key things."

What are these "key things"?

 

[Gardenia]

That is not my argument. Because I know that, it is fallacious, I was 'just saying.' But yes, all other books other than the Bible can be shown inconsistent.

I am unsure why you didn't say that in the first place, rather than responding to me along the same lines again.. I am also unsure what else you thought people would be taking away from your post, but.. well, if you say so.

(LOL --> Do your homework.)

Why do you assume I have not "done my homework"? Because I have come to a different conclusion than you? After reading the rest of your post, I would have to assume so.. Either one agrees, or one simply does not understand - but this could never be the case for another religion..
Well, there's no arguing with that, now is there?

 

[JesuSlavex]

What a load of illogical nonsense... These people are honored and highly regarded therefore I have to listen to them.

Instead of referring to early Church Fathers, the doctors of the Church, such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St.Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. John of Damascus, who lived then and there, I am supposed to listen to "Mahatma Gandhi" ...

Inconclusive wishful thinking at best. And most scholars agree... Great for them, only if we could avoid committing the appeal To anonymous authority... Sorry, there is no way of knowing and there is no record of St. Paul belonging to them.

Only fools despise knowledge. To say that their opinions aren't applicable because they dont fit in with your personal ideology is intellectual suicide and as closed minded as they come. Some of those men where even devout Christians. I guess their opinions dont matter either.

These men knew a tremendous amount more than you in regards to Christianity. Maybe you should search a bit in yourself about your sense of pride in your perceived knowledge.

Now if this is NOT in ignorance of the Scriptures, I don't know what is. Read Acts 15. St. Paul was in disagreement with certain Pharisee converts who required Gentiles to hold onto the law of Moses, St. Paul said that this was not required as we were saved through the mercy and grace of Christ and St. James actually approved St. Paul's position. All in the Bible, read it.

I'll give you that one. Something else popped in my head and I was mistaken. I cant be on top of it all the time!




We're just gonna keep spinning our wheels here John.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Only fools despise knowledge.

Thanks, it applies to everyone.

To say that their opinions aren't applicable because they dont fit in with your personal ideology is intellectual suicide and as closed minded as they come.

Really? Does one go to a lawyer for a toothache? Everyone gets a toothache, so surely the lawyer has an opinion on toothaches.

Some of those men where even devout Christians. I guess their opinions dont matter either.

Who is more devout that St. John Chrysostom? Thomas Jefferson?

These men knew a tremendous amount more than you in regards to Christianity.

This is not about me. Better argument please. What qualifies Gandhi to comment on St. Paul? His research on history?

Maybe you should search a bit in yourself about your sense of pride in your perceived knowledge.

Still no argument. What makes these men AUTHORITY over the existent, continuing, ancient Christian Church and records of her early fathers.

 

[JesuSlavex]

Wow. I think you pretty much just proved my point in spades.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Argumentum ad infinitum...

 

[peaceful soul]

Wow. I think you pretty much just proved my point in spades.

You don't have a point other than saying that Christianity came from pagan concepts that were intentionally placed into it and created a new religion. You haven't shown causality, a necessary ingredient to support your claim. I will take the time to break down your initial post and show you that some of your assumptions are erroneous.

 

[JesuSlavex]

Argumentum ad infinitum...

Agreed.

You don't have a point other than saying that Christianity came from pagan concepts that were intentionally placed into it and created a new religion. You haven't shown causality, a necessary ingredient to support your claim. I will take the time to break down your initial post and show you that some of your assumptions are erroneous.

Well not exactly.

I'm saying that pagan concepts were allowed to be integrated into early Christianity in an effort to allow for easier conversion for the Gentiles.

The whole Paul thing is a different point entirely.

Also, my point about God Jeslousy was never addressed

"Your saying that the Bible says that jealousy is a bad thing. Arent you supposed to be Christ like? If God truly viewed jealousy as a bad thing in men then he himself is guilty of it. God is Christ, your trying to be something that God condemns yet asks you to be just as like him as possible?"