Christian Concepts

[Neo Deist]

This is far too large and generalized to agree with or refute. Can you please concentrate on one or two claims and you reasons why you agree or reject them?

I will respond to two and maybe you can limit your claims to them.

2. I believe Christ died for our sins based on the validity of scripture. Why are the scriptures and history wrong about Christ's purpose and existence?

What validity of Scripture do you refer to? The Gospels, which tell the Jesus story, were all written by 3rd party, anonymous authors decades after the fact. That makes them hearsay, and they go out of their way to make Jesus a martyr and the messiah.

Why would God, as the all powerful deity and creator of the universe, need a blood sacrifice for sin? Why not just say "NO MORE SIN" in a loud, booming, godlike voice and be done with it? Blood sacrifices are a human invention that span the globe.

4. I believe Christians go to heaven for several reasons. A. My personal experience. B. That personal experience confirming the Bible's historical claims about Christ and the Christian. C. The far greater harmony, sufficiency, our moral bankruptcy, and consistency of the Biblical salvation model compared with all other models in human literacy? Why do you reject the above?

Name the verse in the Bible that says Christians go to heaven upon death, or at any other time. Not paradise, God's city, happy hunting ground or Valhalla...heaven.

 

[1robin]

What validity of Scripture do you refer to?

What in the world are you talking about? The bible has the strongest textual tradition of any textual work of ancient history. It is not just no. 1, it is so strong that there is not even a second. The Peloponnesian war is probably the 2nd most reliable and it has less than 10 extant copies versus the bibles 2500 Greg manuscripts alone and even that category alone is growing almost daily. That takes care of it's modern day accuracy concerning it's being passed down accurately and translated according to accepted canons of Hermeneutics and exegesis. For it's original validity I will let one of (if not the) greatest expert on testimony and evidence speak to it. http://y-jesus.com/simon-greenleaf-resurrection/

It contains the conclusions of an extraordinary and skeptical mind as pertains the validity of the claims made by the apostles. I could supply a hundred just like it from the greatest legal minds in Human history. However your either going to accept the one I supplied or your presumptions will force you to deny every claim by any scholar in history who's conclusions contradict your own.

The Gospels, which tell the Jesus story, were all written by 3rd party, anonymous authors decades after the fact. That makes them hearsay, and they go out of their way to make Jesus a martyr and the messiah.

This is simply not true. 3 were written by eye witnesses to events in Christ's life and one (maybe the most accurate) was written by a contemporary after relentless efforts to inquire of eyewitnesses, and the vast majority of the NT (that is a non-synoptic gospel teachings about Christ i.e. Paul) was written by someone that knew Christ personally.

Why would God, as the all powerful deity and creator of the universe, need a blood sacrifice for sin?

Who are you to claim he didn't? BTW neither the Bible, Christian mainstream teachings, nor I have claimed he needed to do anything what so ever? He did not need anything, but he chose to do things without necessities of any kind. You challenging a God who does not exist and making categorical mistakes in the attempt. You are an extremely limited, non-Omnipotent, extremely limited, and sinful (calm down we are all sinful) human being, yet your suggesting he cannot (and should not according to you)reconcile man to himself by using the blood of his son. There are entire books written to show why God CHOSE to use Christ to save mankind. Try reading one or two. I will only show a few reasons here as I do not have the space to even begin to exhaustively show why it was desirable that Christ die for us. God is perfect and we must be perfect to gain entrance into heaven. Human being cannot achieve perfection on our own. That necessitates an intermediary to accomplish. God is perfect love and it is intuitive that God show (actually perform an act) that perfect love in the pinnacle of his dealings with man. The greatest example of love that humans have come to appreciate is self sacrifice. We build museums and offer medals to those who give all to benefit those who are helped or "saved" by those acts. The greatest conceivable act of self sacrifice is the perfect person (Jesus Christ) giving his life for those who are rebellious and perishing for that rebellion. Another way to illustrate this is the fact that every other major faith ever believed in human kind concerns human beings earning their way UP to heaven or God, Christianity is unique in recording God's coming to save humanity. All are merit based (arrogant and boastful), except for Christianity which has a salvation model that excludes our merit and is therefore not arrogant and which specifically cannot promote boasting about ourselves, but only about God which is appropriate.

Why not just say "NO MORE SIN" in a loud, booming, godlike voice and be done with it? Blood sacrifices are a human invention that span the globe.

Do you know anything about Christianity? You keep arguing against teachings which are not found in the bible. What you reject the bible does not affirm.

A. The bible's salvation model is not about our moral perfection. It gives perfection as a goal not a destination.
B. Thank God our salvation is not about our being perfect as you say. I would not believe in the God you denounce because that God would be irrational. Mortal man is never perfect and so your God would have condemned all men without hope.
C. The bible promises salvation from sin. Not salvation based on my performance.
D. The bible saves us based on Christ's merits not our own.
E. BTW the bible did record God saying "do not sin" in a booming voice. It has not produced a single perfect person in all of human history.

Name the verse in the Bible that says Christians go to heaven upon death, or at any other time. Not paradise, God's city, happy hunting ground or Valhalla...heaven.

Once again you need to clarify please. Are you arguing with simple terminology? Or are you rejecting the entire concept of salvation and entering the Kingdom of God based of Christ's sacrifice? Either way you need to include biblical Hermeneutics, not English Hermeneutics.

 

[Neo Deist]

What in the world are you talking about? The bible has the strongest textual tradition of any textual work of ancient history. It is not just no. 1, it is so strong that there is not even a second. The Peloponnesian war is probably the 2nd most reliable and it has less than 10 extant copies versus the bibles 2500 Greg manuscripts alone and even that category alone is growing almost daily. That takes care of it's modern day accuracy concerning it's being passed down accurately and translated according to accepted canons of Hermeneutics and exegesis. For it's original validity I will let one of (if not the) greatest expert on testimony and evidence speak to it. http://y-jesus.com/simon-greenleaf-resurrection/

We do not have The Autographs, that is, the original writings of the Bible. They have long been lost or destroyed. All we have are copies of copies. Furthermore, science has already shown that much of what the Bible says is simply not true. It was written in a time when people had very little scientific or medical knowledge (by today's standards). The Bible is not a history textbook. It is a collection of stories, many of which are metaphorical or allegorical.

This is simply not true. 3 were written by eye witnesses to events in Christ's life and one (maybe the most accurate) was written by a contemporary after relentless efforts to inquire of eyewitnesses, and the vast majority of the NT (that is a non-synoptic gospel teachings about Christ i.e. Paul) was written by someone that knew Christ personally.

According to whom? As it stands, those of us who are theological scholars will disagree with you. The Gospels were not written by any eyewitness. That much has been made clear. Heck, they disagree half the time when each tells the story.

Do you know anything about Christianity? You keep arguing against teachings which are not found in the bible. What you reject the bible does not affirm.

LOL! 30 years as a Baptist, and a Doctor of Theology from seminary now. Yeah, I might know a thing or two.

What I teach is biblical, not traditional.
What many people preach is traditional, not biblical.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Gospels were not written by any eyewitness. That much has been made clear. Heck, they disagree half the time when each tells the story.

According to Mark 14:51-52; Acts of the Apostles 12:12-13 there were eyewitnesses.
Bible writer James was a half brother of Jesus and so was Jude 1:1

 

[savagewind]

According to Mark 14:51-52; Acts of the Apostles 12:12-13 there were eyewitnesses.
Bible writer James was a half brother of Jesus and so was Jude 1:1

In case the whole account isn't a good story.

 

[Neo Deist]

According to Mark 14:51-52; Acts of the Apostles 12:12-13 there were eyewitnesses.
Bible writer James was a half brother of Jesus and so was Jude 1:1

What part of "the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses" was not understood? The Book of Mark is in the Gospels, and the author of Acts is also anonymous. It does not matter that a book is saying "such and such" when that book is 3rd party hearsay.

Here: Acts and the Gospel of Luke make up a two-part work, Luke–Acts, by the same anonymous author, usually dated to around 80-90 AD.

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

No I am not using Wiki for my personal source (that was seminary) but to give you something to read over.

 

[First Baseman]

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark and Luke got their accounts from the other Apostles. So what's the problem?

 

[metis]

Matthew never claims to be an eyewitness, nor are we certain he actually wrote it:
The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the 2nd century. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Nor is there agree ment that John's gospel was actually written by John:
The Gospel of John is anonymous, its author only identified as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved". The evangelist was always called John, and Church tradition identified the Beloved Disciple as John the Apostle. This latter identification, however, is rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars. Scholars believe that the text went through two to three "editions" before reaching its current form. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

When dealing with material that old, it's very difficult to confirm authenticity.

 

[First Baseman]

Matthew never claims to be an eyewitness, nor are we certain he actually wrote it:
The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the 2nd century.[12][13] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Nor is there agree ment that John's gospel was actually written by John:
The Gospel of John is anonymous, its author only identified as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved".[14] The evangelist was always called John, and Church tradition identified the Beloved Disciple as John the Apostle. This latter identification, however, is rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars.[15][Notes 5] Scholars believe that the text went through two to three "editions" before reaching its current form.[16][17] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Well, you are not certain. Me and the RCC are certain. I trust men filled with the Spirit a lot more than I trust you or your sources.

 

[metis]

Well, you are not certain. Me and the RCC are certain. I trust men filled with the Spirit a lot more than I trust you or your sources.

People who are so assured that they know "the answers", and also those that demean others, belittle themselves and their supposed faith. Maybe read "Imitation of Christ" by Thomas Kemphis.

I do not know whether Matthew or John wrote their gospels, nor do I really care one way or the other, and some RCC theologians also question the authorship, so it is not I who is spouting stuff that cannot be confirmed one way or the other.

When you get that chip off your shoulder that makes you appear so childish, let me know, OK?

 

[roger1440]

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark and Luke got their accounts from the other Apostles. So what's the problem?

I'm going to take a wild guess. You can't quote your sources.

 

[First Baseman]

I'm going to take a wild guess. You can't quote your sources.

The Roman Catholic Church.

Now I will take a guess. You don't believe the RCC. Guess what? I don't care that you don't.

 

[First Baseman]

People who are so assured that they know "the answers", and also those that demean others, belittle themselves and their supposed faith. Maybe read "Imitation of Christ" by Thomas Kemphis.

I do not know whether Matthew or John wrote their gospels, nor do I really care one way or the other, and some RCC theologians also question the authorship, so it is not I who is spouting stuff that cannot be confirmed one way or the other.

When you get that chip off your shoulder that makes you appear so childish, let me know, OK?

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. He gave us the Spirit, who searches all things. He makes the truth known to us. Those who do not know Jesus cannot know truth.

 

[roger1440]

The Roman Catholic Church.

Now I will take a guess. You don't believe the RCC. Guess what? I don't care that you don't.

Can you quote your source? You are on the internet. Do a search. Nothing will come up. The only thing that will come up is "tradition" passed down from one generation to the next. Once we get to Papias of Hierapolis we come to a dead end. One church father even refers to the guy as an idiot, LOL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

 

[First Baseman]

Can you quote your source? You are on the internet. Do a search. Nothing will come up. The only thing that will come up is "tradition" passed down from one generation to the next. Once we get to Papias of Hierapolis we come to a dead end. One church father even refers to the guy as an idiot, LOL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

The Church has taught me. I believe the Church. The Church, men led by the Spirit, deemed the current Bible canon to be genuine.

Whether you believe that or not is up to you. St. Paul taught not by human wisdom but by the Holy Spirit, he even said so. You may reference your sources of human wisdom all night but I will stand by the Church. All of the current books of the Bible are genuine.

Have a good night, sir.

 

[metis]

If one seriously reads from Catholic sources, one thing they will note is that there are often differences of opinion in various theological areas. During my undergrad work, I took two courses in Catholic theology taught by a Jesuit who was the author of the most widely used catechism in English back then, plus I've read many Catholic theology books since then, and at the scholarly level there are very often differences of opinions on a variety of topics.

My point is that there is not a unified approach within the RCC when it comes to scholarship. Also, the section of the canon was hardly a cake-walk.

 

[roger1440]

The Church has taught me. I believe the Church. The Church, men led by the Spirit, deemed the current Bible canon to be genuine.

Whether you believe that or not is up to you. St. Paul taught not by human wisdom but by the Holy Spirit, he even said so. You may reference your sources of human wisdom all night but I will stand by the Church. All of the current books of the Bible are genuine.

Have a good night, sir.

As soon as a read your reply this song came to my mind.

 

[Neo Deist]

The Church has taught me. I believe the Church. The Church, men led by the Spirit, deemed the current Bible canon to be genuine.

There is a rather large reason why I view the RCC with contempt:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 2, #100: The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

In other words, you can't read the Bible and understand the Word of God. They have to spell it out for you. That is a slap in the face to anyone with half a brain and the ability to read. I see it as nothing more than an attempt to hold on to power and authority.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'd say the answers to those 3 questions are free will, free will and free will.

As parents we could likewise often snap our fingers and grant our children all kinds of easy solutions to their challenges for them.

And likewise, our children may not always appreciate why we withhold this power, that being granted the free will to overcome their own challenges, is ultimately the far greater and more loving gift.

A. We also don't sentence children to eternal damnation.
B. If a parent abuses or neglects a child by not filling their needs, they will get arrested (hopefully).

Why are the scriptures and history wrong about Christ's purpose and existence?

Scripture says Jesus died for our sins. History says he died because the Romans executed him like they did everyone else who got on their nerves.

C. The far greater harmony, sufficiency, our moral bankruptcy, and consistency of the Biblical salvation model compared with all other models in human literacy?

Personally, I found the Mahabharata to be more morally consistent. It has WAAAAAAY less "do this because I told you so even if it's hypocritical".

The Peloponnesian war is probably the 2nd most reliable and it has less than 10 extant copies versus the bibles 2500 Greg manuscripts alone and even that category alone is growing almost daily.

You're arguing that the Truth is based on book sales? So for all the centuries where it was jealously guarded by the church, it was false because there were fewer copies?

This is simply not true. 3 were written by eye witnesses to events in Christ's life and one (maybe the most accurate) was written by a contemporary after relentless efforts to inquire of eyewitnesses, and the vast majority of the NT (that is a non-synoptic gospel teachings about Christ i.e. Paul) was written by someone that knew Christ personally.

So they said. If I write a story where I am tracking an ancient historical figure, does that story become true because I say I witnessed it?

He did not need anything, but he chose to do things without necessities of any kind.

So God loves to be irrational?

You are an extremely limited, non-Omnipotent, extremely limited, and sinful (calm down we are all sinful) human being, yet your suggesting he cannot (and should not according to you)reconcile man to himself by using the blood of his son.

You are an extremely limited, non-Omnipotent, extremely limited, and sinful (calm down we are all sinful) human being, yet you are suggesting He DOES reconcile man to Himself using the blood of His son?

The authors of the bible are extremely limited, non-Omnipotent, extremely limited, and sinful (calm down we are all sinful ... per the authors, anyway, despite evidence not all are unrighteous, even IN the bible), yet they are suggesting He DOES reconcile man to Himself using the blood of His son despite there seeming to be no real need for it in either Testament?

God is perfect and we must be perfect to gain entrance into heaven.

Who said? And define "perfect".

Human being cannot achieve perfection on our own.

Jesus: Be perfect, as God is perfect.

Strange, Jesus seemed to think you have the power to shine your own light...

The greatest example of love that humans have come to appreciate is self sacrifice.

If God forced Jesus to commit suicide by cop, it is not self-sacrifice. Even before Jesus, as animals were being used as sacrifices, it's not like the animals just jumped up on the altar and sliced their own throats.

The greatest conceivable act of self sacrifice is the perfect person (Jesus Christ) giving his life for those who are rebellious and perishing for that rebellion.

Sacrifices stay dead. That's why it's a sacrifice. Chilling for 3 days before getting back up doesn't constitute sacrifice.

Another way to illustrate this is the fact that every other major faith ever believed in human kind concerns human beings earning their way UP to heaven or God, Christianity is unique in recording God's coming to save humanity.

Vishnu?

All are merit based (arrogant and boastful)

Do not say to yourself, "I believe and am thus saved," for I tell you, God can make believers out of rocks.

A. The bible's salvation model is not about our moral perfection. It gives perfection as a goal not a destination.

So it's useless?

B. Thank God our salvation is not about our being perfect as you say.

Yeah, imagine if God had to have perfect grace, love, and forgiveness of sins.

C. The bible promises salvation from sin. Not salvation based on my performance.

You are explicitly told by Jesus and God how to act to be considered righteous.

D. The bible saves us based on Christ's merits not our own.

The bible is not a god and saves no one. It is a book.

E. BTW the bible did record God saying "do not sin" in a booming voice. It has not produced a single perfect person in all of human history.

So God is incompetent and can't make humans who function correctly...

The Gospel of John is anonymous, its author only identified as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved". The evangelist was always called John, and Church tradition identified the Beloved Disciple as John the Apostle.

And amusingly enough, it's not Mary M who is the beloved, but some fanboy.

St. Paul taught not by human wisdom but by the Holy Spirit, he even said so.

So are we. We are because we said so. That was easy.

Paul: I'm a Christian. I'm, like, the BEST Christian, believe me. I have all kinds of evidence Jesus spoke to me. I'm offended that anyone requested a recorded transcript or anything like proof. When you're a Christian, you gotta believe, and believe ME, I'm the best Christian there is. I'm humble. I'm so humble I denounce Jesus' actual followers and do my own marketing. I'm so humble that I tell you to do things even when I explicitly state God didn't tell me to say it and I am just saying it because I wanted to. ETC, etc ...

 

[Neo Deist]

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark and Luke got their accounts from the other Apostles. So what's the problem?

I will use Wikipedia.com to make it simple for you. If you want an in depth discussion, I will use my Survey of the New Testament textbook.

Matthew: The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the 2nd century.

Mark: The Gospel of Mark is anonymous. A tradition beginning in the early 2nd century with Papias of Hierapolis (c.AD 125) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most scholars do not accept Papias' claim.

Luke: The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts. Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus. The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church [RCC] tradition dating from the 2nd century, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."

John: The Gospel of John is anonymous, its author only identified as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved". The evangelist was always called John, and Church [RCC] tradition identified the Beloved Disciple as John the Apostle. This latter identification, however, is rejected by the majority of modern biblical scholars. Scholars believe that the text went through two to three "editions" before reaching its current form.

Summary: all 4 Gospels were written by anonymous authors decades after Jesus' death, per a vast majority of scholars and theologians who objectively research them.