There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[IndigoChild5559]

This really is a misconception, the main differences between different Christian Churches are small differences in the sacraments,

Christians cannot even agree on what makes a person a christian. I have heard ALL of the following:

• Those who are baptised
• Those who confess the Nicene Creed
• Those who have received Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior
• Those who have repented of their sins.
• Those who speak in Tongues.
• Those who simply profess "Jesus."

the main schism is between Protestants and Catholics.

The fact that you have excluded Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy aside...

Yes this is a very great schism. It boils down to this: What is the authoritative source of Christian doctrine? Bible only? Or the Church (which includes the Bible)?

Protestant Churches are pretty much all on the same page in principle, the exceptions being churches being eroded by 'cultural Christianity' and deviating from scripture (The Anglican Church for example). Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses are really considered to be cults by the rest.

Protestant churches routinely disagree (and have even killed each other it over in the past). Off the top of my head:

• Eternal Security (OSAS) or Free Will.
• Jesus died for all or only for the elect.
• The Bible is literal, or the Bible is only literal sometimes.
• Jesus is really present in the breaking of bread, or communion is only symbolic, or even breaking bread should be avoided.
• Pastors must be ordained, pastors can be anyone, or even no pastors at all
• Baptism has to be done in the name of the F, S, and HS, or baptism must be done in Jesus name, or even water baptism should not be done at all.
• Baptism is salvific, or baptism does not produce salvation but is done out of obedience, or baptism is unnecessary but permitted, or EVEN baptism with water should be avoided.
• Women cannot be ordained, or women can be ordained.
• Trinitarian vs. Oneness
• Christians need not keep the sabbath, or Christians are required to keep the Sabbath.
• Miraculous gifts of the HS still happen today, or the miraculous gifts ceased with the canonization of scripture.
• Infants should be baptised, or only older children and above may be baptised.
• Revelation is about the end times, or is about the history of the church, or was about the Jewish-Roman war.
• A soul goes to heaven/hell after death, or a soul goes to sleep until the resurrection

The Bible can absolutely produce a united Church, it's man that messes this up. The interpretations have been done to death, there isn't much to disagree about as evidenced by the various Bible translations.

There is no such thing as Bible apart from interpretation.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

@IndigoChild5559,

First and foremost, I wish I could give your post more than one winner rating. Well done, in my opinion.

Second, I'd like to re-post what I wrote on a related topic, which I think reinforces what you mentioned in your post.

Here is what I've written on a related topic:

According to the Bible, the Holy Spirit dwells within the people who believe in Jesus (Ephesians 1:13–14; 4:30), not only corroborating to them that they belong to God and are saved (Romans 8:15–17; 10:9–13; 1 Corinthians 12:13), but also endowing them with some spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) and spiritual discernment to correctly understand the Bible (1 Corinthians 2:14). However, if the Holy Spirit resides within all of the followers of Jesus and gives them spiritual discernment to correctly understand the Bible, then wouldn't Christians from all over the world agree on a single interpretation of the Bible?

In my opinion, if all Christians had this spiritual discernment to correctly understand the Bible, then the Catholic Bible (with a 73-book canon), the Greek Orthodox Bible (with a 79-book canon), and the plethora of various Protestant Bible translations (with a 66-book canon) would not exist. There would be a single correct interpretation of the Bible and one unified universal Christian Church. However, this is clearly not how it is within Christianity because it is vastly divided into Messianic Jews, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox), and a vast variety of Protestants: Baptist (First Baptist, Second Baptist, Southern Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Anabaptist, Freewill Baptist), Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Mennonite, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Seventh-day Adventist, Non-Denominational, and hundreds of other Protestant churches.

Many Christians have the perpetual habit of accusing other Christians of not being "true Christians," and this accusation is as old as Christianity itself (1 Corinthians 1:10–17). The problem I have with Christians accusing other Christians of not being true followers of Jesus is that they can never agree on what the Bible truly says, and they constantly argue, insult, and fight one another about what they believe the Bible teaches. They accuse one another of not being "true Christians" and argue about how to correctly interpret the Bible. If you ask the same theological question to a broad group of Christians, you will receive different answers. They will all cite the Bible in an attempt to defend their answers, even though their answers are different and contradictory.

They often claim that they want unbelievers to be saved, yet they can't even agree on the Bible's definition of salvation, which is a key tenet of Christianity. For example, Calvinism vs. Arminianism is an ongoing debate among them. Some of them believe that salvation is unconditional, while others do not. And yet other Christians believe that speaking in tongues or baptism are required for salvation. Most Christians claim to have "spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit," which enables them to properly understand the Bible. However, they have completely different scriptural interpretations that contradict one another and adhere to church doctrines that contradict each other. They use the Bible to defend their version of Christianity, but it is clear that their beliefs, as well as their interpretations and doctrines about salvation are contradictory. How can they expect us to believe them when they can't even agree?

Questions about how to properly baptize believers (fully immersed in water or sprinkled with water), whether it is biblical for women to be pastors, and about the alleged end times (pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, post-tribulation, and the rapture of Christians) would elicit the same level of derision from Christians. Some churches claim to be the "true church, implying that Christians in other churches have incorrect theology and biblical interpretations. They even bicker and debate with one another about whether Jesus' mother remained a virgin after giving birth to him and if she had further children after him.

Ironically, they all believe that they are correct about their beliefs and everyone else (including other Christians) is wrong about theirs, but then they have the audacity to claim that the Bible is the word of God and Christianity is the only true religion in the world. In my opinion, there's no reason to believe any of them. I think it's unreasonable for any Christian to claim that their biblical interpretation and theology are correct while insisting that other Christians are wrong, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that Christianity is the only true religion in the world. It is also irrational, in my opinion, that Christians expect non-Christians to accept the Bible as divinely inspired and the final authority on moral issues, yet they can't agree on what the Bible actually says.

 

[Tony B]

Christians cannot even agree on what makes a person a christian. I have heard ALL of the following:

• Those who are baptised
• Those who confess the Nicene Creed
• Those who have received Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior
• Those who have repented of their sins.
• Those who speak in Tongues.
• Those who simply profess "Jesus."

Anyone can claim anything, without evidence a claim is all it is.

The fact that you have excluded Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy aside...

I didn't exclude anyone, I just mentioned the main players from a Western perspective.

Yes this is a very great schism. It boils down to this: What is the authoritative source of Christian doctrine? Bible only? Or the Church (which includes the Bible)?

Protestant churches routinely disagree (and have even killed each other it over in the past). Off the top of my head:

• Eternal Security (OSAS) or Free Will.
• Jesus died for all or only for the elect.
• The Bible is literal, or the Bible is only literal sometimes.
• Jesus is really present in the breaking of bread, or communion is only symbolic, or even breaking bread should be avoided.
• Pastors must be ordained, pastors can be anyone, or even no pastors at all
• Baptism has to be done in the name of the F, S, and HS, or baptism must be done in Jesus name, or even water baptism should not be done at all.
• Baptism is salvific, or baptism does not produce salvation but is done out of obedience, or baptism is unnecessary but permitted, or EVEN baptism with water should be avoided.
• Women cannot be ordained, or women can be ordained.
• Trinitarian vs. Oneness
• Christians need not keep the sabbath, or Christians are required to keep the Sabbath.
• Miraculous gifts of the HS still happen today, or the miraculous gifts ceased with the canonization of scripture.
• Infants should be baptised, or only older children and above may be baptised.
• Revelation is about the end times, or is about the history of the church, or was about the Jewish-Roman war.
• A soul goes to heaven/hell after death, or a soul goes to sleep until the resurrection

No, Churches where I live don't vehemently disagree on all these things, most are minor disagreements, you could pick any faith and make a similar nitpicking case.

There is no such thing as Bible apart from interpretation.

Simply not true, as I've already said, the vast majority of Bibles are pretty much the same minus one or two minor variances. The KJV for instance is widely accepted. The Bible is the most sold book in history, if it was how you claimed this would not be the case because no-one could agree on it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Anyone can claim anything, without evidence a claim is all it is.

You missed the point. The point was NOT what is true, but simply that Christians do not agree on what makes a person a Christian.

No, Churches where I live don't vehemently disagree on all these things, most are minor disagreements, you could pick any faith and make a similar nitpicking case.

I'm not doubting your personal experience. However, I would like to make several comments.

First, the issues I mentioned are not minor. We aren't talking about whether to dunk or sprinkle. These are issues that Protestants in history have killed each other over.

You made a blanket statement about Protestants. That means anecdotes (your personal experiences) do not come into play, because you are making a comment about this group which exists all over the world, not just in your neighborhood.

As to your personal experiences, I can't be sure why that is what you have seen. It could be that you live in a small town in Idaho that only has three churches. It could be that you live in an area that has a strong regional tradition; for example, if you live in Alabama, even the churches that are not Baptist are highly influenced by Baptist culture. It could be that you are sheltered and like most people, only have experience with those churches within your own subgroup. For example, someone raised in Calvary Chapel would feel at home in a Church or the Nazarene or an Evangelical free, but probably has never visited a Lutheran or Quaker church, and so in their experience, Protestants would all seem to hold evangelical views.

And of course, you ARE doing a good deal of "stacking the deck." If the only cards you allow in the deck are the spades, then of course you are going to pull a spade every time. By excluding not only Mormons and JWs (both denominations which believe Jesus is the messiah just as much as you), but ALSO by excluding even the more liberal Protestant denominations, you are basically manipulating the representation to give yourself an unfair advantage.

As to the reliability of my list, please feel free to pick out any item(s) you wish, and I'll be happy to supply you with the names of denominations that teach exactly what I said.

Simply not true, as I've already said, the vast majority of Bibles are pretty much the same minus one or two minor variances. The KJV for instance is widely accepted.

The issue is NOT one of differing translations. A person studying their Bible might read a passage in the KJV and come to one conclusion, while someone else can read that same passage using the same translation, and arrive at a completely different conclusion.

It's simply a function of reading comprehension. On the base level, we identify the examples or arguments used. On the next level, we discern the main idea (a little trickier and not everyone is good at this). And then finally, we allow the words to interact with things we already know or have experienced; this shapes our understanding of it -- IOW we interpret it. This is true for ALL texts, including the Bible. There is no such thing as reading ANYTHING without interpreting it.

The Bible is the most sold book in history, if it was how you claimed this would not be the case because no-one could agree on it.

None of this is relevant.

The second most sold book in history is "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" (also known as the Little Red Book). How can this be so given that Chinese communists disagreed in its interpretation so strongly that party leaders such as Liu Shaoqi were even killed over these disagreements??? When you can answer that, you will also have the answer to your question above.

 

[Tony B]

You missed the point. The point was NOT what is true, but simply that Christians do not agree on what makes a person a Christian.

The correct statement is that SOME Christians do not agree, just like some Muslims do not agree on their faith. Most Christians agree on the fundamentals, that is the truth of it.

I'm not doubting your personal experience. However, I would like to make several comments.

First, the issues I mentioned are not minor. We aren't talking about whether to dunk or sprinkle. These are issues that Protestants in history have killed each other over.

We're not at that point in history and haven't been for a long time.

You made a blanket statement about Protestants. That means anecdotes (your personal experiences) do not come into play, because you are making a comment about this group which exists all over the world, not just in your neighborhood.

Yes, it's a generalisation.

As to your personal experiences, I can't be sure why that is what you have seen. It could be that you live in a small town in Idaho that only has three churches. It could be that you live in an area that has a strong regional tradition; for example, if you live in Alabama, even the churches that are not Baptist are highly influenced by Baptist culture. It could be that you are sheltered and like most people, only have experience with those churches within your own subgroup. For example, someone raised in Calvary Chapel would feel at home in a Church or the Nazarene or an Evangelical free, but probably has never visited a Lutheran or Quaker church, and so in their experience, Protestants would all seem to hold evangelical views.

I don't live in the USA, which quite frankly, is a basket case when it comes to variety of views, so I can see where you base your assumptions. The rest of the world is not like that, as an example, in Europe, which is heavily Catholic, there is much agreement amongst Catholics, and Protestants generally agree on the big ticket items.

And of course, you ARE doing a good deal of "stacking the deck." If the only cards you allow in the deck are the spades, then of course you are going to pull a spade every time. By excluding not only Mormons and JWs (both denominations which believe Jesus is the messiah just as much as you), but ALSO by excluding even the more liberal Protestant denominations, you are basically manipulating the representation to give yourself an unfair advantage.

No, Mormons and JHW's are generally viewed as I said in this part of the world.

As to the reliability of my list, please feel free to pick out any item(s) you wish, and I'll be happy to supply you with the names of denominations that teach exactly what I said.

You're in the USA, see my previous comment above.

The issue is NOT one of differing translations. A person studying their Bible might read a passage in the KJV and come to one conclusion, while someone else can read that same passage using the same translation, and arrive at a completely different conclusion.

They could, depending on the verse, however that isn't generally what happens in this part of the world.

It's simply a function of reading comprehension. On the base level, we identify the examples or arguments used. On the next level, we discern the main idea (a little trickier and not everyone is good at this). And then finally, we allow the words to interact with things we already know or have experienced; this shapes our understanding of it -- IOW we interpret it. This is true for ALL texts, including the Bible. There is no such thing as reading ANYTHING without interpreting it.

None of this is relevant.

The second most sold book in history is "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" (also known as the Little Red Book). How can this be so given that Chinese communists disagreed in its interpretation so strongly that party leaders such as Liu Shaoqi were even killed over these disagreements??? When you can answer that, you will also have the answer to your question above.

That's just a strawman, study Bibles are sold in their millions, they essentially interpret scripture in the same way, with very minor differences, I have several of them. You're digging a made in the USA hole that just doesn't apply elsewhere, the main disagreement in Churches in Europe is mostly around trying to fit the Bible to the world, rather than the world to the Bible, and this is not necessarily by denomination, but down to individual Ministers in individual churches. Even Catholics and Protestants agree about original sin and salvation through Christ, so it isn't as your agenda suggests, no religion could even survive what you claim, and despite what the media claim, Christianity is thriving in the most unlikely places.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You missed the point. The point was NOT what is true, but simply that Christians do not agree on what makes a person a Christian.

I'm not doubting your personal experience. However, I would like to make several comments.

First, the issues I mentioned are not minor. We aren't talking about whether to dunk or sprinkle. These are issues that Protestants in history have killed each other over.

You made a blanket statement about Protestants. That means anecdotes (your personal experiences) do not come into play, because you are making a comment about this group which exists all over the world, not just in your neighborhood.

As to your personal experiences, I can't be sure why that is what you have seen. It could be that you live in a small town in Idaho that only has three churches. It could be that you live in an area that has a strong regional tradition; for example, if you live in Alabama, even the churches that are not Baptist are highly influenced by Baptist culture. It could be that you are sheltered and like most people, only have experience with those churches within your own subgroup. For example, someone raised in Calvary Chapel would feel at home in a Church or the Nazarene or an Evangelical free, but probably has never visited a Lutheran or Quaker church, and so in their experience, Protestants would all seem to hold evangelical views.

And of course, you ARE doing a good deal of "stacking the deck." If the only cards you allow in the deck are the spades, then of course you are going to pull a spade every time. By excluding not only Mormons and JWs (both denominations which believe Jesus is the messiah just as much as you), but ALSO by excluding even the more liberal Protestant denominations, you are basically manipulating the representation to give yourself an unfair advantage.

As to the reliability of my list, please feel free to pick out any item(s) you wish, and I'll be happy to supply you with the names of denominations that teach exactly what I said.

The issue is NOT one of differing translations. A person studying their Bible might read a passage in the KJV and come to one conclusion, while someone else can read that same passage using the same translation, and arrive at a completely different conclusion.

It's simply a function of reading comprehension. On the base level, we identify the examples or arguments used. On the next level, we discern the main idea (a little trickier and not everyone is good at this). And then finally, we allow the words to interact with things we already know or have experienced; this shapes our understanding of it -- IOW we interpret it. This is true for ALL texts, including the Bible. There is no such thing as reading ANYTHING without interpreting it.

None of this is relevant.

The second most sold book in history is "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung" (also known as the Little Red Book). How can this be so given that Chinese communists disagreed in its interpretation so strongly that party leaders such as Liu Shaoqi were even killed over these disagreements??? When you can answer that, you will also have the answer to your question above.

Well said, in my opinion.

In my opinion, when a Christian boasts that their beliefs are based on the Bible, what they actually mean is their preferred interpretation of it.

With this in mind, which Bible is accurate? Is it the Catholic Bible, with 73 books, the Greek Orthodox Bible, with 79 books, or one of the Protestant Bibles, with 66 books? If it is the Protestant Bible, which version is most accurate? Is it the King James or one of the hundred other English translations in print?

 

[Tony B]

Well said, in my opinion.

In my opinion, when a Christian boasts that their beliefs are based on the Bible, what they actually mean is their preferred interpretation of it.

No, my faith is totally based in scripture, the KJV if you need a version. It's not a 'boast', it's a fact.

With this in mind, which Bible is accurate? Is it the Catholic Bible, with 73 books, the Greek Orthodox Bible, with 79 books, or one of the Protestant Bibles, with 66 books? If it is the Protestant Bible, which version is most accurate? Is it the King James or one of the hundred other English translations in print?

You're asking me to believe that the supreme creator of the universe isn't capable of providing us with his word, which is absurd. Just check the best selling versions of the bible and you have your answer, unsurprisingly God does know what he's doing....

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No, my faith is totally based in scripture, the KJV if you need a version. It's not a 'boast', it's a fact.

You proclaim your Christian beliefs as if they were absolute truth.

I know you are aware of Rule 8 of this forum since a staff member has previously mentioned it to you.

You're asking me to believe that the supreme creator of the universe isn't capable of providing us with his word, which is absurd. Just check the best selling versions of the bible and you have your answer, unsurprisingly God does know what he's doing....

No, I am not asking you to believe anything. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't unsolicitedly proselytize to me or others, or worse, preach Christianity as if it or your interpretation of it is absolute truth. That's when we will have a problem, or you may have a problem with the staff. The fact is that you can't say whatever you want about your preferred Christians beliefs or otherwise if the staff decides that your statements run afoul of the rules.

 

[Tony B]

You proclaim your Christian beliefs as if they were absolute truth.

That's because according to God they are, I'm not disagreeing with him that's for sure.

I know you are aware of Rule 8 of this forum since a staff member has previously mentioned it to you.

I suggest you read and understand the definition of 'proselytizing' as I recommended to someone else earlier. I am not interested in 'recruiting' anyone to Christianity as I know that's not even how it works, one finds God through their own search.

No, I am not asking you to believe anything. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't unsolicitedly proselytize to me or others, or worse, preach Christianity as if it or your interpretation of it is absolute truth. That's when we will have a problem, or you may have a problem with the staff. The fact is that you can't say whatever you want about your preferred Christians beliefs or otherwise if the staff decides that your statements run afoul of the rules.

Please see above and learn what the word means.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, my faith is totally based in scripture, the KJV if you need a version. It's not a 'boast', it's a fact.

The FACT is that you faith is based on your INTERPRETATION of the KJV Bible. There are countless denominations that have used the KJV, and yet they disagree on significant points. So you can claim anything you want, but THIS is what the evidence is.

 

[Tony B]

The FACT is that you faith is based on your INTERPRETATION of the KJV Bible. There are countless denominations that have used the KJV, and yet they disagree on significant points. So you can claim anything you want, but THIS is what the evidence is.

The disagreement is on the level and importance of any disagreements, your theory is US based, it doesn't hold for wider christendom, we generally agree on the big ticket items, salvation, repentance, the holy Trinity etc, you can claim what you like, it doesn't make it the truth. As I said, Christianity doesn't survive based on your spurious claims, yet here we are, largest Faith on the planet.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The FACT is that you faith is based on your INTERPRETATION of the KJV Bible. There are countless denominations that have used the KJV, and yet they disagree on significant points. So you can claim anything you want, but THIS is what the evidence is.

I know from experience as a former evangelist and street preacher that this isn't just a problem with American Christians. I remember hosting evangelism teams from England (referred to themselves as missionaries) when I was an evangelistic team leader. My team and I hosted them from time to time. They bickered between themselves and argued with us in our private meetings about which Bible version to use when preaching to Americans. They quarreled with us about what to preach, where to preach, and nitpicked our sermons. It was nearly impossible to get them to agree with us so that we could go out and street preach together. It was really nerve-racking at times. We later opted to forgo any further opportunities to street preach with some of them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The disagreement is on the level and importance of any disagreements, your theory is US based, it doesn't hold for wider christendom,

You are new to me, so my assumption is that you may not know much about me. I don't want to give the mistaken impression that I am Christian. I'm 100% Jewish. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to you being a Christian. Judaism does not claim to be the "one, true religion." We are quite fine with others worshiping God in their own way. As long as you love your neighbor as yourself, you are okay in my book.

I have studied the religions of the world my whole life, including Christianity. I'm a voracious reader, a real geek. I have read your New Testament more than once, and have studied parts of it in depth. I have read more than one book on church history and other texts, such as a book I read on the evolution of Trinitarian doctrine. I have made it a point to become familiar with your different denominations and their differences.

And while yes, I am more familiar with US Christianity, I'm not ignorant of how it differs around the world. For example, I'm quite aware of Maronite Catholicism, the Church of the East, the Coptic church, etc. IOW, I have gone out of my way to understand Christianity with a very broad view.

we generally agree on the big ticket items, salvation, repentance, the holy Trinity etc,

Actually, you guys DON'T agree on these things.
Salvation: Is baptism necessary for salvation? Depends whom you ask. Are works necessary for salvation? Depends whom you ask.
Repentance: Can you repent of future sins? Depends on whom you ask. Does repentance refer to all your sins, or do you just need to repent of your lack of belief? Depends on whom you ask.
Trinity: What do you do with all those Oneness Pentecostals? I used to know a Messianic Jew (IOW a Christian) who told me Jesus was the Messiah but not God.

Next...

you can claim what you like, it doesn't make it the truth. As I said, Christianity doesn't survive based on your spurious claims, yet here we are, largest Faith on the planet.

Huh? That makes no sense to me. Islam has survived. Judaism has survived. Taoism has survived. Buddhism has survived. In fact, if we are giving out awards for longest surviving religion still around today, that award would go to Hinduism.

In other word, longevity and success are not indicators of accuracy.

As to your comment "largest Faith on the planet." This is known as an appeal to popularity. It is a logical fallacy. In plain language, just because something is popular doesn't make it true. Let me give an example. If you go back to 1000 CE, pretty much everyone in Europe believed that Jews used the blood of Christian children to make our matzah, but it was not true, it has never been true.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You are new to me, so my assumption is that you may not know much about me. I don't want to give the mistaken impression that I am Christian. I'm 100% Jewish. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to you being a Christian. Judaism does not claim to be the "one, true religion." We are quite fine with others worshiping God in their own way. As long as you love your neighbor as yourself, you are okay in my book.

I have studied the religions of the world my whole life, including Christianity. I'm a voracious reader, a real geek. I have read your New Testament more than once, and have studied parts of it in depth. I have read more than one book on church history and other texts, such as a book I read on the evolution of Trinitarian doctrine. I have made it a point to become familiar with your different denominations and their differences.

And while yes, I am more familiar with US Christianity, I'm not ignorant of how it differs around the world. For example, I'm quite aware of Maronite Catholicism, the Church of the East, the Coptic church, etc. IOW, I have gone out of my way to understand Christianity with a very broad view.

Actually, you guys DON'T agree on these things.
Salvation: Is baptism necessary for salvation? Depends whom you ask. Are works necessary for salvation? Depends whom you ask.
Repentance: Can you repent of future sins? Depends on whom you ask. Does repentance refer to all your sins, or do you just need to repent of your lack of belief? Depends on whom you ask.
Trinity: What do you do with all those Oneness Pentecostals? I used to know a Messianic Jew (IOW a Christian) who told me Jesus was the Messiah but not God.

Next...


Huh? That makes no sense to me. Islam has survived. Judaism has survived. Taoism has survived. Buddhism has survived. In fact, if we are giving out awards for longest surviving religion still around today, that award would go to Hinduism.

In other word, longevity and success are not indicators of accuracy.

Great response.

Well said, in my opinion.

As to your comment "largest Faith on the planet." This is known as an appeal to popularity. It is a logical fallacy. In plain language, just because something is popular doesn't make it true. Let me give an example. If you go back to 1000 CE, pretty much everyone in Europe believed that Jews used the blood of Christian children to make our matzah, but it was not true, it has never been true.

In my opinion, the Argumentum ad populum is a weak argument for defending the popularity of Christianity or the veracity of its tenets, because the same argument could also be used to defend Islam, which is the second largest religion in the world (source) and also the fastest-growing religion (source). I doubt that there are any Christians who believe that the spiritual beliefs in Islam are true based on how many Muslims in the world believe they are true.

 

[Tony B]

You are new to me, so my assumption is that you may not know much about me. I don't want to give the mistaken impression that I am Christian. I'm 100% Jewish. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to you being a Christian. Judaism does not claim to be the "one, true religion." We are quite fine with others worshiping God in their own way. As long as you love your neighbor as yourself, you are okay in my book.

I have studied the religions of the world my whole life, including Christianity. I'm a voracious reader, a real geek. I have read your New Testament more than once, and have studied parts of it in depth. I have read more than one book on church history and other texts, such as a book I read on the evolution of Trinitarian doctrine. I have made it a point to become familiar with your different denominations and their differences.

And while yes, I am more familiar with US Christianity, I'm not ignorant of how it differs around the world. For example, I'm quite aware of Maronite Catholicism, the Church of the East, the Coptic church, etc. IOW, I have gone out of my way to understand Christianity with a very broad view.

Actually, you guys DON'T agree on these things.
Salvation: Is baptism necessary for salvation? Depends whom you ask. Are works necessary for salvation? Depends whom you ask.
Repentance: Can you repent of future sins? Depends on whom you ask. Does repentance refer to all your sins, or do you just need to repent of your lack of belief? Depends on whom you ask.
Trinity: What do you do with all those Oneness Pentecostals? I used to know a Messianic Jew (IOW a Christian) who told me Jesus was the Messiah but not God.

As I have already said, semantic differences do not change the fact that on a the big ticket issues we mostly agree, otherwise it would not be Christianity, but a bunch of different faiths. I'm never impressed by any appeal to authority to be honest, I've heard it all before, it pre-supposes a higher intellect or greater knowledge, it's often not the case in my experience.

Next...


Huh? That makes no sense to me. Islam has survived. Judaism has survived. Taoism has survived. Buddhism has survived. In fact, if we are giving out awards for longest surviving religion still around today, that award would go to Hinduism.

In other word, longevity and success are not indicators of accuracy.

I didn't say longevity, I was talking about pure numbers, that's a different thing.

As to your comment "largest Faith on the planet." This is known as an appeal to popularity. It is a logical fallacy. In plain language, just because something is popular doesn't make it true.

It doesn't make it untrue either, it could be either. You posited that Christianity is basically a mess because no-one agrees, and as I have frequently pointed out, in general terms, and on the important stuff, yes we mostly do. No faith could survive and still be the largest over two thousand years if it was basically chaos, it just wouldn't.

Let me give an example. If you go back to 1000 CE, pretty much everyone in Europe believed that Jews used the blood of Christian children to make our matzah, but it was not true, it has never been true.

That's simply a strawman, it has no relevance to the fact that a faith in complete chaos couldn't survive the way Christianity has. Of course it has it's disagreements, but not in the way you keep claiming, logic on its own tells us that. As an example, in the UK no-one gets upset if Baptists believe in Baptism when older as opposed to Baptism as an infant in the Anglican church, it's really not a big issue for most of us, but we all believe in salvation through grace etc.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@IndigoChild5559
@Tony B

I wish I knew what was being argued.​

On the other hand, maybe not.​

 

[Tony B]

I know from experience as a former evangelist and street preacher that this isn't just a problem with American Christians. I remember hosting evangelism teams from England (referred to themselves as missionaries) when I was an evangelistic team leader. My team and I hosted them from time to time. They bickered between themselves and argued with us in our private meetings about which Bible version to use when preaching to Americans. They quarreled with us about what to preach, where to preach, and nitpicked our sermons. It was nearly impossible to get them to agree with us so that we could go out and street preach together. It was really nerve-racking at times. We later opted to forgo any further opportunities to street preach with some of them.

With all due respect, you claim to be a former evangelist and street preacher, yet you basically hated Christianity and left it, claim how much better your life is, yet when challenged politely to explain why and how your life is so much better without God all I see is tumbleweed. None of this stacks up, I cannot believe you ever knew God, because no-one who genuinely does walks away from him. Also, if your life is so much better without God why would you even be on a religion forum? surely you would want to forget and move on? rather than consistently and sneakily slide your knife in with monotonous regularity? there are some very dubious claims and behaviour going on here...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As I have already said, semantic differences do not change the fact that on a the big ticket issues we mostly agree,

Nothing I said involved semantics.

I literally wrote a long, long list of the disagreements, none of which you bothered responding to, except the infant baptism one (which I address later on). My comments began with THIS, which you also failed to address:

Christians cannot even agree on what makes a person a christian. I have heard ALL of the following:

• Those who are baptised
• Those who confess the Nicene Creed
• Those who have received Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior
• Those who have repented of their sins.
• Those who speak in Tongues.
• Those who simply profess "Jesus."

otherwise it would not be Christianity, but a bunch of different faiths.

Nah. You can relax here. While the boundaries may seem a little fuzzy sometimes, clearly "Christianity" exists. When I look at Christianity as a Jew, I see a Christian as anyone who believes Jesus is the Messiah who died for their sins.

I'm never impressed by any appeal to authority to be honest, I've heard it all before, it pre-supposes a higher intellect or greater knowledge, it's often not the case in my experience.

What appeal to authority did I make?

It doesn't make it untrue either, it could be either.

Switch the goal posts much?

Nothing in my post to you made the argument that Christianity was not true. I mean, we CAN debate that if you wish, but first let's finish this topic.

My point was that Christians lack credibility. Not the same thing at all.

You posited that Christianity is basically a mess because no-one agrees,

Yes. To us outsiders, when we look at how it has fractured into tens of thousands of denominations, you guys just lose your credibility. That doesn't mean it doesn't contain some truth. Only that is is, as you put it, a mess.

and as I have frequently pointed out, in general terms, and on the important stuff, yes we mostly do. No faith could survive and still be the largest over two thousand years if it was basically chaos, it just wouldn't.

Oh my gosh. Perhaps you have never studied Hinduism. No religion is as diverse. They can't even agree on whether there is one god, many gods (and if so, who are they), or no god. Now THAT is a mess! And yet it has survived and thrived longer than any other religion. There are 1.2 billion Hindus, or roughly 15% of the world's population. And the only reason they aren't larger than that is simply because they do not proselytize.

I should also mention that we Jews are incredibly diverse. In fact, we have the saying, "Two Jews, three opinions." It's a little different for us, as we have never been a "we are the one true religion" sort, nor do we have any history of killing each other over our disagreements.

That's simply a strawman, it has no relevance to the fact that a faith in complete chaos couldn't survive the way Christianity has. Of course it has it's disagreements, but not in the way you keep claiming, logic on its own tells us that.

The blood libel is NOT a strawman. It illustrates perfectly how something can be widely believed, and still be absolutely false. Thus your idea that the sheer number of Christians is evidence of its truth is just very, very bad logic.

As an example, in the UK no-one gets upset if Baptists believe in Baptism when older as opposed to Baptism as an infant in the Anglican church, it's really not a big issue for most of us, but we all believe in salvation through grace etc.

While it is true that Christians today have grown more tolerant of each other, you cannot deny that back in history, Christians literally killed each other over baptism disagreements. It can't be classified as a small thing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559
@Tony B

I wish I knew what was being argued.​

On the other hand, maybe not.​

In a nutshell, he believes that Christians agree on all the basics. I sent him a long, long list of important issues that Christians disagree on and have even killed each other over in the past, and he didn't like that very much.

 

[ppp]

The blood libel is NOT a strawman. It illustrates perfectly how something can be widely believed, and still be absolutely false. Thus your idea that the sheer number of Christians is evidence of its truth is just very, very bad logic.

Blood libel isn't over. It has just transmuted into Global conspiracies of takeover and subjugation.

While it is true that Christians today have grown more tolerant of each other, you cannot deny that back in history, Christians literally killed each other over baptism disagreements. It can't be classified as a small thing.

My extended family is split among Baptists, Methodists, JWs, Episcopalians and Lutherans. The only ones who do not actively talk smack about other denominations are the Episcopalians.