Abra;

While I stand in vast contrast to your perception of Jesus and who He was/is as portrayed in scripture, I am often in full agreement with you over what has become of "Modern Christianity" as it were. We have walked down the same road in two different directions - but I believe we've seen the same sites and characters along our journeys. My spiritual progression began with Catholicism - through no choice of my own - no one who's Irish in boston has much say in this matter. By the time I'd reached High school - I considered myself an Atheist. The "sign of the times" introduced me to new and interesting religious experiences though - as it was the late 60's, early 70's when an explosion of new spiritual thoughts made their way into this country. Buddism, Hinduism, New Age, Spiritualism, - even Scientology and EST were permiating through the youth. With this new "religious awakening" came a new reformation of sorts with Christianitry. The term "Jesus freaks" was born. With this new reformation, a new word entered our vocabulary. Cults. They were springing up like weeds - and were everywhere. Each professing their own idea of what "True Christianity" was all about. However, they were manipulative, and exploitive. If anything, they greatly confused the gospel message, and gave a whole new meaning to legalism and conformity. I became quite familiar with the manipulative practices of some of the countries more dangerous religious Cults - and their unique method of interpreting scripture to support their arguments. It is my major pet peave about what has occured through this type of interpretive understanding, and although, as a society we are more aware of the existance of these Cults, far too many people are not familiar with the method's by which they approach exegesis. It is a cleaver twist of logic built on semi-acceptable premises, assumed to be facts - or givens. Unfortunately - I often see far too many posts on these threads that attribute this type of interpretation as representative of "Christianity", and it saddens me, for what gets lost in all of this is the very real, and very sincere lives that those who walked with Jesus experienced, and witnessed. The church of Acts is no where to be found these days - because the members are scattered to the four winds, lost in the rules and regulations established by individuals who have deemed them selves "holier" than others because they've succeeded in winning popularity contests. Whether it be from the Vatican in Rome - to a pulpet in Texas, they argue and bicker over the most minute trivial minor ideas in scripture and use it to kepp from uniting the church. These are not Christians as I percieve the disciples of Jesus to have been. Calling oneself a Methodist, or Catholic, or Episcapalian does not equate to being a Christian. One is not what they call themselves - one is what one does. To be a Christian - one must walk as Jesus did. So it's not about becoming a Christian to escape eternal damnation. There's no guarentee of that. One does not go to college and get a degree in Chemistry and say "I'm a chemist". They are a chemist when they do what a chemist does. Until that point, they are only academically aware of what a chemist is. Everyday in my business I hear people tell me they are "Actors". When I ask them what show they are doing - they say "Well I'm not in a show right now". Most have never been in a show. Took a few classes, thinking now they are actors. They're not.

So - my point. Correct exegesis is key in determining the truth of biblical claims - as it is in any scientific claim. You know - probably better than most that a Mathematician does not establish a theorum and quit when he's found a simple solution. He exhausts the possibilities of attempting to not only prove his theory - but to disprove it as well. When all possibilities have been examined and he is left with only one conclusion - he has established the truth of his efforts. He doesn't disreguard the idea's that disprove it because he doesn't like them. Biblical exegesis - when done correctly, is not much different than that. Granted, interpretation can suffer under the strain of subjectivity - but when interpretation relies on subjectivity only, than we get the scriptural interpretation that both you and I abhor - reguardless of how valid we think it is. To this end - I applaud Michael in his search, and his reasonable threads, but he lacks proper exegesis. His approach to establishing facts is cultish in it's derivation. This is my only objection to his posts. I do not object in what he believes, however I also do not agree with the methods by which he has established his "proofs" - nor his claims of "accepted truths". It has nothing at all to do with what is percieved as "mainstream christian interpretation of scripture" that is constantly objected to on these threads. Christianity is not about majoring in the minors - but about walking in the light, and what that means to those who's goal it is to live that way.

With all due respect Eljay, I don’t see how you can say that when the climax of Christianity is Jesus Christ hanging on a cross for the sole purpose of offering salvation to men so that they may be ‘saved’ from eternal damnation.



I can certainly understand and appreciate your own personal view of Christianity. And to that end I will grant you that there are many individual well-meaning Christians. The idea that all Christians are on the wrong path is certainly not what I mean to convey.

When I speak about Christianity I think in terms of humanity as a whole and the affect that the religion, as a whole, appears to have on the bulk of the public in general. In my mind it has a negative affect. And I’ll list them here for clarity.


1. It causes people to think egocentrically

I say this precisely because of the salvation aspect of it. As I say, this is without any doubt the focal point of the religion for the masses. The very symbol of Christianity is the symbol of Jesus hanging on the cross having paid for the personal sins of individuals offering personal salvation to those who believe in him.

I can’t stress this enough. This is the focus of the religion as a whole. And it is this focus that causes people to think in terms of personal salvation. Or possible the salvation of other humans.

But the religion does nothing to instill a genuine appreciation or desire to live in harmony with the non-human elements of this world. This is simply not addressed by the religion at all. A Christian can wipe out a forest of natural habitat to build a shopping mall and feel perfectly good about it. There is nothing in the religion to suggest that this is wrong. The religion is entirely human-centric.

This is a huge problem for a philosophy by which men live!

2. It causes people to believe that God has a master plan and will take care of the bigger picture.

The very idea of prayer and putting trust in God causes people to believe that somehow God is in control of the bigger picture and that we, as humans, do not need to take action to protect nature. In fact, many people of this faith even believe that it is wrong for us to try to take things like this into our own hands.

I realize that you personally may not believe this, and there may be many individuals who do not believe this way, but my only point is that as a religion overall, Christianity does not instill in people a need to be responsible for their environment. On the contrary, the religion as a whole instills in people’s minds that God is in control and they should have faith that God will see things through.

Trusting in God can be detrimental when it gets to the point where humans refuse to take control of their own destiny. Yet many Christians would argue that God is ultimately in control of our destiny and that prayer and faith are the solution, not human intervention!

This is a huge problem for a philosophy by which men live!

So for me Eljay, Christianity isn’t about a personal belief system. Individuals can believe in Christianity to their hearts content and I couldn’t care less, but on a larger scale the religion as a whole does not instill good morals IMHO.

And by that I mean that people who believe they are being upstanding “Christians” can do really terrible things without even realizing it!!!

Take designers who work for companies, for example. They design things that are disposable, and that purposefully become obsolete and are not repairable for the soul purpose of keeping the market going and forcing the customers to come back to buy new products. There are many Christian engineers and technologists who do this sort of thing everyday! And my point is that there is nothing in Christianity that suggests to these people that they are doing anything wrong.

In other words, the religion simply doesn’t address the concerns of today’s world. It’s focused almost entirely on sins of the flesh and personal salvation. It’s not focused on humanity as a whole or how we interact with the rest of the planet.

In short, Eljay, it’s a completely out-dated philosophy, and if an intervening God is truly all-wise and all-knowing he’d realize this and come back here and set humanity straight!

The bottom line Eljay is that most of the problems the world is facing today aren’t even considered to be sins according to Christianity. Do you think that the world’s problems are caused by Joe blow cheating on his wife???? Or that the worst thing that is facing humanity today is the fact that every once in a while someone goes berserk and runs out with a gun to murder a classroom full of kids or a McDonalds full of people eating overly fat foods????

In truth, McDonalds is probably killing more people annually with their overly-fat foods than anyone could possible shoot with a gun.

The bottom line is that Christianity as a philosophy for life just isn’t cutting it today.

It’s not about what people personally believe. I’m saying that as a philosophy for life Christianity has failed us and simply doesn’t have the moral integrity for today’s world. Instead of guiding us in the correct direction it’s actually deterring us in the wrong direction.

Any you may well be right, many people may have a really warped idea of what Christianity is supposed to be about. But when they preach ignorance over intellectual inquire and they preach a hands-off approach to life rather than humans taking control of our own destiny because God knows better than we do that’s just plain sick, and irresponsible.

These are the concepts that make the religion detrimental to humanity as a whole.

Eljay:

I had begun to write an extensive and detailed response to you, specifically citing your most recent and past unsubstantiated claims about me in an effort to clarify your misconstruction(s) of my person.

I realized midway through that it mattered not.

Allow me to point out something specific here Eljay.

Your claims concerning the extent of my biblical studies are based on nothing short of your opinion.

I have spoken of that which has been necessary as it has become necessary.

How can one claim that my studies are incomplete and my conclusions without substantial support without knowing what I have studied or all I have accepted as valid?

Do you actually believe that I have written a complete listing of these things?

I sit and shake my head in disappointment.


EDIT:

Tell me how one can logically use the contents within a book as a valid means of establishing the authenticity of what is in the book?

An author says that he is truthful = he is truthful?

C'mon Eljay... and you have the audacity to question the extent of my research?

This is a common argument that is given by all believers. If a person doesn’t believe the bible then they are going about it all wrong. Or those who don’t believe have no business reading it in the first place, and so on.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s entirely irrelevant whether the Bible is true or false.

If it’s false, mankind has been filled with a bunch of bogus ideas.

If it’s true, then God is a pretty pathetic deity.

Either way it’s a total disaster.

Eljay


What you grew up surrounded by 'Roman Catholics' is 1000 years removed from its origin. What I was speaking of IS the origin.

What you suggest, "expand your research into the authority of the historical Christian doctrine, beyond that" is truely to accept 'revisionism'. This alone suggests that it took over 1500 years for people to 'get it right',and that only those Christians today, have done so.

You who argue, that we can not rely on anchient history because it is hearsay, argue that the 'revisions' in Christian doctrine are more clear today, than they were 35 years after the crusifiction. This is not logical, but that is in affect what many are trying to say; belief can not be substantiated 'logically', and obviously per your quote even anchient history can not ever be proof enough to uphold a religious belief system.

Redykeulous,

The point that Eljay is making is that Catholocism of 326 AD wasn't like Christianity from 100 AD. We know that form historical documents. We can also see the evolution of Catholocism. The worship of Mary for instance. She wasn't held in such high regard anywhere in the Bible. The names she is called by Catholocism ("Queen of Heaven" for instance) were names that applied to Isis. Catholocism is Christianity that has been watered down to make it acceptable to Roman pagans. Eljay is too tactful to say that, but that's why I'm here. Romans believed in the "unknown" god, so Constantine found "Christians" who were willing to incorporate pagan beliefs into Chrisitanity. Christmas is on a pagan holiday. Easter is named after "Eastre" a pagan goddess. The belief that communion brings forgivness of sins was taken from Mithraism. The "saints" are a list of minor dieties who can petition God for favors. It's a small leap from worshipping aphrodite, asking to find the love of your life to asking St Valentine find the love of your life and trusting him to pray for you.

Check out the list of Catholic saints, it's huge and covers just about every human activity: http://www.scborromeo.org/patron_s.htm

If you want to know what early Christianity was like, read Pauls letters and Acts. Also notice that all Christians who didn't agree with Catholocism were declared Heretics and hunted with the full force of the Roman empire. It was through this bloody method that Catholocism reigned for 1200 years. It is revisionist history to claim that Peter was the first Pope, when Peter worshipped nothing like Catholics did.

Abra;

I am just starting through the responses - but it begins with this:



True, but this is not something you can go on ebay and purchase, it's just not that simple. It involves a change. Best summed up by the Golden rule - "love your neighbor as yourself". This is not a concept to be approached when only confronted by another - it is a lifestyle change. Putting others before oneself. As I look around, I do not see the world living by this standard. So to envision it as egocentric is to miss the point of lifestyle change and move right on to buying it on ebay. It is on this central point that we disagree.

Rather than repost all that you wrote - I'll just reference this.

On your references here - we totally agree. It is also an objection of mine that this perception of Christianity exists.
But this interpretation as a base argument for - or against Christianity is a matter of interpretation. I do not know why people think that God has a "plan" for people, and will move mountains in their life to fullfill their desires. It's not about God fullfilling people's desires, but about people fullfilling God's. His desire is for us to live perfect lives.
Always making the right choice, seeking his guidance for wisdom and understanding when the choice is not clear.

These days the Joel Olsteens, T.K. Jakes, Price, Prophet, Benni Hinn, and the many other health and wealth preachers of "christianity" are bringing people into their folds in droves with this idea that "ask and though shall recieve". They translate this into "you'll get anything you want - just ask God for it with sincerity. Though these concepts are found in the bible, is that really the conclusion through exegesis?
Hardly. Common sense should rule here and exhibit clearly that it just isn't the case. I'm not going to hit the lottery through fervent prayer. But - isn't your objection (or I should say our objection) over how the scriptures are being interpreted, rather than because they were written? Does the problem lie with man - or God?

I do not question the extent of your research, just the conclusion's which you post - which are contradicted by holding them up to the scriptures themselves.

You say that you believe in Jesus, but you contradict yourself by saying that the very 12 he chose were unreliable, self serving, and forwarding an agenda inconsistant with His. If one examines the scriptures to conclude what kind of character Jesus was - it begins with who Jesus claimed he was (what he said about himself), what others thought of him (their perceptions based upon their witness - or in the case of Luke, the witness of others), and the testimony of how others viewed him (those in authority, his enemies, etc) Having done that, is it logical to now conclude that He was incapable of choosing trustworthy, dedicated, loyal followers? That despite walking with him for three years that they couldn't manage to get the story straight? Or that over time, that message would get convoluted and changed so many times that it no longer represented his mission? If so - where is the exegesis that supports that! You're references are people who are writting 2 thousand years after the events - based upon the conclusions they've drawn using an exegesis you know nothing of. That is putting the cart before the horse. Choosing to believe a concept derived, and subsequently supported by evidence which supports it. All of your posts have demonstrated this - and you call it "extended research". I call it "cultic". I've seen it used over and over through the years in an attempt to establish truths with no foundation.

So - if the Jesus you believe in is inconsistant with the writers of the gospel because of their unreliability - who is this Jesus you believe in? Where did he come from?

Redy;

Yes, this is true - however your post, though rallying to the defense of C.S. (or was it rabbit - I forget now), and an excellant one by the way, is not reflective of how he was establishing his premise. And the mere fact that Catholicism waffles so much in what they deem as "church truths" that what comes into question is the reliability of that history on the whole as a representation of historical Christianity.

Did anyone in the book of acts "pray TO the saints?" or for that matter, where is the list of qualifications in the bible to determine if - and when - someone is deemed "a Saint". Where is the passage forbidding priests to marry? I could go on, but it's not about "Catholicism", it's about "the church". The church that Jesus began on that day when he made Peter the rock of it, does not have a name, does not reside in a building, and did not have a heirarchy. Any so called "religion" today that has any of these things - is not that church. Though members of that church may be found in buildings with names and heirarchies, all over the world.

I'm not sure why it is that peole - when they look for atributes of "Christian churches", google Catholicism, and not the book of Acts. That is where the historical truths of the church will be found.

It's not about believe it, it is about the proper way to go about stating claims about it. One does not have to believe in a biblical concept to understand it. But if one does not understand it - they're never going to believe it.

Eljay and spider:


You have both made claims about my presentation(s) and why you feel that it has been improper in some way, while standing without support of your claim that mine has none. Neither of you have effectively laid out a logical counter to my claim of Christianity being based on hearsay. It remains a strong argument. If you feel as though this stance is in error after reading this post in it's entirety...Please show me how.

Your arguments of using the scripture as a historical account of the scripture are weak and completely illogical, at best, and I will show you why throughout this post. I hope you both pay close attention, because I have already done this once.

Layed out below are some key issues which have been given a numeric value for the purpose of a quick reference. I feel this response may be lengthy, as a result of my continual past disregard concerning both of your ignorant assumptions concerning my claim(s) of late. Assumptions and opinions which have side-stepped the evidence I presented on the issue of hearsay and have yet to refute it.

How can either of you logically hold an opinion that my explanation(s) are not thorough enough while being unable to refute the claim? I have not needed to be any more thorough.

In short, I have ignored your irrelevant and assumptive statements long enough. You asked, and now you shall receive...





1.) You have both denounced the authority of the Catholic church over the canon. This alone is removes the support from your own argument, and I will show how later throughout this post.

2.) Eljay, you have stated that my claim is improperly supported because my exegesis is not explained thoroughly enough for your taste. It has been as thorough as it needs to be. I used the ONLY source Eljay, the same one which chose the scripture(s) you have claimed I should look to.

That is one problem with your claim. It says that it is acceptable to use material deemed of value by an organization... on one hand... for your support. However for the support of my claim, the same source is not reliable enough for you?


3.) Another problem is the logical value, or lack thereof, in your case by relying on the text alone. Allow me to point it out again. One cannot use an author's testimony that he is truthful to verify his writing as truthful. That leaves you with internal references and external references... At this point Eljay, as a result of the only external support being claimed by those who you have already dismissed as unreliable, the validity of the text is severely compromised.

4.) I sit and read responses from both of you concerning the 'history' of Christianity, and honestly wonder. You both have produced evidence which is intended to support the ligitimacy of your claim by citing scripture(s). While you both also denounce the authority of those who picked that scripture to be included, leaving your entire argument supported by scripture alone, namely by the acts of the apostles? Do you realize that the stance requires the use of historical sources that you have denounced?


I suggest you change your stance in some way.

Is that clear enough?

The Catholic Church didn't decide which books to include in the NT until almost 400 AD. A letter from one church leader to another from around 350 AD included the exact list of books that the Catholic Chruch accepted nearly 50 years later. From history, we know that the NT was accepted in it's current form (except for a handful of books) by most Christians before Nicea. The Catholic Church didn't decide which books would be in the Bible, the decision was already made before the Catholic Church ratified the list in the 390s.



As a belief, I can. I can choose to believe whatever I want to believe. But I can also compare the writing of that author against the Old Testament. I can compare it to other books of the NT that I feel conform to the OT. With any belief, the holder of that belief is the judge of what is the truth. I might be wrong, but regardless you have no say in the process.

And before you mention the Apocrypha, I should point out that the Apocrypha was not added to the NT until after Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church. The Apocrypha were added to support certain Catholic beliefs that were unsupport or contradictory to the canonized Bible.

spider says:

" From history, we know that the NT was accepted in it's current form (except for a handful of books) by most Christians before Nicea."

>>>>>>> From WHAT source? <<<<<<<

170 AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment

http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Canonization.html

Since my first name is matthew, I can only assume that the biblical version of my name was just like me. Therefore when Luke and mark were putting together the different books of the bible into one volume, they noticed that Matthew's was missing. So they goto his apartment,er, hut and asked if he had his version of the book yet. Now Matthew, who was distracted by World of Warcraft at the time, looked at them and smiled and said "opps, forgot! My blood elf is 2 levels higher than he was yesterday!" Now Luke got mad and pulled out a light saber and sliced the computer in half" "Wheres your blood elf now!?" he screamed. Then Matthew got mad and grabbed a wooden chair and busted it over Luke's head. Then Mark jumped in between the two and told them to stop being dumbasses. He told luke that light sabers arn't invented yet so put it away before anyone notices, and told Matthew that he can copy his book, but throw in some odd details so it dosn't look like he copied.

This is quite humourous spider. You have cited for your foundation an incomplete document with an anonymous author?

... no beginning... and no end... no author = fact?

Pure conjecture...

Nice try spider, but there is good reason that is has been in question since it's 'discovery'.

All this talk about the accuracy of the bible is giving me a ragein headache....remember that it is 98 1/2% accurate.....I would like anyone to show me any reference or science books that can claim that.....again comes down to Bible is not a theory....and it's backed geographically, scientifically and mathematically, and any other way that you might dispute it....

Two sources. Old documents tend to be found in fragments. The gostic gosples, which you have swallowed whole, for instance.

Your suggestion is somewhat rediculous. A historian creates a flawed document in the 1700s, which includes 21 of the 27 accepted books of the Bible...for what purpose? What was his motive? The only debate that I could find is the dating of the original, which is widely assumed to have been in the late 100s. There is a small group that suggests that the MF was written in the late 300s to early 400s, but they are very small for a good reason. MF speaks of the Shepard of Hermas and states that it had recently be written. Shepard of Hermas was written around 150 AD, so saying that 200+ years later the author of MF said "recently" is a huge strech. Sorry man, next time just say "I won't accept any proof", at least that is honest.