Why is your religion better then the others?

letitworknow
Bronze Member
letitworknow's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Why is your religion better then the others?

We can argue all day about why i don't believe in god and why you  do.  but today i would like the answer to a different question.  i would like to know why your religion (ex. Christianity)  is the only true religion compared to Islam, Buddhism, or any of the others. 

some rules for this fourm because i know a vast amount of the responses will be "my beliefs are true cause my book says they are."  thats not what i want to here, it gets us  nowhere.  i want to know what stops you from believing in another religion.  pick one and give me some facts that a religion is B.S.

one example would be Christianity is wrong because none of the writers knew Jesus, there is not any record of jesus except for the bible or jesus never said that he was god. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote:

CrimsonEdge wrote:

So, totus, what you are saying is that you have somehow chosen the correct religion out of the 3,000 some denominations? Further, you know different than what common knowledge in the historical community says is truth?

Do you realize exactly how this sounds like every Christian that claims they have the 'one true flavor' after reading a few books that support one of the millions of different possibilities?

Well, he can claim an old, monolithic man-made religious establishment as his foundation.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Modern

jcgadfly wrote:
Modern scholarship puts Paul completing his work around 55-65 CE. Mark was written in about 70 CE. That leads me to my conjecture that Paul created your religion and the Gospel writers made up a backstory and the Jesus character.

The Markan hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, a theory.  It is based on the opinion of revisionist "scholars".

jcgadfly wrote:
This is about the time you bring up the opinions of early church fathers and/or J.A.T. Robinson claiming that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, isn't it?

I'll throw out my scholars, and you throw out yours, and we're still left with the contemporary patristic accounts.  We have no reciept from Respondus Rationalus to Paul of Taursus ackonowledging the reciept of 50 denarii payment for the writing of a document called "the Gospel of Mark".  We have no writings from Paul gloating over the gullibility of the masses.  We have only ther assertion of the Fathers that the Gospels were indeed written by the companions of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is indeed interesting to me as well that of the many accusations made against early believers, cannibalism, human sacrifice, orgies, the one accusation conspicuous by its absence is the denial of the existence of a Jesus "character.

I'll actually go further than Robinson, et al and say that Matthew was written first, by the publican Matthew-Levi, in Aramaic (perhaps Hebrew) probabaly 40 AD-ish, certainly before 45 AD.  Luke was next, written by Paul's emanuensis, Luke, based on the testimony of Apostles he met during the course of his travels with Paul probably during the 50's.  Mark dates from pre-65 and waas written by Peter's scribe, Mark, based on a series of lectures given by Peter in Rome, using Matthew and Luke's accounts.  John was written by John the Apostle, the bulk of the Gospel completed prior to 90AD, the last coupla chapters shortly before his death in the mid to late 90's.

Now that's an outline of the theory of Matthean priority.  Again, only a theory, but I'm sure, that as a "free thinker" you'll see how reasonable such an approach is.

I've been through all this before in the Jesus Mythicist Forum, you can check out the citations and evidence there, if you like.  I wont bother to repost the evidence here and derail this thread.

jcgadfly wrote:
My view is still a lot easier to believe than God died and still raised himself from the dead.

It's easier for me to believe that my computer keyboard is completely solis as opposed to being composed of masses of particles with gaps of incredible distances between them.

I find it difficult to get my head around the concept of light being both a wave and a particle.

But even though I've never seen these things I believe them.  To me, they are indeed marvels. 

That marvels occur I think both of are willing to concede.  It's just that I'm willing to accept that there are marvels which will remain mysteries.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: So,

CrimsonEdge wrote:
So, totus, what you are saying is that you have somehow chosen the correct religion out of the 3,000 some denominations? Further, you know different than what common knowledge in the historical community says is truth?

Yes, although I chose the one out of 30,000, but I think that's a typo. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the doctrines from which, at some point, to some degree all other Christian traditions deviated.

Please explain what the "common knowledge in the historical community" says the truth is.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Do you realize exactly how this sounds like every Christian that claims they have the 'one true flavor' after reading a few books that support one of the millions of different possibilities?

How many of those "flavors" can be traced to the original "recipe" formulated by Jesus Christ, and passed down through 2000 years by an unbroken line of "master chefs"?

jcgadfly wrote:
Well, he can claim an old, monolithic man-made religious establishment as his foundation.

Old.  I agree.  About 1,970 years.

As monolithic as the Rock of Peter.

C'mon, you're an atheist, jc.  All religions are man made in your estimation, or aren't they?  I'm disappointed. Eye-wink 

Oh, and another reason I'm Catholic.  Small batch bourbon and hand made cigars.  Can't do that if you're a Baptist.  Gonna finish this drink and my smoke, night prayers with the boys and off to bed.

Tchuss!

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
This is a great discussion!

This is a great discussion! Smiling

I'm not sure about God's mercy... apparently If you're a child-raping murdering thief you can say "sorry, I love you Jesus, won't happen again", and you go to heaven. But if you are a kind generous, philathropic atheist who never hurt anyone you go to hell for eternity without so much as a chance to say "oops, looks like you were right". Jesus said he could forgive any sin except not loving him.

If the Catholic church carries only the true teachings of Christ, why did it let the gentiles join in? Jesus made it plain that he was only there for the Israelites. He even compared helping gentiles with giving the childrens bread to dogs. It was his apostles that decided to include the gentiles (and that God didn't mind so much if you didn't cut the bit of skin off the end of your willy).

The other thing that confuses me about Catholisism is that God specifically said to not worship ANY graven image and to only worship Him, but the Catholics promote people to saints and pray to them as if they were lesser gods, plus build statues and images of them. Sounds like polytheism to me.

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote: I'm not

ronin-dog wrote:
I'm not sure about God's mercy... apparently If you're a child-raping murdering thief you can say "sorry, I love you Jesus, won't happen again", and you go to heaven. But if you are a kind generous, philathropic atheist who never hurt anyone you go to hell for eternity without so much as a chance to say "oops, looks like you were right". Jesus said he could forgive any sin except not loving him.

I agree.

One of the great encyclicals, or formal teacings written by Pope John Paul II is titled "Dives in Mersericordia".  One of the messages I came away from this beautiful letter with was that God is indeed, as the Latin title proclaims "rich in mercy".  He cannot possibly punish a man for sincerely failing to grasp Catholic claims, if that man has in every other respect sincerely tried to love God with all his heart, soul, and mind, and his neighbor as himself.  I think a perfect example of a man of this sort is Ghandi.

On the other hand, knowing and fulfilling the will of God gets more and more difficult the more one is distanced from the Church and her teachings.  As with any journey, the accuracy of the road map affects the ability of the pilgrim to successfuly reach his destination.

I think that one of the great surprises of all time will be on that final day at the judgement of Christ when we see who has attained the Kingdom and who hasn't.

ronin-dog wrote:
If the Catholic church carries only the true teachings of Christ, why did it let the gentiles join in? Jesus made it plain that he was only there for the Israelites. He even compared helping gentiles with giving the childrens bread to dogs. It was his apostles that decided to include the gentiles (and that God didn't mind so much if you didn't cut the bit of skin off the end of your willy).

Yet the Samaritan woman was granted the cure she desired.  As was the Roman centurion's servant ("Lord, I am not worthy to have you under my roof, but only speak the word and my servant will be healed&quotEye-wink.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus even portrays himself as a Samaritan, a non-Jew, who happens across a suffering mankind on the side of he road after having suffered a brutal assault.  The legal observation of the Pharisees (the dominant Jewish party) and the sacrifices of the Levites(the Jewish priesthood) passed him by.  A Samaritan though, not just a Gentile, but  a virual pariah (sp?) to te Jewish people picks him up and binds his wounds, takes hm to an inn (the Church), provides for his upkeep (the Sacraments) and promises to return for him.

Further, in the "Great Commission", Jesus charges the apostles, not with spreading the Gospel among the Jews, but to the ends of the earth.  Remember, this is before the destruction of the Temple and the Dispersion of the Jews

ronin-dog wrote:
The other thing that confuses me about Catholisism is that God specifically said to not worship ANY graven image and to only worship Him, but the Catholics promote people to saints and pray to them as if they were lesser gods, plus build statues and images of them. Sounds like polytheism to me.

God forbade the worship of statues, not the religious use of statues. In fact, he actually commands the construction of images at several points.  Read the desription of the 'mercy seat" with the golden cherubim in Ex 25, or the description f te Temple in Ezekiel's vision in Ezekiel 41, the bronze serpent in Numbers 21.

That addresses images, now to the saints.  The saints are those individuals whom we believes are te examplars of ways to live the Christian life.  We look to them as examples of holiness and seek to emulate those qualities which they exhibited. 

For example, Mary the Mother of God, is the proto-Christian.  Her perfect submisson t the will of God is summed up in her "fiat" in the opening chapters of the Gospel of Luke, "Be it done to me according to your Word".  Her message to us is summed up in her direction to the servants at the wedding feast at Cana in the Gospel of John ("Do whatever He tells you&quotEye-wink.  Whenever I see an image of the Blessed Mother, these are the things I am reminded of.

The saints are as alive now, if not more so, as the were during their life on earth. Indeed, St Paul assures us that we are surrounded by a "great crowd" of witnesses, who are cheering for us in this race.  they exist still, in the very presence of the King.  That their prayers are before Him is clearly stated inthe Revelation of John when he describe the heavenly liturgy. They can, and do intercede for us with God, directly and perfectly, in His presence.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Ronin, it seems to me, from

Ronin, it seems to me, from the tone of your questions that you were brought up in a Christian tradtion.  Just out of curiosity, am I right?

If I am, do you mind telling me whuch tradition it was?

JCgadfly, same observation and question.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Modern scholarship puts Paul completing his work around 55-65 CE. Mark was written in about 70 CE. That leads me to my conjecture that Paul created your religion and the Gospel writers made up a backstory and the Jesus character.

The Markan hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, a theory. It is based on the opinion of revisionist "scholars".

jcgadfly wrote:
This is about the time you bring up the opinions of early church fathers and/or J.A.T. Robinson claiming that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses, isn't it?

I'll throw out my scholars, and you throw out yours, and we're still left with the contemporary patristic accounts. We have no reciept from Respondus Rationalus to Paul of Taursus ackonowledging the reciept of 50 denarii payment for the writing of a document called "the Gospel of Mark". We have no writings from Paul gloating over the gullibility of the masses. We have only ther assertion of the Fathers that the Gospels were indeed written by the companions of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is indeed interesting to me as well that of the many accusations made against early believers, cannibalism, human sacrifice, orgies, the one accusation conspicuous by its absence is the denial of the existence of a Jesus "character.

I'll actually go further than Robinson, et al and say that Matthew was written first, by the publican Matthew-Levi, in Aramaic (perhaps Hebrew) probabaly 40 AD-ish, certainly before 45 AD. Luke was next, written by Paul's emanuensis, Luke, based on the testimony of Apostles he met during the course of his travels with Paul probably during the 50's. Mark dates from pre-65 and waas written by Peter's scribe, Mark, based on a series of lectures given by Peter in Rome, using Matthew and Luke's accounts. John was written by John the Apostle, the bulk of the Gospel completed prior to 90AD, the last coupla chapters shortly before his death in the mid to late 90's.

Now that's an outline of the theory of Matthean priority. Again, only a theory, but I'm sure, that as a "free thinker" you'll see how reasonable such an approach is.

I've been through all this before in the Jesus Mythicist Forum, you can check out the citations and evidence there, if you like. I wont bother to repost the evidence here and derail this thread.

jcgadfly wrote:
My view is still a lot easier to believe than God died and still raised himself from the dead.

It's easier for me to believe that my computer keyboard is completely solis as opposed to being composed of masses of particles with gaps of incredible distances between them.

I find it difficult to get my head around the concept of light being both a wave and a particle.

But even though I've never seen these things I believe them. To me, they are indeed marvels.

That marvels occur I think both of are willing to concede. It's just that I'm willing to accept that there are marvels which will remain mysteries.

 

 Where did I say Paul wrote Mark? I said Paul wrote his works and someone (we don't know who despite opinions to the contrary) came along some years later and wrote Mark - other writers borrowed from Mark and thus the gospels were born. I'm glad you at least accept that the church fathers only have their opinions on which to base their views. They wrote their opinions - I wrote mine. Why does their having a pope put "St." in front of their name give them more credence? - That's for you to decide.

In other words, Matthean priority stems from the fact that the Church fathers ordered the books. I can see that it's a reasonable assumption but I have to disregard a lot of scholarship to do it. If god gave me this brain why should I forego its use in order to believe in him/her/it/them?

I don't have to believe in the atomic theory or the properties of light. Those things can be measured. Unlike God, those things don't need my belief to power them. God-belief isn't all that much different from a shaman claiming to generate mana to pull off his stunts to his believing flock.

You choose to accept marvels which remain mysteries? Is that just a fancy way of saying "If I don't know how something works, I'll just say "God did it" (or I'll accept some saint/pope's saying that) and never bother looking for myself"? Why give God a pass? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Do you realize exactly how this sounds like every Christian that claims they have the 'one true flavor' after reading a few books that support one of the millions of different possibilities?

How many of those "flavors" can be traced to the original "recipe" formulated by Jesus Christ, and passed down through 2000 years by an unbroken line of "master chefs"?

None, including yours. Much of it depends on whether you interpre the "Rock" as Peter himself or his claim that Jesus was "the Christ, the son of the living God". It also depends on how seriously you take the saints (people who got their titles mostly due to people lobbying on thier behalf).

jcgadfly wrote:
Well, he can claim an old, monolithic man-made religious establishment as his foundation.

totus_tuus wrote:
Old. I agree. About 1,970 years.

As monolithic as the Rock of Peter.

C'mon, you're an atheist, jc. All religions are man made in your estimation, or aren't they? I'm disappointed. Eye-wink

Oh, and another reason I'm Catholic. Small batch bourbon and hand made cigars. Can't do that if you're a Baptist. Gonna finish this drink and my smoke, night prayers with the boys and off to bed.

Tchuss!

Old, yes, but more like 400-500 years. Still damn old.

Again, depends on whether you take the "Rock" as Peter or his acknowledgement of Jesus as the son of God. I look at the character Jesus giving him the keys of heaven and earth as a reward for that confession. If the religion were built on Peter, it would be "Peterism" and not Christianity. Do you not consider Peter's statement important?

Yes, all religion is man-made. You think the man that made your religion is God. I acknowledge that the man who made your religion helped to connect it to a God made by other men. You haven't gotten there yet.

Oh, and I know several Baptists who agree with you on the bourbon and cigars. Some don't have a problem with a few clerics buggering kids.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I see that on some of these

I see that on some of these issues we are just going to have to agree to disagree because of the viewpoints we are coming from. Still, this is all very interesting.

I am Australian, it is still predominantly a christian country, but not as strong in that regard as the US. So this is the religion I am most familiar with.

My parents were both atheists, actually. They did not brain-wash/indoctrinate me though (as some theists seem to think atheist parents do). My father actually told me to read up on different religions and make my own choice. My mothers family are strong christians and I did go to church a handful of times with my grandparents, although I honestly don't remember which denomination it was.

It took me a long time to get around to it, but I am now reading the bible (King James). It was one of my late grandfather's old bibles actually. It's tough going, but I am persistent and have an insatiable thirst for knowledge.

Definately still an atheist by the way.

I also plan to read the Koran. But first I want to get a copy of Origin of Species.

Here is a tough one: religions and myths are developed to help people understand the universe when they don't know any better, so people said that God must have created the universe because it is so amazing. God is more amazing than the universe, so where did he come from? I find it easier to believe that a mass of matter and energy always existed than that a sentient, all powerful being.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Ronin,

totus_tuus wrote:

Ronin, it seems to me, from the tone of your questions that you were brought up in a Christian tradtion.  Just out of curiosity, am I right?

If I am, do you mind telling me whuch tradition it was?

JCgadfly, same observation and question.

]

Yes, Methodist as a child - Nazarene later 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Did I miss something, or

Did I miss something, or have we not been graced with the scientific basis for one church for 1500 years?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I'd cite the writings or

I'd cite the writings or the Reformers themselves.  It is these men, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli to whom all other Christian denominations can trace their roots (as near as I can determine).

  The Book of Concord, compiled by Lutherans gathered at Augsburg in 1537, is a defense of the reasons for separation from the Roman Catholic Church, listing reasons for and justification of disobedience to the Pope of Rome.  These men specifically admith the divine right of the Pope to rule the Church and engage in verbal gymnastics to justify their actions.  There is no document attempting to justify their separation from any Eastern (ie, Orthodox) Church, no apologia published to defend their denial or Arianism, Nestorianism, or Catharism.

Likewise, Calvin's writings are all direct refutations of Catholic doctrines.  Zwingli the same.

King Henry VIII and his successor, Elizabeth, her masters (the Cecils), Cranmer, all make it abundantly clear that their argument is with "Romanism".

It's interesting to me that these folks aren't writing about their defection from Rome to another church, but are writing about ther revolt against Rome, and the establishment of their own. 

If any Christian Church existed in Europe at this time, I'm having a hard time locating evidence of it.  Perhaps you have some evidence of the existence of this phantom church?

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Based on this logic, and

Based on this logic, and you're belief that Christianity was started by Paul, should this not be a discussion between an atheist and a "Paulist" and not between an atheist and a Christian?

I consider Peter's statement to be very important.  It's a statement of his adherence and firm belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.  It's an affirmation of his intent to preserve those teachings.

jcgadfly wrote:
Old, yes, but more like 400-500 years. Still damn old.

I'm confused by this statement.  Was it the Catholic Church which defected from the precepts of Protestanism, or the other way around?  How do you arrive at a 1500-1600 date for the establishment of the Catholic Church?

jcgadfly wrote:
Yes, all religion is man-made. You think the man that made your religion is God. I acknowledge that the man who made your religion helped to connect it to a God made by other men. You haven't gotten there yet.

Not sure where I haven't gotten yet.  Are you looking for me to prove the existence of God?  That wasn't the intent of this thread.  Besides which, I readily admit that, for the most part, my reasons for belief are largely based on arguments from emotion, which is why I seldom participate in "prove God exists" discussions.

 

 

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
letitworknow wrote: We can

letitworknow wrote:

We can argue all day about why i don't believe in god and why you do. but today i would like the answer to a different question. i would like to know why your religion (ex. Christianity) is the only true religion compared to Islam, Buddhism, or any of the others.

some rules for this fourm because i know a vast amount of the responses will be "my beliefs are true cause my book says they are." thats not what i want to here, it gets us nowhere. i want to know what stops you from believing in another religion. pick one and give me some facts that a religion is B.S.

one example would be Christianity is wrong because none of the writers knew Jesus, there is not any record of jesus except for the bible or jesus never said that he was god.

 

I don't believe in one true religion. 

However, the thing that stops me most from believing in another religion is probably just my upbringing.  Christianity is the religion through which I think about God and what/how he could possibly be - for better or worse.  I have studied Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, as well as various forms of primitive mythology (Native American, Ancient Greek, etc.) at the university level, but I've never been interested in conversion because the beginnings of these religions are so inexorably tied to the people who started them that it would just seem unnatural, and would likely ultimately serve as a setback in my search for a God that I can believe in.   


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Based on

totus_tuus wrote:

Based on this logic, and you're belief that Christianity was started by Paul, should this not be a discussion between an atheist and a "Paulist" and not between an atheist and a Christian?

I consider Peter's statement to be very important.  It's a statement of his adherence and firm belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.  It's an affirmation of his intent to preserve those teachings.

jcgadfly wrote:
Old, yes, but more like 400-500 years. Still damn old.

I'm confused by this statement.  Was it the Catholic Church which defected from the precepts of Protestanism, or the other way around?  How do you arrive at a 1500-1600 date for the establishment of the Catholic Church?

jcgadfly wrote:
Yes, all religion is man-made. You think the man that made your religion is God. I acknowledge that the man who made your religion helped to connect it to a God made by other men. You haven't gotten there yet.

Not sure where I haven't gotten yet.  Are you looking for me to prove the existence of God?  That wasn't the intent of this thread.  Besides which, I readily admit that, for the most part, my reasons for belief are largely based on arguments from emotion, which is why I seldom participate in "prove God exists" discussions.

 

 

 

 

1. You are a Paulist - you just don't admit to it. How do I know? Whenever someone asks for a 

biblical explanation of christianity, you and many others have cited Paul.

2. I read the dating somewhere. It had something to do with the earliest mention of the 

Roman Catholic Church being from that time. I'll be happy to dig it up again.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
1. You are a Paulist - you just don't admit to it. How do I know? Whenever someone asks for a 

biblical explanation of christianity, you and many others have cited Paul.

But I'm still fuzzy on why, if the Jesus "character" had placed responsibility for the Church on the shoulders of Peter, everyone would have called it "Peterism", but if the Church was fashioned out of whole cloth (no pun on Paul's occupation intended) by Paul, the recognized name isn't "Paulism".

I think that just maybe it's because a man named Jesus, claiming to be the Christ, the anointed of God, walked the earth in Palestine in the early part of the first century.  I think people knew it for a fact, and applied the name Christians, "little anointeds", to those who followed his teachings.

Of course I cite Paul.  I've also cited Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Genesis, Exodus, Malachi, etc.  But, I'm not a Geneseo-Exodosian-Levitcal...Revelationist, am I?  No, I'm a Christian.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. I read the dating somewhere. It had something to do with the earliest mention of the 

Roman Catholic Church being from that time. I'll be happy to dig it up again.

Thanks.  I'd really enjoy seeing it.  I've seen folks try to push the date back to the reign of Constantine, but never to the Reformation or later.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
1. You are a Paulist - you just don't admit to it. How do I know? Whenever someone asks for a 

biblical explanation of christianity, you and many others have cited Paul.

But I'm still fuzzy on why, if the Jesus "character" had placed responsibility for the Church on the shoulders of Peter, everyone would have called it "Peterism", but if the Church was fashioned out of whole cloth (no pun on Paul's occupation intended) by Paul, the recognized name isn't "Paulism".

I think that just maybe it's because a man named Jesus, claiming to be the Christ, the anointed of God, walked the earth in Palestine in the early part of the first century.  I think people knew it for a fact, and applied the name Christians, "little anointeds", to those who followed his teachings.

Of course I cite Paul.  I've also cited Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Genesis, Exodus, Malachi, etc.  But, I'm not a Geneseo-Exodosian-Levitcal...Revelationist, am I?  No, I'm a Christian.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. I read the dating somewhere. It had something to do with the earliest mention of the 

Roman Catholic Church being from that time. I'll be happy to dig it up again.

Thanks.  I'd really enjoy seeing it.  I've seen folks try to push the date back to the reign of Constantine, but never to the Reformation or later.

I asked you about "Peterism" once before - you never gave me an answer. 

Why isn't it called Peterism as Peter, by your own admission, is given more importance than Jesus Christ?

Again, I chalk it up to the gospel writers neding to create a backstory to flesh out the christ (a

spritual/gnostic character not a physical one)

Paul laid out. What good is a main character without a supporting cast?

Why call it christianity? Couldn't sell it any other way, maybe?

After all, the christ as Messiah stuff didn't come out until after the gospels were written 

and the writers dug through the OT prophecies. 

Paul's ideas needed to be linked back to the OT God in some fashion. 

I'll get back to you with that dating information and 

I apologize for any formatting screwups - new larger monitor.  

Edit - I did find the reference. It was to the earliest use of the tern "roman" in the RCC. 

It had nothing to do with the claimed origins of Catholicism. For me, the first use of the term tends to point to a thing's origins

 My opinion is that it started as soon as the religious bigwigs realized they 

had a moneymaker on their hands. That is considerably later than when 

the Christ character handed the reins off to the Peter character.   

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
I asked you about "Peterism" once before - you never gave me an answer. Why isn't it called Peterism as Peter, by your own admission, is given more importance than Jesus?

Because Peter is not more important than Jesus.  Peter is given the mission of guiding the flock as a vicar, or representative of Christ.  The foundational teachings of Christianity are still those of Jesus Christ, passed down through the Apostles, under the watchful eyes of Peter.  Consider these facts:

"Peter" is merely means "rock" .  We've already discussed some the meaning of Matt 16, where Jesus says (paraphrasing a bit),"You are Mr Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church."  Why would the second rock in the sentence refer to Peter's testament of faith made three verses earlier, amd not to his name mentioned earlier in the same sentence?

Jesus then goes on in the next verse to the whole "binding and loosing" thing.  Foloowing that the "keys to the kingdom" are bestowed on Peter.

In John 21, Jesus charges Peter three times to feed his sheep and tend his flock.

And in Luke, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (plural in the Greek text), that he might sift you (plural, again in Greek) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular, in Greek) that your (singular) faith may not fail; and when you (singular) have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your (singular) brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).

Whenever the Apostles are listed by name, Peter invariably heads the list although he is not the first to be called by Christ.

It is Peter who addresses the crowd in the first public preaching by the Apostles following the Crucifixion.

It is Peter who performs the first healing act recorded in the Book of Acts.

Peter raises the first man from the dead in Acts.

Peter defines the first heresy in the Book of Acts.

To me it's clear that the Jesus "character" wants folks to know that he has ordained a special place among the Apostles for Peter.

jcgadfly wrote:

Again, I chalk it up to the gospel writers needing to

create a backstory to flesh out the christ (aspritual/gnostic character not a physical one)Paul laid out. What good is a main character without a supporting cast?

A Gnostic Paul as well.  Hmmmm....  Get back to you on that.

jcgadfly wrote:

After all, the christ as Messiah stuff didn't come out until after the gospels were written 

and the writers dug through the OT prophecies. 

Paul's ideas needed to be linked back to the OT God in some fashion.

Again, Markan priority, and/or any other hypothesis stating that the Gospels were not the testimony of companions of Jesus Christ flies in the face of the testimony of the most nearly contemporaneous witnesses to the writing of the Gospels. 

So my choice is the record of witnesses a generation or so after the Crucifixion, or the supposition of revisionist scholars with a hard on for orthodox Christianity more than seventeen centuries later.  Lemme pull out old Ockham's razor and see what's left when I'm done.

jcgadfly wrote:

I'll get back to you with that dating information and 

I apologize for any formatting screwups - new larger monitor.

No worries.  I just got a new laptop and am still adjusting to the keyboard, so strnage things happen to my typing from time to time.  I understand completely.

jcgadfly wrote:

It had nothing to do with the claimed origins of Catholicism. For me, the first use of the term tends to point to a thing's origins

 My opinion is that it started as soon as the religious bigwigs realized they 

had a moneymaker on their hands. That is considerably later than when 

the Christ character handed the reins off to the Peter character. 

Then it should be of interest to you that the first surviving document which referes to the "Catholic Church" is a letter from Ignatius of Antioch dating from 120 AD.

Quite the contrary to being written when the Church had become a "money maker", the letter was written to Christians in Smyrna while Ignatius was on his way to Rome in chains for the trial which was to cost his life.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote: I see that

ronin-dog wrote:
I see that on some of these issues we are just going to have to agree to disagree because of the viewpoints we are coming from. Still, this is all very interesting.

I agree that we're going to have to disagree on some issues.  I'm enjoying the excahnge as well.  What a fascinating thing, the internet, that I should be able to trade ideas with an Aussie almost in real time...amazing!

ronin-dog wrote:
It took me a long time to get around to it, but I am now reading the bible (King James). It was one of my late grandfather's old bibles actually. It's tough going, but I am persistent and have an insatiable thirst for knowledge.

Good luck with that.  It might be better to begin with the New Testament.  It's shorter, easier to understand and represents the fullness of Judeo-Christian thought.  Then go back and read the Old Testament.  St Jerome's contention was the the Old Testament was the New Testament concealed and the New Testament was the Old Testament revealed.

I always had a hard time with the older translations, especially the King James.  Even its Catholic contemporary translation, the Douai-Rheims is a tough read for me (but at least there are no unicorns in it).  I prefer the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition).

ronin-dog wrote:
Here is a tough one: religions and myths are developed to help people understand the universe when they don't know any better, so people said that God must have created the universe because it is so amazing. God is more amazing than the universe, so where did he come from? I find it easier to believe that a mass of matter and energy always existed than that a sentient, all powerful being.

God is from everlasting.  He always has been. 

Now you may ask me to explain this belief more.  I can't.  You may ask to me to prove this, and I could go throught the usual Thomistic arguments for the existence of God, which you would, in the time honored tradition of theist-atheist intercourse on this site refute with some form of verbal gymnastics, at which you'd probably best me.

I don't know if you saw my earlier post here, but suffice it to say that my knowledge (not belief) of a personal God is based on personal experience and is basically an argument from emotion.  For that reason I don't arguse the existence of God here, although I do, from time to time, share my experience with others of faith.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
I asked you about "Peterism" once before - you never gave me an answer. Why isn't it called Peterism as Peter, by your own admission, is given more importance than Jesus?

Because Peter is not more important than Jesus.  Peter is given the mission of guiding the flock as a vicar, or representative of Christ.  The foundational teachings of Christianity are still those of Jesus Christ, passed down through the Apostles, under the watchful eyes of Peter.  Consider these facts:

"Peter" is merely means "rock" .  We've already discussed some the meaning of Matt 16, where Jesus says (paraphrasing a bit),"You are Mr Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church."  Why would the second rock in the sentence refer to Peter's testament of faith made three verses earlier, amd not to his name mentioned earlier in the same sentence?

Jesus then goes on in the next verse to the whole "binding and loosing" thing.  Foloowing that the "keys to the kingdom" are bestowed on Peter.

In John 21, Jesus charges Peter three times to feed his sheep and tend his flock.

And in Luke, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (plural in the Greek text), that he might sift you (plural, again in Greek) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular, in Greek) that your (singular) faith may not fail; and when you (singular) have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your (singular) brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).

Whenever the Apostles are listed by name, Peter invariably heads the list although he is not the first to be called by Christ.

It is Peter who addresses the crowd in the first public preaching by the Apostles following the Crucifixion.

It is Peter who performs the first healing act recorded in the Book of Acts.

Peter raises the first man from the dead in Acts.

Peter defines the first heresy in the Book of Acts.

To me it's clear that the Jesus "character" wants folks to know that he has ordained a special place among the Apostles for Peter.

jcgadfly wrote:

Again, I chalk it up to the gospel writers needing to

create a backstory to flesh out the christ (aspritual/gnostic character not a physical one)Paul laid out. What good is a main character without a supporting cast?

A Gnostic Paul as well.  Hmmmm....  Get back to you on that.

jcgadfly wrote:

After all, the christ as Messiah stuff didn't come out until after the gospels were written 

and the writers dug through the OT prophecies. 

Paul's ideas needed to be linked back to the OT God in some fashion.

Again, Markan priority, and/or any other hypothesis stating that the Gospels were not the testimony of companions of Jesus Christ flies in the face of the testimony of the most nearly contemporaneous witnesses to the writing of the Gospels. 

So my choice is the record of witnesses a generation or so after the Crucifixion, or the supposition of revisionist scholars with a hard on for orthodox Christianity more than seventeen centuries later.  Lemme pull out old Ockham's razor and see what's left when I'm done.

jcgadfly wrote:

I'll get back to you with that dating information and 

I apologize for any formatting screwups - new larger monitor.

No worries.  I just got a new laptop and am still adjusting to the keyboard, so strnage things happen to my typing from time to time.  I understand completely.

jcgadfly wrote:

It had nothing to do with the claimed origins of Catholicism. For me, the first use of the term tends to point to a thing's origins

 My opinion is that it started as soon as the religious bigwigs realized they 

had a moneymaker on their hands. That is considerably later than when 

the Christ character handed the reins off to the Peter character. 

Then it should be of interest to you that the first surviving document which referes to the "Catholic Church" is a letter from Ignatius of Antioch dating from 120 AD.

Quite the contrary to being written when the Church had become a "money maker", the letter was written to Christians in Smyrna while Ignatius was on his way to Rome in chains for the trial which was to cost his life.

 

 

"Catholic" church as opposed to "Roman Catholic" church. 

Different names for different concepts? Otherwise, why bother?

I have no problem with "catholic" as in "universal". 

 

 Why not a gnostic Paul? If he knew of a real Jesus why not mention any part of his life (even in passing)?

Witnesses a generation or so after the Crucifixion who didn't bother to write anything down until after someone they'd allegedly never met and was supposedly persecuting them wrote all or nearly all of his corpus? Why not keep journals of the happenings as they happened instead of waiting for decades and relying on their fading memories?

It's also ironic as all get out for a member of one of the most orthodox of orthodox christian bodies complaining about scholars with a fascination for orthodox Christianity.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
"Catholic" church as opposed to "Roman Catholic" church. 

Different names for different concepts? Otherwise, why bother?

I have no problem with "catholic" as in "universal".

In documents, writers most often refer to her as simply "the Church".  If a document is addressed to, or goin g to be viewed by those outside the Church, sometimes they write the Catholic Church, which is the official title by which the Church refers to herself.  Roman Catholic most specifically refers to Catholics of the Latin rite.  There are other rites within the Catholic Church (ie, Byzantine, Marionite, Ruthenian).  This refers generally to the way in which sacramnets are administered and rites are performed.  All these varied rites, though, teach the same theology, hold the same beliefs, and recognize the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.

jcgadfly wrote:
 Why not a gnostic Paul? If he knew of a real Jesus why not mention any part of his life (even in passing)?

Paul warns in 1 Timothy against "endless genealogies and myths" and against "the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [ gnosis]" (1 Tim. 6:20).

In Gal 4:4 he declares that Jesus was "born of woman, and born under the Law".  A declaration of his belief of a bodily Jesus Christ.

In 1 Corinthians (I think), Paul recounts Jesus words and actions at the Last Supper.

Bear in mind, too, that whatever else Paul was, he was no shrinking violet.  The impression one gets from his writings is of an outspoken fellow.  Surely John would have corrected his mistaken views, or Peter, but no such correction seems ever to have been made.


 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
Witnesses a generation or so after the Crucifixion who didn't bother to write anything down until after someone they'd allegedly never met and was supposedly persecuting them wrote all or nearly all of his corpus? Why not keep journals of the happenings as they happened instead of waiting for decades and relying on their fading memories?

I've already explained that I don't buy the "late Gospel" hypotheses.  None of them.  Matthew, Luke, Mark all written prior to 65 AD, John completed somewhere around 95.

A copy of the feared and dreaded "Q" document would certainly bolster the case of the school of revisionists started in the late 1600's and resurrected by German theologians in the 1870's in an attempt by Bismarck to discredit the Catholic Church and thereby the Catholic political parties causing problems for his political programs.

jcgadfly wrote:
It's also ironic as all get out for a member of one of the most orthodox of orthodox christian bodies complaining about scholars with a fascination for orthodox Christianity.

Fascination is one thing, assassination is another.  LOL.

Bultmann was a hireling commisioned with deconstructing Catholic theology by casting doubt on the authenticity of the Gospels.  Folks with axes to grind have jumped onto the bandwagon ever since, and now we've got silliness from folks such as Archaya S to the Jesus Seminar. 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
"Catholic" church as opposed to "Roman Catholic" church. 

Different names for different concepts? Otherwise, why bother?

I have no problem with "catholic" as in "universal".

In documents, writers most often refer to her as simply "the Church".  If a document is addressed to, or goin g to be viewed by those outside the Church, sometimes they write the Catholic Church, which is the official title by which the Church refers to herself.  Roman Catholic most specifically refers to Catholics of the Latin rite.  There are other rites within the Catholic Church (ie, Byzantine, Marionite, Ruthenian).  This refers generally to the way in which sacramnets are administered and rites are performed.  All these varied rites, though, teach the same theology, hold the same beliefs, and recognize the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.

jcgadfly wrote:
 Why not a gnostic Paul? If he knew of a real Jesus why not mention any part of his life (even in passing)?

Paul warns in 1 Timothy against "endless genealogies and myths" and against "the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [ gnosis]" (1 Tim. 6:20).

In Gal 4:4 he declares that Jesus was "born of woman, and born under the Law".  A declaration of his belief of a bodily Jesus Christ.

In 1 Corinthians (I think), Paul recounts Jesus words and actions at the Last Supper.

Bear in mind, too, that whatever else Paul was, he was no shrinking violet.  The impression one gets from his writings is of an outspoken fellow.  Surely John would have corrected his mistaken views, or Peter, but no such correction seems ever to have been made.

 

 

I'll give you credit - two of the works you cite were actually written by Paul. I Timothy wasn't.

However, the Galatians passage talks about Jesus as not being divine. 

Doesn't help you as I agree with that. He also writes about God putting everything under 

Christ's feet except himself. Is Paul a polytheist? If they're one being God is putting everything under is own feet and using different names make no sense. If you believe that Paul wrote everything that is attributed to him, 

he also wrote about putting on Christ as you would put on a garment. Can't be done with a physical Christ. 

If he meant "christ's nature" why not say that? 

Thank you for this discussion. I may not have mentioned this earlier.  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
I'll give you credit - two of the works you cite were actually written by Paul. I Timothy wasn't.

Aaaaargggh!  Not again!  Why do say this?

jcgadfly wrote:
However, the Galatians passage talks about Jesus as not being divine. 

Doesn't help you as I agree with that. He also writes about God putting everything under 

Christ's feet except himself. Is Paul a polytheist? If they're one being God is putting everything under is own feet and using different names make no sense.

I've read and re-read chapter 4 of Galatians, then all of Galatians and can't see how you possibly interpret it as denying the divinity of Christ.  On the contrary Paul seems to be explaining that since the Son of God, being God, the heir himself, deigned to share out humanity, we, as humans, have been adopted into the divinity of God.

Paul wasn't a polytheist, but is enunciating the Trinitarian belief, three Persons, one God.  Are you referring here to Galatians, or to another letter?  I'm confused.

jcgadfly wrote:
If you believe that Paul wrote everything that is attributed to him, 

he also wrote about putting on Christ as you would put on a garment. Can't be done with a physical Christ. 

If he meant "christ's nature" why not say that?

Nor can I go to the God store and buy a breastplate of righteousness, or shoes made of the gospel of peace, or a helmet of salvation.  I'd look pretty silly wearing nothing about my loins but truth.  LOL. (Eph 6:14-17)

In Colossians the dress code is different; compassion, kindness, meekness patience topped by love (kinda as an overcoat, I guess) (Col 3:12-14)

"Wearing" the traits expressed by the teaching of Jesus is a common theme in Paul's letters.  Even coming from someone who came up in a Bible literalist kinda tradition, this seems to be a reach.  I think it was just Paul's way of waxing poetic (you must admit, through most of his writings, one can detect the hint of a romantic about him).

jcgadfly wrote:

Thank you for this discussion. I may not have mentioned this earlier. 

Quite welcome.  My warmest thanks to you as well.  I've found our exchange to be challenging, enlightening and civil.  Quite refreshing.

We may have taken the original topic of this thread a bit far afield at times, but I think it's been worth it.

Kinda a shame we seem to have lost ronin-dog, though.  LOL

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Ha, I'm still reading. We

Ha, I'm still reading.

We do seem to be way off the original track, though. The detailed history of the bible is a bit past my area of knowledge as well. Don't worry, I'll but in when I have an opinion.

I look forward to seeing you on other posts.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: jcgadfly

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
I'll give you credit - two of the works you cite were actually written by Paul. I Timothy wasn't.

Aaaaargggh! Not again! Why do say this?

jcgadfly wrote:
However, the Galatians passage talks about Jesus as not being divine.

Doesn't help you as I agree with that. He also writes about God putting everything under

Christ's feet except himself. Is Paul a polytheist? If they're one being God is putting everything under is own feet and using different names make no sense.

I've read and re-read chapter 4 of Galatians, then all of Galatians and can't see how you possibly interpret it as denying the divinity of Christ. On the contrary Paul seems to be explaining that since the Son of God, being God, the heir himself, deigned to share out humanity, we, as humans, have been adopted into the divinity of God.

Paul wasn't a polytheist, but is enunciating the Trinitarian belief, three Persons, one God. Are you referring here to Galatians, or to another letter? I'm confused.

jcgadfly wrote:
If you believe that Paul wrote everything that is attributed to him,

he also wrote about putting on Christ as you would put on a garment. Can't be done with a physical Christ.

If he meant "christ's nature" why not say that?

Nor can I go to the God store and buy a breastplate of righteousness, or shoes made of the gospel of peace, or a helmet of salvation. I'd look pretty silly wearing nothing about my loins but truth. LOL. (Eph 6:14-17)

In Colossians the dress code is different; compassion, kindness, meekness patience topped by love (kinda as an overcoat, I guess) (Col 3:12-14)

"Wearing" the traits expressed by the teaching of Jesus is a common theme in Paul's letters. Even coming from someone who came up in a Bible literalist kinda tradition, this seems to be a reach. I think it was just Paul's way of waxing poetic (you must admit, through most of his writings, one can detect the hint of a romantic about him).

jcgadfly wrote:

Thank you for this discussion. I may not have mentioned this earlier.

Quite welcome. My warmest thanks to you as well. I've found our exchange to be challenging, enlightening and civil. Quite refreshing.

We may have taken the original topic of this thread a bit far afield at times, but I think it's been worth it.

Kinda a shame we seem to have lost ronin-dog, though. LOL

1. Why do I say this? It's accepted scholoarship. I didn't say whether Paul may or may not have dictated it to a scribe (I'm not sure - supposedly his eyesight began to fail later in life) but it is accepted that it is not in his own hand because the writing styles and language use are different from the writings accepted as actually being in Paul's hand.

2. The passage you cited was saying Jesus was just a man sent by God - not begotten of God. As anyone who follows any religion is called a son of God, that's not a big deal. Trinitarianism, like it or not, is simply a rationalization to allow people to venerate the Christ and the Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

3 . He has no problem talking about taking off the sinful nature, Why not take the time to construct a parallel sentence?

If you and ronindog want to take this to PM let me know - I'm having a good bit of fun. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 1. Why do I

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Why do I say this? It's accepted scholoarship. I didn't say whether Paul may or may not have dictated it to a scribe (I'm not sure - supposedly his eyesight began to fail later in life) but it is accepted that it is not in his own hand because the writing styles and language use are different from the writings accepted as actually being in Paul's hand.

Well, then.  This is a horse of a different color.  Of course Paul writes via a scribe often.  Many letters (without looking I know Romans is one) contain greetings added by the scribes themselve.  In fact, since someone just had me reading Galatians from one end to the other Eye-wink, Paul makes a big deal of the big writing of the letter since it's in his own hand.  I would still contend, however, that whether dictated, or written in his own hand, the pastoral letters represent genuine Pauline thought.  I'm quite certain that Paul would proof what was written before it was sent.

As far as style, remember that the pastoral letters (ie, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) are written to individuals, while the remainder are formal communications written to entire congregations.  I know for a fact the style of writing I employ here is very different from the style I use when writing emails to my kids at college, and different still from notes I might make for an oral presentation.  Style is not limited by individual, but varies within an individual's communications based on his/her audience.

Now, even though the style varies from correspondednce to correspondence the thought is still mine.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. The passage you cited was saying Jesus was just a man sent by God - not begotten of God. As anyone who follows any religion is called a son of God, that's not a big deal.

But Paul seems to me to be saying that there is some sort of qualitiative difference between the "Son" of God, Jesus Christ, and the adopted "sons of God".  That it is through the qualitatively different sonship of Christ that we become sons of God.

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Why do I say this? It's accepted scholoarship. I didn't say whether Paul may or may not have dictated it to a scribe (I'm not sure - supposedly his eyesight began to fail later in life) but it is accepted that it is not in his own hand because the writing styles and language use are different from the writings accepted as actually being in Paul's hand.

Well, then. This is a horse of a different color. Of course Paul writes via a scribe often. Many letters (without looking I know Romans is one) contain greetings added by the scribes themselve. In fact, since someone just had me reading Galatians from one end to the other Eye-wink, Paul makes a big deal of the big writing of the letter since it's in his own hand. I would still contend, however, that whether dictated, or written in his own hand, the pastoral letters represent genuine Pauline thought. I'm quite certain that Paul would proof what was written before it was sent.

As far as style, remember that the pastoral letters (ie, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) are written to individuals, while the remainder are formal communications written to entire congregations. I know for a fact the style of writing I employ here is very different from the style I use when writing emails to my kids at college, and different still from notes I might make for an oral presentation. Style is not limited by individual, but varies within an individual's communications based on his/her audience.

Now, even though the style varies from correspondednce to correspondence the thought is still mine.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. The passage you cited was saying Jesus was just a man sent by God - not begotten of God. As anyone who follows any religion is called a son of God, that's not a big deal.

But Paul seems to me to be saying that there is some sort of qualitiative difference between the "Son" of God, Jesus Christ, and the adopted "sons of God". That it is through the qualitatively different sonship of Christ that we become sons of God.

 

1. Isn't the point of taking dictation to report the words exactly as they are spoken? Why would Paul dictate a letter (if he did dictate to a scribe) then turn around and say "OK, you can write this however you want but try to keep the message at least close to what I was saying"? The only characters I'd ever seen do this were on MASH (Col. Blake and Radar - "Take what I said and make it sound...military&quotEye-wink.

2. A case can be made for the "Son of God" concept being a construct as well as the Jesus character never called himeslf that. "Son of Man" meant "Messiah"- a title that implies no familial attachment to the Deity.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 1. Isn't

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Isn't the point of taking dictation to report the words exactly as they are spoken? Why would Paul dictate a letter (if he did dictate to a scribe) then turn around and say "OK, you can write this however you want but try to keep the message at least close to what I was saying"? The only characters I'd ever seen do this were on MASH (Col. Blake and Radar - "Take what I said and make it sound...military."

Indeed, it is the point of dictation to rduce accurate copy.  Remember, though, my second point.  The pastoral letters, those being written to individuals, were private communications, being written to those Pal knew well.  The writing style is going to vary from those letters addressed and intended to be read as missives to Chuch congregations.  Take, for an example, the Pope's recent encyclical, Spe Salvi (an awesome piece of thought by the way {shameless plug}.  I'm sure it doesn't represent the style in which the Pope speaks to his intimates in everyday life, and even less looks like a letter to his brother might.  I know the wy I write here doesn't reflect my wrting style to my friends via email.

Henry Blake was a hoot.  I always loved the character.  But this remark (even though using fictonal characters) illustrates this point.  You nver see Henry Blake telling Radar to take a letter to his wife and make it sound romantic.  In fact, I would think that the pastorals, being written to indviduals Paul knew intimately, are even more likely than the other Epistles, to have been wriiten in Paul's own hand, reflect Paul's gravest concerns and insecurities, and to have probably undergone less scrutiny and editing than thos intended to be public writings.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. A case can be made for the "Son of God" concept being a construct as well as the Jesus character never called himeslf that. "Son of Man" meant "Messiah"- a title that implies no familial attachment to the Deity.

Quite true.  That cae can indeed be made.  A case can alo be made that where any "son of..." references occur, whether of Man or of God, such reflect the Jewishness of the authors.  Aramaic language, and therefore contemporary Jewish minds, had no word for "species" and when denoting species used the phrase "son of" .  I suspect that it may simply indicated a translation of that idea directly nto Greek.  That being the case, the phrase "son of" would argue even more strongly for the belief in the writers of the Gospels, and of Paul, in the divinity of Christ.

A bit of bad news.  As much as I'm enjoying this exchage, I'm doin some travelling this week for a family gathering.  I'm taking my laptop, but 'll be staying with my brother who (horror of horrors) doesn't have internet access.  He lives somewhat out in the country, so acces to a wireless network may be hard to come by.  With any luck, I'll be able still particpate in this discussion with you.  If not, we can pick it back up at the first of next week.  Please pray for (oops Eye-wink) rather, wish me a safe journey, and I'll talk to you then.

Tchuss!

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 1. Isn't

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Isn't the point of taking dictation to report the words exactly as they are spoken? Why would Paul dictate a letter (if he did dictate to a scribe) then turn around and say "OK, you can write this however you want but try to keep the message at least close to what I was saying"? The only characters I'd ever seen do this were on MASH (Col. Blake and Radar - "Take what I said and make it sound...military."

Indeed, it is the point of dictation to rduce accurate copy.  Remember, though, my second point.  The pastoral letters, those being written to individuals, were private communications, being written to those Pal knew well.  The writing style is going to vary from those letters addressed and intended to be read as missives to Chuch congregations.  Take, for an example, the Pope's recent encyclical, Spe Salvi (an awesome piece of thought by the way {shameless plug}.  I'm sure it doesn't represent the style in which the Pope speaks to his intimates in everyday life, and even less looks like a letter to his brother might.  I know the wy I write here doesn't reflect my wrting style to my friends via email.

Henry Blake was a hoot.  I always loved the character.  But this remark (even though using fictonal characters) illustrates this point.  You nver see Henry Blake telling Radar to take a letter to his wife and make it sound romantic.  In fact, I would think that the pastorals, being written to indviduals Paul knew intimately, are even more likely than the other Epistles, to have been wriiten in Paul's own hand, reflect Paul's gravest concerns and insecurities, and to have probably undergone less scrutiny and editing than thos intended to be public writings.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. A case can be made for the "Son of God" concept being a construct as well as the Jesus character never called himeslf that. "Son of Man" meant "Messiah"- a title that implies no familial attachment to the Deity.

Quite true.  That cae can indeed be made.  A case can alo be made that where any "son of..." references occur, whether of Man or of God, such reflect the Jewishness of the authors.  Aramaic language, and therefore contemporary Jewish minds, had no word for "species" and when denoting species used the phrase "son of" .  I suspect that it may simply indicated a translation of that idea directly nto Greek.  That being the case, the phrase "son of" would argue even more strongly for the belief in the writers of the Gospels, and of Paul, in the divinity of Christ.

A bit of bad news.  As much as I'm enjoying this exchage, I'm doin some travelling this week for a family gathering.  I'm taking my laptop, but 'll be staying with my brother who (horror of horrors) doesn't have internet access.  He lives somewhat out in the country, so acces to a wireless network may be hard to come by.  With any luck, I'll be able still particpate in this discussion with you.  If not, we can pick it back up at the first of next week.  Please pray for (oops Eye-wink) rather, wish me a safe journey, and I'll talk to you then.

Tchuss!

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Isn't the point of taking dictation to report the words exactly as they are spoken? Why would Paul dictate a letter (if he did dictate to a scribe) then turn around and say "OK, you can write this however you want but try to keep the message at least close to what I was saying"? The only characters I'd ever seen do this were on MASH (Col. Blake and Radar - "Take what I said and make it sound...military."

Indeed, it is the point of dictation to rduce accurate copy. Remember, though, my second point. The pastoral letters, those being written to individuals, were private communications, being written to those Pal knew well. The writing style is going to vary from those letters addressed and intended to be read as missives to Chuch congregations. Take, for an example, the Pope's recent encyclical, Spe Salvi (an awesome piece of thought by the way {shameless plug}. I'm sure it doesn't represent the style in which the Pope speaks to his intimates in everyday life, and even less looks like a letter to his brother might. I know the wy I write here doesn't reflect my wrting style to my friends via email.

Henry Blake was a hoot. I always loved the character. But this remark (even though using fictonal characters) illustrates this point. You nver see Henry Blake telling Radar to take a letter to his wife and make it sound romantic. In fact, I would think that the pastorals, being written to indviduals Paul knew intimately, are even more likely than the other Epistles, to have been wriiten in Paul's own hand, reflect Paul's gravest concerns and insecurities, and to have probably undergone less scrutiny and editing than thos intended to be public writings.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. A case can be made for the "Son of God" concept being a construct as well as the Jesus character never called himeslf that. "Son of Man" meant "Messiah"- a title that implies no familial attachment to the Deity.

Quite true. That cae can indeed be made. A case can alo be made that where any "son of..." references occur, whether of Man or of God, such reflect the Jewishness of the authors. Aramaic language, and therefore contemporary Jewish minds, had no word for "species" and when denoting species used the phrase "son of" . I suspect that it may simply indicated a translation of that idea directly nto Greek. That being the case, the phrase "son of" would argue even more strongly for the belief in the writers of the Gospels, and of Paul, in the divinity of Christ.

A bit of bad news. As much as I'm enjoying this exchage, I'm doin some travelling this week for a family gathering. I'm taking my laptop, but 'll be staying with my brother who (horror of horrors) doesn't have internet access. He lives somewhat out in the country, so acces to a wireless network may be hard to come by. With any luck, I'll be able still particpate in this discussion with you. If not, we can pick it back up at the first of next week. Please pray for (oops Eye-wink) rather, wish me a safe journey, and I'll talk to you then.

Tchuss!

Interesting contradiction you pose. You claimed ealier that Paul was no shrinking violet yet you say that he would have written softer prose to deal with the concerns he described in the pastoral epistles than he would have to the letters to the churches. Were the church leaders not around to read what was written to the churches? It seems ironic that Paul would write Timothy, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you're young" but treat him with kid gloves.

Enjoy your time away. It wouldn't bother me if you never wrote on your vacation. The computer is one of those things I get away from on mine. As for praying for you, why deliver my well-wishes through a middle Being when I can do it directly?

Macht Spass!

Edit - This latest encyclical you're lauding wouldn't be a way for Ratzinger to ignore his Wehrmacht past, would it?  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin