who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[Vishvavajra]

You're entitled to your opinions.

That may be the kindest thing you've said so far. Perhaps there's hope yet!

Wisdom and compassion are two sides of the same coin. I know that I, for one, will judge a person's understanding by by the love and selflessness they demonstrate.

Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been a person of understanding, if any of the stuff we are told about him is true. In that sense (to get back to the original topic), the wisdom tradition of Christianity surely begins with him, although it has been filtered through a Pauline lens. And as for Paul, he did claim to have direct mystical knowledge of the Christ that allowed him to see the true meaning behind things, so there is precedent for that. However, one can see the difference in how he presents himself and his understanding. It's not always gentle, but it is always benevolent and geared towards the needs and expectations of his audience.

In a Buddhist context that would be known as skillful means, which is the art of great teachers. The truth cannot be encapsulated in mere words, but words can point the way. But that is a difficult skill to acquire, and it takes great care.

 

[truthofscripture]

That may be the kindest thing you've said so far. Perhaps there's hope yet!

Wisdom and compassion are two sides of the same coin. I know that I, for one, will judge a person's understanding by by the love and selflessness they demonstrate.

Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been a person of understanding, if any of the stuff we are told about him is true. In that sense (to get back to the original topic), the wisdom tradition of Christianity surely begins with him, although it has been filtered through a Pauline lens. And as for Paul, he did claim to have direct mystical knowledge of the Christ that allowed him to see the true meaning behind things, so there is precedent for that. However, one can see the difference in how he presents himself and his understanding. It's not always gentle, but it is always benevolent and geared towards the needs and expectations of his audience.

In a Buddhist context that would be known as skillful means, which is the art of great teachers. The truth cannot be encapsulated in mere words, but words can point the way. But that is a difficult skill to acquire, and it takes great care.

Are you referring to Christianity, or Christendom, which are all religions claiming to be Christian? The difference between the two is HUGE. Which one do you refer to?

 

[outhouse]

You're entitled to your opinions, but they're SUPPOSED to be based on facts.

What happens when they are based on mythology?


What I think is a bit sad, is how a literal interpretation ruins all the beauty the original authors worked so hard to present to the people they loved.

Its a problem when people cannot see the forest through the trees.

 

[truthofscripture]

What happens when they are based on mythology?


What I think is a bit sad, is how a literal interpretation ruins all the beauty the original authors worked so hard to present to the people they loved.

Its a problem when people cannot see the forest through the trees.

I did suggest that an atheist and a Christian, not someone of Christendom, but a Christian, have nothing to discuss. I am a Christian. I am not part of any religion with their own dogma, church, teachings of their own that don't come from the scirptures, or clergy. You are an atheist. It's not that you cannot understand the scriptures, it's that you refuse to. You're entitled to that position and opinion, but we have nothing in common, and therefore nothing to discuss, so please, stop trying.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Are you referring to Christianity, or Christendom, which are all religions claiming to be Christian? The difference between the two is HUGE. Which one do you refer to?

I'm not automatically going to accept your idiosyncratic definitions. You'll have to explain yourself there.

Is this a fundamentalist thing--i.e. anybody who claims to be Christian but doesn't believe what I believe isn't really Christian? 'Cause that's a non-starter.

And if "Christianity" is meant to be a Platonic ideal that somehow exists apart from any and all practices that actual people practice, then that's also a non-starter, since that's tantamount to saying that it doesn't exist. And while I agree that ultimately there is no single thing that can be called "Christianity," in conventional terms it's better if the word has a useful meaning, or else it's not a very useful word.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I did suggest that an atheist and a Christian, not someone of Christendom, but a Christian, have nothing to discuss. I am a Christian. I am not part of any religion with their own dogma, church, teachings of their own that don't come from the scirptures, or clergy. You are an atheist. It's not that you cannot understand the scriptures, it's that you refuse to. You're entitled to that position and opinion, but we have nothing in common, and therefore nothing to discuss, so please, stop trying.

Yep, presuppositional apologetics. There is absolutely no point discussing the issue at all if the only way to understand things is to already agree. It's 100% a priori.

It's also a convenient way for people to try to claim that they're somehow exempt from things like evidence, logic, etc. It doesn't actually work, and they're not actually exempt, but they do claim that they ought to be. And that means all debate and discussion is fruitless. So again, why are you here?

 

[outhouse]

I did suggest that an atheist and a Christian, not someone of Christendom, but a Christian, have nothing to discuss

Funny I have priest and pastors, and fathers I discuss history and religion with. But they did go to universities to gain their position.

They did not rely on voices in their head for their education.

There are two Christian scholars on this board both certified, and I have the greatest respect for them, and visa verse.

So lets get this straight, YOU have nothing to discuss when faced with knowledge you refuse to let in due to your fanaticism.

I am a Christian

And you have an extremely narrow view of what the definition actually is.

You are an atheist

And as a Christian for 45 years, I have experience on both sides of the fence you do not.


I also do not have the bias or fanaticism and fundamentalism you admit to.

It's not that you cannot understand the scriptures, it's that you refuse to.

Says who? someone who refuses all modern education, history, and science, and geology, and biology, and 20 other exact sciences?

but we have nothing in common

Well your wrong again. Will you stop to err?

We both have a passion for the same book.

so please, stop trying.

Does not work that way cowboy.

You don't get to come in here and proselytize your personal faith with its one way worship or nothing clause.

If I see historical mistakes or unsubstantiated opinion, there is a good chance you will get called on it.


We have a same faith section where YEC can talk about whatever you wish to, without worry of different opinions.

 

[godnotgod]

You speak of things about which you have not the slightest idea. And you speak things that bear little resemblance to the truth. You can call anything you want whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. It is quite apparent that you've not got Jehovah God using his holy spirit with you to draw you to Him, or to teach you, so you spout strange untruths and pretend to be knowledgeable. I find that to be a bit less than dishonest. Your screen name speaks volumes.

I said that the spiritual experience is a transformative one. Is that a 'strange untruth'? Is the Pentecost, which was a transformative experience, also a strange untruth? If the spiritual experience is not a transformative one, then of what use is it?

My screen name is merely saying that the moment you think you can define God, that is not God. Or do you think you can encapsusate God in concept, form, or image?

 

[godnotgod]

Um... Judaism? You know, the culture that Christianity grew out of. For the origin of the concept in Christianity, see the book of Hebrews, which frames the Christ in terms of the familiar sacrificial cult of the Jerusalem temple and is aimed at Jews. As for the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement that Anselm developed in the 11th century CE, it's based on a combination of the sacrificial metaphor from Hebrews and medieval aristocratic social structures. There was no extant sacrificial cult for Anselm to draw inspiration from, least of all Mithraism.

Mithraic iconography shows an Asiatic figure, presumably Mithras, slaying a bull, and that may well be a sacrificial image. But it's not as if the ancient Mithraists left a caption with an explanation of what it's all supposed to mean. Anybody who claims to know what exactly Mithraism was about is pulling stuff out of their imagination and presenting it as fact.

Actually, we can lay Mithra aside for a moment. My point is that blood sacrifice is a pagan practice, and in that vein, Jewish animal sacrifice as a means of sin redemption is pagan, clothed in the white magic of temple mumbo jumbo.

 

[outhouse]

My point is that blood sacrifice is a pagan practice

. It existed for a long time before Israelites existed.

and in that vein, Jewish animal sacrifice as a means of sin redemption is pagan

No, their version of sacrifice is their own cultural event.

They did it for over a thousand years, through multiple Jewish cultures.



Maybe what your failing to grasp, is that it was ancient practice many cultures continued to use.

 

[outhouse]

1. Not everybody here is a theist.

2. Not every theist here is a Christian.

3. Not every Christian here is a YEC who reads the Bible literally or considers it the infallible word of God.

4. Not every YEC here spends his off time standing on street corners yelling at passers-by that they're going to hell.

5. Most of our regular members did not get their world view, theology, or understanding of history out of a Chic tract.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Actually, we can lay Mithra aside for a moment. My point is that blood sacrifice is a pagan practice, and in that vein, Jewish animal sacrifice as a means of sin redemption is pagan, clothed in the white magic of temple mumbo jumbo.

I'm afraid I don't understand what "pagan" is supposed to mean in this context. Yes, sacrificial cult in temple Judaism was quite similar in form and function to sacrificial cult in Greco-Roman religion, or indeed any neighboring culture. That's not really disputed. But you seem to be using some essentialist definition of the word "pagan" that I'm not familiar with. It's a polemical term that Christians invented to refer to those who weren't Christians or Jews, but aside from that it's not a very descriptive or useful word.

Also not sure what magic has got to do with it, unless you were using some figure of speech. Again, "magic" is a denigrating term invented by pagan Greeks as a way of disparaging what they viewed as illicit or foreign practices. If they were being very uncharitable and Hellenocentric, they might dismiss Judaic religion as "magic" (i.e. like the Zoroastrian Magi and their foreign mumbo-jumbo). But if you're suggesting that the precise forms of the sacrifice were just dressing, that wasn't the attitude of ancient sacrificial cult that I'm aware of—on the contrary, the precise ritual details were the entire point, and no sacrifice could go forward if they were not followed to the letter. That would be the case for "pagan" sacrifices as well as Jewish ones. There's no essential core that can be extracted and analyzed in isolation from the ritual specifics.

The latter fact is why both pagan and Jewish sacrificial cults ceased to exist: once the ritual continuity was broken, the sacred spaces and priesthoods lost, there was no way to carry on in the prescribed form. The difference was that Judaism had already adapted to exile and had a strong ethnic identity behind it, whereas pagan cult was entirely localized and was not set up to weather periods of persecution or discontinuity. So pagan religion died out, while Judaism changed into something noticeably different but still recognizably Jewish (and also Christianity, which started as Jewish but then shifted away from that identity).

 

[truthofscripture]

Funny I have priest and pastors, and fathers I discuss history and religion with. But they did go to universities to gain their position.

They did not rely on voices in their head for their education.

There are two Christian scholars on this board both certified, and I have the greatest respect for them, and visa verse.

So lets get this straight, YOU have nothing to discuss when faced with knowledge you refuse to let in due to your fanaticism.





And you have an extremely narrow view of what the definition actually is.




And as a Christian for 45 years, I have experience on both sides of the fence you do not.


I also do not have the bias or fanaticism and fundamentalism you admit to.




Says who? someone who refuses all modern education, history, and science, and geology, and biology, and 20 other exact sciences?




Well your wrong again. Will you stop to err?

We both have a passion for the same book.



Does not work that way cowboy.

You don't get to come in here and proselytize your personal faith with its one way worship or nothing clause.

If I see historical mistakes or unsubstantiated opinion, there is a good chance you will get called on it.


We have a same faith section where YEC can talk about whatever you wish to, without worry of different opinions.

Your priests and pastors are part of Christendom, false religion. You have a lot more in common with them than either of you think.

 

[McBell]

My spirit? What do you mean by that? And why would there have not have been an exodus, or flood? Or any of the other crap you listed? What are you up to? I see no reason to debate scriptures with an atheist. We have nothing to discuss. You don't believe in your God and creator. I do. We have NOTHING to discuss. Why don't you go debate on an atheist blog?

You just lost any credibility you might have had.

 

[McBell]

I did suggest that an atheist and a Christian, not someone of Christendom, but a Christian, have nothing to discuss. I am a Christian. I am not part of any religion with their own dogma, church, teachings of their own that don't come from the scirptures, or clergy. You are an atheist. It's not that you cannot understand the scriptures, it's that you refuse to. You're entitled to that position and opinion, but we have nothing in common, and therefore nothing to discuss, so please, stop trying.

you keep going on and on about how you have nothing to discuss with atheists yet you go out of your way to pat yourself on the back every chance you get.
One would think you would have convinced yourself by now.

 

[truthofscripture]

You just lost any credibility you might have had.

Good, then maybe you will stop posting offensive comments.

 

[McBell]

Good, then maybe you will stop posting offensive comments.

You find the truth offensive?
That is comical.

 

[truthofscripture]

You find the truth offensive?
That is comical.

The truth? You've never posted the truth. I am the one who has posted the truth, and you refute it in any way you can. It is you who finds the truth offensive. It also appears that I am not rid of your offensive posts either. Claiming someone else is guilty of what YOU are guilty of is a childish tactic. Are you a child?

 

[McBell]

The truth? You've never posted the truth.

Bold faced lie.

I am the one who has posted the truth, and you refute it in any way you can.

You have made quite a number of bold empty claims.
You have presented your personal opinions as though they were fact.

It is you who finds the truth offensive.

Bold faced lie.

It also appears that I am not rid of your offensive posts either.

Only because you find the truth offensive.

Claiming someone else is guilty of what YOU are guilty of is a childish tactic. Are you a child?

Your transference is most comical.

 

[truthofscripture]

Bold faced lie.


You have made quite a number of bold empty claims.
You have presented your personal opinions as though they were fact.


Bold faced lie.


Only because you find the truth offensive.


Your transference is most comical.

No, I have never made any bold empty claims, ever. I have never posted my opinion, ever. I have not lied ever to you. I don't ever find the truth offensive, ever never. And I am not guilty of transference, ever. Your childish behavior is offensive and I am asking you once again to stop now. Stop bothering me. What you are doing is akin to stalking. I want you to stop posting offensive things to me and you refuse to stop. That is stalking. Stop now.