can you proove there isn't a deity?

[outhouse]

I get the distinct impression you lack sincerity and any knowledge base for your claims. Combined with juvenile taunts and not even the attempt at justifying your hyperbolic assertions and I can no longer justify this discussion at this time. Have a good one.

I provided sources to back my claims.

You provided nothing to back your claim of luke. :slap:

 

[1robin]

The greatest atrocities or evils of man are those that have been done in the name of religion. A few good deeds does not make up for a thousand years of evil in the name of religion

Stalin is the worst (or at least most lethal) dictator in history. He ruled in the belief that religion must be eradicated. Hitler is probably the most lethal ruler in human history. He attempted to wipe out entire cultures based on justifications that HE claimed were provided by evolution and Neitche's claims about the Uberman (who's book BTW he personally presented to Stalin and Mussolini).

In fact taking just Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. I would bet they killed more people in the last century or so than all the people killed by Christians in their entire 2000 year history even if you included the conquests and the Crusades(which were about gold not God), witch trials, inquisitions and every other diabolical evil we have done.

I just recently listed the top ten worst genocides and the worst genocidal maniacs in history. Not one was Christian inspired. Though Elizabeth's reign came close. In the history of maniacal and gratuitous violence the Christians are lightweights. Though I will admit there was far too much of it in a faith that claims to be the truth. If you want a body count competition you will lose.

Also, and this is very important. Acts done in disobedience to a teachers lessons and example are the worst possible group to judge a teacher by. I will have even included these in my comparisons above. However in truth only those that follow the lessons, practice what is taught, and follow the example are eligible to use to evaluate a teacher or a lesson. There is not a single verse in the NT that can be used for violence of any kind. Even the OT verse only applied to limited and specific battles. Unlike Islam not a single generalized and open ended command to violence is contained in the Bible even though it is about 7 times larger.

Stalin was acting consistently with atheistic communist utopia theory. Edward the lion-heart was following not a single bible verse you can find at all when he murdered Muslims. Not to mention that evolution is can easily justify racism and what is probably the largest genocide in history - abortion.

 

[1robin]

I provided sources to back my claims.

You provided nothing to back your claim of luke. :slap:

I provided at least 3 sources for every one your supplied. However I did not think Luke's role as companion of Paul and physician would have been even questioned by anyone who actually has studied the bible. It is not a controversial claim at all (even in German redactionist camps). Are you denying his relationship to Paul?

 

[outhouse]

. Are you denying his relationship to Paul?

No

Only his name being used for gospel authorship.


If he was a eye witnesses, why did he have to copy Mark verbatim?


Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke's being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

I believe in the Christianity found in the bible. It has nothing to do with Rome and was completely in contradiction to Gnosticism. The worst you could say is it was written with a Hellenistic style. I deny Rome had any mandate or ability to interpret anything as a group. I think Roman Catholicism had more negative impact on Christianity than any other force.

However none of this is the issue. If the Bible says anything, it makes it very clear humans are extremely fallible and that out of our hearts and minds constant evil comes. We are to rely completely on God's word not our own. Gnosticisms very core tenant is a reliance on the knowledge of men. It is the same as all false religions. It is man's attempts to reach God through special (but man produced) knowledge, reflection on ones self (this is in effect to reflect on the problem instead of the solution), secret traditions, works, or effort. They are all man's attempt to reach God who is an infinite distance away and men have no way to cross the divide. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man, only he can cross an infinite divide because only he is infinite.

If I was to make a theological message that was the opposite in its core claims to the Gospels but still wanted to include Christ to achieve credibility by association, I would have created something very close to the GOT. Gnostics many times claimed to be associated with all manner of accepted religions yet coughed up messages completely contradictory to them.

The thing is mainstream christianity is based on what Catholics taught, Gnostics were originally the competeing sect, but was condemned and destroyed.
Why wouldn't there be Hellenic influences, many Bible books are written in Greek.

The Romans took on one groups interpretation of Christs message and made it the standard. All mainsteam Christianity follows the same essential theology based on Hebrew interpretations. The Greeks, and the Egyptians also had their own interpretations.

When the Romans established a church they started useing beleif systems to alter political outcomes, then Protestant cut out the catholic church but based theology on Catholic religion. An evolution of a Religion.

On that note, since Protestants reject church authority, they have no reason to follow catholic ideas, one can use your soul to interpret the new testament.

Each of the original Christian traditions claim that Christ bestowed authority on them.
Catholics believe Peter was to carry on his work
Mary followers claim Mary Magdalen was to carry on his work.
Johnin followers beleive apostle John is Christs successor.
Gnostic texts mention James the just(Jesus brother) to be who Christians look to after he has returned from whence he came.

All modern Christianity is based on Peters interpretation of Christianity.
So John must have been a heratic, Since he had a different view than Peter.

 

[1robin]

No

Only his name being used for gospel authorship.


If he was a eye witnesses, why did he have to copy Mark verbatim?


Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke's being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown.

You for some reason said that because Luke recorded Paul's experience on the road to Damascus in Acts that somehow this meant the claim was invalid. I explained that not only did Luke candidly state up front his Gospel and writings come from eyewitnesses and was carefully checked and verified but that he had not witnessed the events, but that he was in the exact best position to know of Paul's meeting with Christ. Paul also knew what Luke was recording in most cases and would have objected if inaccurate.

Now I think you have claimed that Luke is not a reliable author for Acts all together. I have already supplied much evidence concerning authorship and what is actually unreliable. I get the impression you think Wikipedia is a counter for the 100 NT scholars that worked on the living bible. Let me add more then.

Luke has long been declared the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. Some scholars have opposed this traditional view of the Book of Acts, but there is strong evidence to support Luke's authorship of the Book of Acts. Carson and Moo point out that the author was well educated because of the advanced use of literary Greek, and he was not an original apostle or disciple of Christ, as can be seen in his statements about certain things being handed down to him by eyewitnesses (An Introduction to the New Testament, 290). Although the author was not someone who was an original disciple of Christ, he does appear to be a participant in some events he conveys by use of the words "we" and "us" throughout the narratives. The author is also knowledgeable of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament and has a deep understanding of political and social conditions of the First Century.
All of these things characterize the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. These are also things that could describe Luke. Paul, in Colossians 4:14, notes that Luke was a physician by trade. This would explain his understanding of the intricacies of the Greek language and literary style as well as his understanding of political and societal issues of his time. The fact that the author of the Book of Acts is someone who was a companion of Paul, who's ministry takes up a large portion of the book, is quite self-explanatory from the use of the personal pronouns in many cases. Luke is noted as Paul's companion by Paul himself, along with some of the others. Carson and Moo also point out that the author of Acts could not have been one of the individuals mentioned during Paul's first and third missionary journeys (290-291).

This helps narrow the list of potential candidates and points to Luke as the author of the Book of Acts, although it is not definitive, and we may never have enough evidence to determine the author without reservation, but Luke is the best choice. The "we" passages in the Book of Acts are essential to narrowing down the list of potential authors, and I don't believe that it would even be remotely possible to have any idea as to the identity of the author without those passages. That being said, the "we" passages help tremendously, but do not determine with absolute certainty who wrote the Book of Acts.

There are certain instances throughout the Book of Acts, where the author reveals information that is very personal and would be considered privileged information. Information such as the passage in Acts 23:25-30, where the author documents a letter written for the Centurions to take with them when they delivered Paul to Felix. There is no definitive answer to instances such as these as to how the author had access to this information, but it is definitely possible that he could have had the information relayed to him by one who had written the letter or one of the centurions who delivered the message, or even the individual who received the letter. With his standing in Greek society as a physician, any of those things could be possible. Another possibility that trumps all other ideas is that it could have been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit. Many times the Holy Spirit spoke to the writers of the Bible and conveyed "privileged" information to them that otherwise, they would not have known. This could definitely explain how the author had access to this information. Overall, in light of the biblical and historical evidence available, Luke appears to be the most likely person to have written both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts.
https://www.google.com/#q=evidence+that+luke+is+the+author+of+acts

That is just one of hundreds of scholarly and candid appraisals of Luke's authorship of Acts.

Here is another:
The Authorship of Luke's Gospel (St Luke)

They give what is the best possible conclusion and most consistent with the evidence. It is not a certain fact that Luke wrote acts but far more evidence suggests he did than suggests anyone else did. This is true of almost all ancient documents and is actually better than most.


Now then. If you can remain civil and on topic I have no problem having a discussion with you, even if I know you are wrong I would do so. However I cannot take constant taunts, and juvenile cracks, and insinuations of things you are far more guilty of. If you can stick to the evidence and the best conclusions from it instead of personal commentary then rock on. However I am out of time for now.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

The core belief of Gnosticism is that one can only come to understand the teachings of Jesus through meditation and deep prayer on God. Asking the Father to grant gnosis(revelation of Gods true nature) unto the being.

 

[outhouse]

The Authorship of Luke's Gospel (St Luke)

.

Not a credible source.

he is no historian, he is a pastor.

Luke has long been declared the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts

The authors of Luke and Acts were probably the same unknown person.

Again, what part of the "majorty view" is it, that you dont comprehend?

 

[1robin]

The thing is mainstream christianity is based on what Catholics taught, Gnostics were originally the competeing sect, but was condemned and destroyed.
Why wouldn't there be Hellenic influences, many Bible books are written in Greek.

Every single core Christian doctrine pre-dates Rome's acceptance of it. I used a living translation and a new American standard to arrive at my doctrinal beliefs. Both are attempts to go straight from the oldest sources known to modern English and skip everything in between. I know of none but can grant the possibility that Rome's bishops settled some secondary issues at times but these are not the core tenants of Christianity. They come from Paul, Luke, Christ, Mathew, Mark, and John.

Not only did I mentioned Hellenization I did so first. Why ask me about it after I did so. It was a literarily style not a doctrinal mandate. It determines what words mean not what the occurred or what Christ did. It was a style of expression not a belief system. Actually it was simply Greece's influence over language and custom through the mercantile class. Not really important.

The Romans took on one groups interpretation of Christs message and made it the standard. All mainsteam Christianity follows the same essential theology based on Hebrew interpretations. The Greeks, and the Egyptians also had their own interpretations.

I do not agree, at least formally. It would not matter anyway because I was not aware of a single Roman determination when I formed my understandings. Every single Christian I know got their beliefs from the Gospel writers not Constantine. Rome settled silly and secondary issues like what was Christ made of, what does the trinity mean, what does transubstantiation mean. Not one of those has anything to do with salvation or being a Christian and no one I know of knows what they decided besides me and the scholars I use. Protestantism went through many periods of straining out any hint of roman influence anyway and even the Catholic church has done so for quite some time. I agree that we follow Hebrew interpretations but what is more appropriate than that.

When the Romans established a church they started using belief systems to alter political outcomes, then Protestant cut out the catholic church but based theology on Catholic religion. An evolution of a Religion.

I agree the Roman's used the bible for political ends. I do not agree Protestantism used Catholicism as a foundation. It was an utter rejection of anything Catholics added to the Bible even as far back as Luther. That is why they tried him. Not for challenging the church which he had always done but for teaching what they did not agree with. The entire diet was a doctrinal debate.

I am out of time. This was interesting. Try to pick back up tomorrow.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Yeah that pre existing doctrine was one of many sect of early Christianity.
Christians now adays have no reason to accept it, unless they accept Catholic interpretation of Jesus Christ.

Not to get to far off subject Gnostics beleived that God was the unknowable God who bestows wisdom and love.
they believe the pagan deity God Who arrogantly
claims to be the creator(Yahweh, Allah, Zues, Mazda, etc.)
to be the work of yahdoloth(the devil)
The true God is beyond creation and is therefore unknowable.
As they worship the one True Creator, anyone who beleives in a
deity(a creation) is a gentile.

We cant physically see God, but God is all seeing.
Neither does God have a seeable form, nor eyes to provide limited perceptions.
He could not be a form, thus Jesus couldn't be talking about the god of Israel.

Just to point out one more thing. The One true God loves all beings, the god of Israel is secular and only cares about one Nation.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

God is not far away, Christ said we can know false prophets by their fruits.
God is true fulfillment, people who feel far away make themselves far away.

Mainstream Christianity is of Peters influence, while Gnosticism was influenced by John.

 

[outhouse]

Mainstream Christianity is of Peters influence, while Gnosticism was influenced by John.

Nonsense

Mainstream christianity is of influence from Jesus.

A Johannine community was not gnostic, nor did their work influence that view.

Gnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is hard to sift through what actual evidence there is regarding Gnosticism in the New Testament due to their historical synchronicity


Since pre-Christian Gnosticism, as such, is strictly hypothetical, any influence of Gnosticism upon Christianity is speculative.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

The secret Gospel of john and
the "acts of john" say otherwise.

Jesus Christ did not leave a doctrine or philosophy, he left that to his apostles.

I had a Sneaking suspicion that such a high being couldn't have spoken such ignorance
Then I find a large number of beliefs that are simply labeled herasy.
Jesus didn't make Christian herasy, the Romans did.

I doubt with how Jesus critisized gentiles, that he preached of some sort of pagan deity.
One true God means One true God, not that god from the desert those tribes worshiped.

I wish I could have spoken face to face with him but ill settle with prayer.

Gnostics say quality of interpretation is based on the spiritual realization of the being reading them.
If one meditates upon God, you will see the light, and it will reveal itself to you, that which is the beginning and the end.

Reason would dictate that any creature/creation can not be God. This is how many interpreted God.
God cnnot be a creation, since he is the cause of creation.
Thus could not be a person(ie a deity)

 

[Runewolf1973]

Stalin is the worst (or at least most lethal) dictator in history. He ruled in the belief that religion must be eradicated. Hitler is probably the most lethal ruler in human history. He attempted to wipe out entire cultures based on justifications that HE claimed were provided by evolution and Neitche's claims about the Uberman (who's book BTW he personally presented to Stalin and Mussolini).

In fact taking just Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. I would bet they killed more people in the last century or so than all the people killed by Christians in their entire 2000 year history even if you included the conquests and the Crusades(which were about gold not God), witch trials, inquisitions and every other diabolical evil we have done.

I just recently listed the top ten worst genocides and the worst genocidal maniacs in history. Not one was Christian inspired. Though Elizabeth's reign came close. In the history of maniacal and gratuitous violence the Christians are lightweights. Though I will admit there was far too much of it in a faith that claims to be the truth. If you want a body count competition you will lose.

Also, and this is very important. Acts done in disobedience to a teachers lessons and example are the worst possible group to judge a teacher by. I will have even included these in my comparisons above. However in truth only those that follow the lessons, practice what is taught, and follow the example are eligible to use to evaluate a teacher or a lesson. There is not a single verse in the NT that can be used for violence of any kind. Even the OT verse only applied to limited and specific battles. Unlike Islam not a single generalized and open ended command to violence is contained in the Bible even though it is about 7 times larger.

Stalin was acting consistently with atheistic communist utopia theory. Edward the lion-heart was following not a single bible verse you can find at all when he murdered Muslims. Not to mention that evolution is can easily justify racism and what is probably the largest genocide in history - abortion.

Wow! Those are all really good points you make. Just imagine all those bad things (acts of evil) that would have never happened in the first place if we didn't have organized religion. That's the way God would have wanted it. No religion, no fighting...we all just get along and respect nature. When you think about it, religion is really an abomination of God's original plan for us. You see my spiritual beliefs are centered around animism which is the oldest, most primitive form of spiritual belief, much older than Chistianity, Buddhism and all the others. It goes all the way back to before the time man ever left that proverbial Garden of Eden, before all recorded history and before the first written word. That is the way God (if there is or ever was a God) would have wanted us to live.


---

 

[outhouse]

The secret Gospel of john and
the "acts of john" say otherwise.

So what.

Doesnt back what you first stated.

Jesus Christ did not leave a doctrine or philosophy, he left that to his apostles

Nonsense

His apostles probably tucked tail and ran back to Galilee where they belonged.

What your talking about happened in the Diaspora by Jewsih Proselytes and Gentiles.

Then I find a large number of beliefs that are simply labeled herasy.

The first few centuries, beliefs were wide and varied, and while there was no orthodox views, there were popular views, and in some circles certain people could be labeled with herasy depending on their position.

 

[1robin]

Wow! Those are all really good points you make. Just imagine all those bad things (acts of evil) that would have never happened in the first place if we didn't have organized religion. That's the way God would have wanted it. No religion, no fighting...we all just get along and respect nature. When you think about it, religion is really an abomination of God's original plan for us. You see my spiritual beliefs are centered around animism which is the oldest, most primitive form of spiritual belief, much older than Chistianity, Buddhism and all the others. It goes all the way back to before the time man ever left that proverbial Garden of Eden, before all recorded history and before the first written word. That is the way God (if there is or ever was a God) would have wanted us to live.


---

Well that was strange. Are you attempting to suggest that the violence done against religions, is the fault of the religions for existing. If so that is an absurd argument. Religions as created out of thin air by men would be an abomination and the Bible makes that very clear. Religion as the practice of revealed truth would be the greatest possible good and it is the fault of atheistic tyrants (not faith) responsible for histories greatest genocides.

 

[1robin]

The core belief of Gnosticism is that one can only come to understand the teachings of Jesus through meditation and deep prayer on God. Asking the Father to grant gnosis(revelation of Gods true nature) unto the being.

If that were the case it would be a theological type of movement not a gnostic movement. Gnosticism is speculation concerning God derived from human agency.

Gnosticism is a heresy which is made up of a diverse set of beliefs. It is the teaching based on the idea of gnosis (a Koine Greek word meaning "secret knowledge"), or knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of internal, intuitive means. While Gnosticism thus relies on personal religious experience as its primary authority, early "Christian" Gnostics did adopt their own versions of authoritative Scriptures, such as those found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.
http://www.theopedia.com/Gnosticism

 

[1robin]

Not a credible source.

he is no historian, he is a pastor.

First you must explain why only a historian as opposed to a textual critic, NT scholar, or preacher is the only acceptable source. Then you must explain why being a preacher precludes a source from being correct. Then you need to explain how his justifications are inadmissible because he preaches. Then I will supply a textual scholar's take on what is almost a universal consensus on the authorship of acts.

The authors of Luke and Acts were probably the same unknown person.

Again, what part of the "majorty view" is it, that you dont comprehend?

I have no idea what your talking about. The majority view is in my corner. BTW Traditional authorship is always retained until a significant reason is found to deny it. That is textual criticism 101.

 

[1robin]

Yeah that pre existing doctrine was one of many sect of early Christianity.
Christians now adays have no reason to accept it, unless they accept Catholic interpretation of Jesus Christ.

The earliest churches had a consistency of doctrine and revelation because that was a primary concern of the apostles and those they trained. Those common core doctrines are far older than Roman adoption of Christianity, survived longer after Rome was a memory, have been vetted (more exhaustively than any texts in history) for 2000 years and still stand tall.

Not to get to far off subject Gnostics beleived that God was the unknowable God who bestows wisdom and love.
they believe the pagan deity God Who arrogantly
claims to be the creator(Yahweh, Allah, Zues, Mazda, etc.)
to be the work of yahdoloth(the devil)
The true God is beyond creation and is therefore unknowable.
As they worship the one True Creator, anyone who beleives in a
deity(a creation) is a gentile.

True, Gnosticism is sitting around speculating about God. That methodology is about the worst possible to ensure accurate information about God. The methodology you would expect to go along with an all-knowing and benevolent God is exactly what Christianity contains. A revelations straight from God by supernatural means.

We cant physically see God, but God is all seeing.
Neither does God have a seeable form, nor eyes to provide limited perceptions.
He could not be a form, thus Jesus couldn't be talking about the god of Israel.

An omnipotent God by definition can do anything logically possible. He can not create round squares, but here is no reason to suggest he cannot take on human form if he wished. If your concept of God is incapable of doing so he is not a maximal being and there for not God.

Just to point out one more thing. The One true God loves all beings, the god of Israel is secular and only cares about one Nation.

Is that why he sent his apostles with the instructions to go into all he world and spread the message. He did use Israel exclusively as a conduit for his revelations. It was a blessing earned for Abraham's descendants by his act of faith. However it was a two edged sword. Being God's conduit meant they were held to a much higher standard than others. The same as preachers and teachers are today.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Still awaiting all this business showing how the cosmological argument for the existence is logically valid/sound... Just sayin'. You're welcome to post it to a more relevant thread, but you should put a note on this thread if you do that, 1robin.