Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BCP1928]

You're right. I dislike Calvin and have a regrettable tendency to blame him for everything I see as wrong with Christianity today.

 

[Kylie]

No one at the university level will agree with you, Kylie.

No one at the university level thinks a person who makes a claim must support that claim?

Do universities not teach the burden of proof?

Besides, you're always complaining that you want Christians to leave you alone, yet here you are............on CF of all things for over a decade. I'd call that dedication.

Please show me once instance where I have told someone to leave me along because they were Christian.

 

[Kylie]

From AI Overview:

According to most perspectives, it is highly unlikely that someone would willingly die for something they knew to be a lie; the very concept of "knowing it's a lie" implies a conscious understanding that it is false, making it improbable to sacrifice one's life for it; however, people might die defending beliefs they strongly hold, even if those beliefs are based on misinformation or propaganda, as they may genuinely believe them to be true.

Yes, and I agree with that.

Again, I ask you, what point were you trying to make in post 2426?

 

[Kylie]

Negative.

Jesus performed miracles in front of His followers at will.

Mohammad?

No.

Look at you changing the subject.

We were talking about people willing to die for their beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

Dlamberth.

On paper.

What's your point?

My point is that your claim is much less impressive.

Or are you impressed with simply MAKING a claim? In that case, I can make some claims that will leave your jaw on the floor.

 

[Kylie]

No clear reason? Even if it's historically of secondary nature, there is reason enough to think many early disciples of Jesus understood the essentials of "what it all meant theologically," BCP.

Let's not undersell what more than likely can be reasonably surmised.

Given that Biblical scholars will tell you that the only thing they can say for certain about Jesus is that he was baptised and later crucified, you can't even surmise that he had any followers at all.

Now, if you want to say that you take it on faith, go right ahead, but you'll have to admit that you have no evidence in order to do that.

 

[Kylie]

They who?

Matthew writes [A], claiming to be an eyewitness.
Matthew is told to recant of [A], under penalty of death.
Matthew refuses to recant, and he dies for it.

This isn't rocket science here.

That's assuming that Matthew actually wrote A, that he was being truthful when he said he was told to recant A, and that he was actually killed for not recanting.

What if he was killed for something else, and he simply stated that he was being killed for A? What if it wasn't written by Matthew at all? The scholarly consensus is that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an anonymous Jew sometime around 80-90AD. Can you tell me what part of the Gospel of Matthew states that it was written by Matthew?

 

[Kylie]

You misunderstand my point, which is explaining the origins. Islam's origins are easily explainable because Muhammad was a highly successful military leader that "converted" people at the tip of the sword.

That does not change the fact that there are many Muslims willing to die for their beliefs.

If Christians believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Christianity is real, then Muslims believing their faith so deeply that they will die for that faith is evidence that Islam is real,

You're just missing the actual point of what I've said, which is not simply that followers were willing to die but that the rise of the belief requires explanation.

And when it comes to Islam, that explanation is through the threat of violence?

Have you looked at Christian history? Do you think Christianity never had that kind of violence?

Nah, more like yours since you completely misunderstand the point by bringing up an irrelevant detail.

And what irrelevant point was that?

 

[AV1611VET]

The scholarly consensus ...

Yup ... here we go.

The scholarly consensus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No one at the university level thinks a person who makes a claim must support that claim?

Of course they do, and you're game playing shows us that you're not from a university.

Do universities not teach the burden of proof?

Not lately, they haven't. But they have been teaching folks how to troll others and get away with it.

Please show me once instance where I have told someone to leave me along because they were Christian.

I can't be where you are to conduct a study to see how many Christians you tell off in your life.

I can only go by what I see here on CF, for over a decade.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Given that Biblical scholars will tell you that the only thing they can say for certain about Jesus is that he was baptised and later crucified, you can't even surmise that he had any followers at all.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Which SPECIFIC Bible scholars have you been listening to lately, Kylie? Care to cite and quote a few since------------oh, by golly!--------------you insinuate that you just know so very, very much about the topic of justified true belief and historical warrant.

Now, if you want to say that you take it on faith, go right ahead, but you'll have to admit that you have no evidence in order to do that.

Your inferred conflation between evidence and proof is annoying. Have you ever studied Historiography? Or the Philosophy of History? Or the Historian's Craft?

Apparently not. If you had, you'd be able to cite some sources. But since you seem to rarely do so, I'm going to suppose you're merely a neophyte learner whose just trying to find her way through the maze and cobwebs of academia.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're right. I dislike Calvin and have a regrettable tendency to blame him for everything I see as wrong with Christianity today.

I'm surprised, though, that you somehow thought I was "into" Calvin.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm surprised, though, that you somehow thought I was "into" Calvin.

His malevolent influence is everywhere. Luther was just nuts. Calvin was evil.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

His malevolent influence is everywhere. Luther was just nuts. Calvin was evil.

Maybe, but there's been worse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's not oversell it, either. Christians have been unpacking the significance of the resurrection since it happened. They likely understood some basic issues, but it took Paul's theological training to put together some more of the nitty gritty.

I agree. We want a fair historical appraisal rather than only a thinly discerning one where hypothesizing about the history of the 1st century is the focus.

We don't want to slide into thinking that Paul essentially "invented" Christianity, nor do we want to think that all of the other disciples and apostles were somehow completely bereft of any ability to discern aspects of theology that the Lord would want any of us to realize, despite Peter's multiple missteps along the way.

 

[BCP1928]

Maybe, but there's been worse.

Sidenote: after watching Bishop Budde on TV last night you should have some idea Anglicans are not considered "real" Christians by Trump's Christian fanbase.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe, but there's been worse.

According to The Trail of Blood, by J.M. Carroll, John Calvin, Charles Wesley, and Martin Luther persecuted the Anabaptists with a vengeance.

John Calvin's breakaway religion was Presbyterianism.

Charles Wesley's breakaway religion was Methodism.

Martin Luther's breakaway religion was Lutheranism.

And although they broke from the Catholic denomination, they held to the doctrines of Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration.

As a result, the Anabaptists paid dearly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sidenote: after watching Bishop Budde on TV last night you should have some idea Anglicans are not considered "real" Christians by Trump's Christian fanbase.

Personally, I leave it to Jesus and the early Church (i.e. 1st century) to define for us what a "real Christian" is rather than to either modern day American Democrats or Republicans.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

According to The Trail of Blood, by J.M. Carroll, John Calvin, Charles Wesley, and Martin Luther persecuted the Anabaptists with a vengeance.

John Calvin's breakaway religion was Presbyterianism.

Charles Wesley's breakaway religion was Methodism.

Martin Luther's breakaway religion was Lutheranism.

And although they broke from the Catholic denomination, they held to the doctrines of Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration.

As a result, the Anabaptists paid dearly.

I already know all of that, AV. Remember, I literally have been studying the outcropping of various church disagreements and "splits" in history for about 30 years now.

But thanks for reinforcing what I already know.

 

[BCP1928]

Personally, I leave it to Jesus and the early Church to define for us what a "real Christian" is rather than to either modern day American Democrats or Republicans.

What a coincidence that we are here discussing what Jesus and the early Church thought about it. The point we are at now seems to be that unless I Corinthians 15 uniquely proves the original Apostolic belief in Penal Substitutionary Atonement it is a lie.