Christianity: A Summary

[Subduction Zone]

That is just an extension of the source. Whether it was Jesus or His followers, this account of the man Jesus is the only comprehensive record of His words and deeds. As presented, He can only be:
Liar
Lunatic
God

Redefining or reinventing Him has no historical basis. You are still rejecting the historical Jesus.

No. That is your interpretation. If he did not claim to be the messaiah then he was not a liar. You keep forgetting that your only source for what he said is a rather unreliable one that is not confirmed by any outside sources at all. If his followers embellished the story Jesus was not a liar.

 

[usfan]

No. That is your interpretation. If he did not claim to be the messaiah then he was not a liar. You keep forgetting that your only source for what he said is a rather unreliable one that is not confirmed by any outside sources at all. If his followers embellished the story Jesus was not a liar.

All i can do is repeat the reasoning. I cannot make anyone follow it..

That is just an extension of the source. Whether it was Jesus or His followers, this account of the man Jesus is the only comprehensive record of His words and deeds. As presented, He can only be:
Liar
Lunatic
God

Redefining or reinventing Him has no historical basis. You are still rejecting the historical Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All i can do is repeat the reasoning. I cannot make anyone follow it..

That is just an extension of the source. Whether it was Jesus or His followers, this account of the man Jesus is the only comprehensive record of His words and deeds. As presented, He can only be:
Liar
Lunatic
God

Redefining or reinventing Him has no historical basis. You are still rejecting the historical Jesus.

Now you are just repeating your errors. Sorry, no matter how many times you repeat a mistake it is still a mistake. Myth is none of the above.

Try again.

 

[Marcion]

That is just an extension of the source. Whether it was Jesus or His followers, this account of the man Jesus is the only comprehensive record of His words and deeds. As presented, He can only be:
Liar
Lunatic
God

Redefining or reinventing Him has no historical basis. You are still rejecting the historical Jesus.

You forget that the texts that ended up in the non-Jewish part of the Christian Bible collection were written by Christians and not by Jesus himself.

So, criticising those texts can never lead to calling the historical Jesus a liar or a lunatic. You may call the authors liars or lunatics, but I would prefer to just call them creative writers of inspiring religious texts. Inspiring for Christians anyway.

 

[sojourner]

More on the trilemma:

Christ either [1] deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or [2] He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or [3] He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable. ~ John Duncan (1796-1870)

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.. ~ C. S. Lewis, 1942

Or, the most plausible possibility that Duncan could not have thought of and that Lewis neglected to think of is this:

There is a difference between the mythic Jesus of the gospels and the historic Jesus we only glimpse in the gospels. All we really know about Jesus are the quotations that are, with little question, attributable to him. The gospels all mythicize Jesus (Mark less so). It could be that Jesus was a charismatic Rabbi who dared to speak out and dared to buck the system. The "fraud," therefore, would be on the part of his followers who told mythic stories about Jesus and later wrote them down. The search for the historic Jesus is a legitimate scholastic endeavor.

 

[Lionel Refson]

There are more possibilities than that if you think about it. He may never have even have claimed to be the messiah. That could be a myth that grew about him after he was crucified.

Absolutely, you said it far better than I did. The only way to sort out this quadlemma is through a actual proof, and we know that this time we do not have any, hence my remark that Jesus returning, would solve the quadlemma
Apparently even Josephus cannot be trusted https://www.jonathanmorrow.org/what-did-the-jewish-historian-josephus-really-say-about-jesus/ and God only knows what Constantine edited in and out.....Only trust things in the Bible that have no human self- interest.

 

[sojourner]

Absolutely, you said it far better than I did. The only way to sort out this quadlemma is through a actual proof, and we know that this time we do not have any, hence my remark that Jesus returning, would solve the quadlemma
Apparently even Josephus cannot be trusted https://www.jonathanmorrow.org/what-did-the-jewish-historian-josephus-really-say-about-jesus/ and God only knows what Constantine edited in and out.....Only trust things in the Bible that have no human self- interest.

I get that, but it's really all just conjecture. All we really have is the gospels themselves, Thomas, and some other disparate writings, plus the extrapolated Q document to give us information about Jesus. So, I think we have to ask ourselves, "What did Jesus actually say in the gospels?" Did he allude to himself as messiah? If so, are those quotations authentic to Jesus?

We have to take the gospels for what they are, and what they are is not history -- at least as we understand history. The search for the historic Jesus is a very narrow and tight discipline without a lot of clues. The Jesus Seminar has been a good resource, but it's not infallible.

In the end, I wonder if it really matters that the historical Jesus differs from the mythic Jesus as presented in the gospels? I suppose that, inasmuch as there are those who conflate the two and then abuse their faith to bully others into believing their "truth," having some historical evidence is good shielding against that bullying.

That being said, I think we can trust the bible to be what it is, and to not be what it is not. The wise reader knows where to draw the line between myth and historic fact. The bible is reliable as a repository of mythic accounts. It is not reliable with regard to historic fact.

 

[JJ50]

I get that, but it's really all just conjecture. All we really have is the gospels themselves, Thomas, and some other disparate writings, plus the extrapolated Q document to give us information about Jesus. So, I think we have to ask ourselves, "What did Jesus actually say in the gospels?" Did he allude to himself as messiah? If so, are those quotations authentic to Jesus?

We have to take the gospels for what they are, and what they are is not history -- at least as we understand history. The search for the historic Jesus is a very narrow and tight discipline without a lot of clues. The Jesus Seminar has been a good resource, but it's not infallible.

In the end, I wonder if it really matters that the historical Jesus differs from the mythic Jesus as presented in the gospels? I suppose that, inasmuch as there are those who conflate the two and then abuse their faith to bully others into believing their "truth," having some historical evidence is good shielding against that bullying.

That being said, I think we can trust the bible to be what it is, and to not be what it is not. The wise reader knows where to draw the line between myth and historic fact. The bible is reliable as a repository of mythic accounts. It is not reliable with regard to historic fact.

Very true.

 

[oldbadger]

................ do you want to discuss the precise definition of Christianity?

The above was sent to another.

Precise Definition of Christianity:-
Pauline spin, based upon the apostle John's manipulated account of Jesus and his campaign.

Precise Definition of Jesus:-
Jesus was a working class Jew who picked up the Baptist's campaign after his arrest. Jesus never was a Christian.



easy.

 

[JJ50]

There is no precise definition of Christianity.

 

[oldbadger]

There is no precise definition of Christianity.

True.
There are many hundreds of different Churches, Creeds and Denominations.

I was just thinking of the ones which quote Paul's opinions and John's claims.

 

[usfan]

Myth is none of the above.

I would prefer to just call them creative writers of inspiring religious texts

It could be that Jesus was a charismatic Rabbi who dared to speak out and dared to buck the system.

Precise Definition of Christianity:-
Pauline spin, based upon the apostle John's manipulated account of Jesus and his campaign.

There is no precise definition of Christianity.

Everybody gotta believe something. Too bad most of these are based on prejudice and anti-christian bias..

Do what you will with the historical evidence. The FACT remains:
There is a precise, historical, exegetical definition of Christianity, as delivered by Jesus, continued by the apostles, affirmed by the early church fathers and councils, and reaffirmed over the next 2 millennia.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Christianity has been anything but what is revealed in the biblical texts. So believe whatever you want.. I'm just here to reason and provide evidence for the truth. I cannot help it if some prefer distortions.

 

[JJ50]

Everybody gotta believe something. Too bad most of these are based on prejudice and anti-christian bias..

Do what you will with the historical evidence. The FACT remains:
There is a precise, historical, exegetical definition of Christianity, as delivered by Jesus, continued by the apostles, affirmed by the early church fathers and councils, and reaffirmed over the next 2 millennia.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Christianity has been anything but what is revealed in the biblical texts. So believe whatever you want.. I'm just here to reason and provide evidence for the truth. I cannot help it if some prefer distortions.

Yeh right!

 

[usfan]

The above was sent to another.

Yes, and the full reply still applies:

Are you just looking for outlets for your hostility toward Christianity? Or do you want to discuss the precise definition of Christianity?

So what is it? A rational discussion, with facts, reason, and a quest for understanding, or bigoted shots at your ideological enemies? Your call..

 

[sojourner]

There is NO EVIDENCE that Christianity has been anything but what is revealed in the biblical texts. So believe whatever you want.. I'm just here to reason and provide evidence for the truth. I cannot help it if some prefer distortions.

So, you're saying there's no evidence that the church existed before the NT texts came along? Who wrote those texts (and please don't say "the apostles" -- we've a fairly clear idea it wasn't them, so that answer would be a "distortion")? In fact, there is plenty of extra-biblical evidence. There's the Didache, there's Thomas, there are plenty of gospel fragments that reveal so much about Xy that don't particularly have to do with your summary.

 

[usfan]

So, you're saying there's no evidence that the church existed before the NT texts came along?

Yes, that is what i said..

Why should i even bother posting anything, if you are going to distort my meaning?


You then handily dispatch the strawman you have constructed.. good job!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everybody gotta believe something. Too bad most of these are based on prejudice and anti-christian bias..

Do what you will with the historical evidence. The FACT remains:
There is a precise, historical, exegetical definition of Christianity, as delivered by Jesus, continued by the apostles, affirmed by the early church fathers and councils, and reaffirmed over the next 2 millennia.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Christianity has been anything but what is revealed in the biblical texts. So believe whatever you want.. I'm just here to reason and provide evidence for the truth. I cannot help it if some prefer distortions.

Please don't project your flaws upon others. And you do not seem to understand the nature of evidence. Or you could be rather ignorant of the history of Christianity. When you are ready to have a discussion please tell me.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, that is what i said..

Why should i even bother posting anything, if you are going to distort my meaning?


You then handily dispatch the strawman you have constructed.. good job!

The rebuttal has a point. The point is that there are extrabiblical sources prior to the NT canon that paint the proto-church in a different light from the NT texts. You said there was "NO EVIDENCE other than the bible." Clearly, you're wrong on this point.

Why should you bother posting anything, if you're going to distort your own meaning?

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, and the full reply still applies:

So what is it? A rational discussion, with facts, reason, and a quest for understanding, or bigoted shots at your ideological enemies? Your call..

Your Ad Hom responses cannot answer my post.

Please just answer the post....... Here you go:-

Precise Definition of Christianity:-
Pauline spin, based upon the apostle John's manipulated account of Jesus and his campaign.

Precise Definition of Jesus:-
Jesus was a working class Jew who picked up the Baptist's campaign after his arrest. Jesus never was a Christian.

Now.... all you have to do is answer the above precise definitions.
Of course, if you can't, then you can't.....
And please keep it short......... the longer your posts are, so the more waffled up they seem to be.