Greatest Sect of Christianity

[SlowwHand]

I want to tell some of you something. You can study theology from now until forever and all you'll have is your interpretation. There is no way that anyone can say conclusively what's correct and what's not. You'll have to wait. In the meantime, just be glad that another person believes. It's not on you to try and determine if they're correct or not. Be glad for them, but focus on your own improvement.

[Kidlicious]

Thank you Slowwhand. That is a very wise thing to say.

[Al B. Sure!]

I want to tell some of you something. You can study theology from now until forever and all you'll have is your interpretation. There is no way that anyone can say conclusively what's correct and what's not. You'll have to wait. In the meantime, just be glad that another person believes. It's not on you to try and determine if they're correct or not. Be glad for them, but focus on your own improvement.

That's not Christianity! The unbelievers must have salvation and know Christ! It is your duty as a Christian to spread the Word of God!

[Jon Miller]

It is.

But what way is the best to spread the Good News?

Why wouldn't Christians want non-Christians to have a good thing?

JM

[Kidlicious]

That's not Christianity! The unbelievers must have salvation and know Christ! It is your duty as a Christian to spread the Word of God!

Unbelievers are like christians. They think they know it all. No actually just talking about you Albe. my church baptises someone every two weeks or so. (j/k you know a lot)

[Lorizael]

Thought this weirdly appropriate:

[Kidlicious]

Yeah when you tell people about the gospel they might not be open to the truth but they might listen if you say Jesus will make you rich or whatever gets their juices flowing. It's tuff.

[molly bloom]

Actually, I mentioned this to my wife and she says she's encountered literal bibliolatry before. Don't know where.

Does she work with mental health patients ?

[molly bloom]

It's one of those things that developed. Obviously the apostle that wrote the gospel of John believed in it and had an influence.

.

Unfortunately for the author of that Gospel, the doctrine of the Trinity didn't develop until centuries after his death, especially with the Scholastics. You're only cofirming your newbie Christianista status each time you post drivel like this.

I wonder if you've ever heard of Theophilus of Antioch, Origen or Tertullian ? None of them were around when the Apostles or Jesus supposedly were. They're all inolved in the early formulation of an idea of a triune godhead- which itself is hardly unique to Christianity. Neither is a virgin birth, by the way.

Would you like a list of non-Christian trinities ?

[molly bloom]

So let me get this straight. You aren't one, but you talk as though you are.

I was brought up a Roman Catholic (post Vatican II). I've read the Bible in its entirety, but for the sake of sanity tend to avoid the long dreary lists of begats and antecedents in the Old Testament. I have a keen interest in Egyptian and Classical history. I have a fairly good grounding in the history of the Anglican Church in England (thanks to an excellent grammar school) .

I'm reasonably knowledgeable about the various doctrinal conflicts and heresies of Mediaeval and Renaissance Europe, from Lollardy and Catharism to the Waldenses and Socinians.

My politics are undeniably left of centre, and I've never hidden that.

You don't believe in it but you convince others.

I don't believe in the traditional view of Christianity, and certainly not the more whack job and modern variations on it. I'm congenitally disinclined, shall we say, towards a belief in Calvinism, an elect, predestination, talking in tongues, and paid clergy.

I'm not sure who I'm meant to have convinced into believing liberation theology, by the way- it just happens to be a subset of one branch of Christianity with which I'm most familiar, that I find correlates with some of my political concerns and agendas.

Unlike American televangelists I'm no snake oil salesman.

So you're wrong- logically and factually.

[molly bloom]

Noah was important because of the whole drunken flashing himself to his sons thing. Also he built a boat.

Which given the rather suspicious lack of any kind of sailing tradition amongst the Hebrews is somewhat suspicious. What I object to most about the Noachic myth being read literally, is that it ignores a fundamental aspect of urban human civilization- the need for large supplies of potable water close at hand. Surprisingly, rivers flood, land erodes and sea level goes up (and down).

It's even more objectionable when you read those fundies who base a whole racist theo-ideology on the basis of the fall-out amongst Noah's offspring after his drinking binge.

And let's not get started on the suppodely literal ability of the Ark to comfortably house all the animals and foodstuffs required for them. As for the morality of slaughtering a the vast majority of the world's population and extinguising its flora and fauna, the mind boggles.

[Jon Miller]

Thinking that Jesus didn't exist has less support than thinking that the Apostles preached the trinity.

And the beginnings of the trinity doctrine were previous to Origen (especially since he doesn't hold the trinity doctrine), although that era of theologians are who began to formalize it, and the trinity doctrine is a quite obvious interpretation of the new testament (which isn't to say that other doctrines are not also quite obvious interpretations of the new testament).

JM
(And the books that form the new testament predates Origen (who was born a century after the last of those who had seen Christ died) by at least a century, and were the ones quoted by the church leaders at the time. Just because the new testament wasn't formally decided upon until roughly the 4th century doesn't mean that the books were developed them or were not treated as scripture before then).

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's not Christianity! The unbelievers must have salvation and know Christ! It is your duty as a Christian to spread the Word of God!

You mean spread the Good News, Alby . That and to go and make disciples of all nations.

Though I do think that Christianity can be summarized in the the 2 Commandments of Jesus Christ - Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul & love your neighbor as yourself.

[molly bloom]

Thinking that Jesus didn't exist has less support than thinking that the Apostles preached the trinity.

I don't believe in te traditional Christian Jesus- I think there may have been a radical Jewish preacher who was concerned not simply with personal salvation, but also with the social situation of the poor and the traditionally despised elements of Jewish society.

I don't believe in the Virgin birth (which hinges on a questionable translation), the patently absurd wandering star, or the garbled and confused (historically) account of the 'Christmas' story.

And the beginnings of the trinity doctrine were previous to Origen

I haven't denied this.

and the trinity doctrine is a quite obvious interpretation of the new testament

It's the surviving most broadly accepted doctrine of part of the New Testament mythology. Given the various schisms, anathematizings and conflicts of Early Christianity (to say nothing of the various uprisings and big power conflicts in the Mediterranean and Near East and Egypt) what we have is culled from a variety of different sources and effectively imposed on a Hellenized Roman world by the state with the nearest and biggest guns. The Eastern Roman Empire, in fact. Who also moved against Arianism in the Western Roman Empire in Italy with fairly decisive results...

And the books that form the new testament predates Origen

Again, not something I've denied. I'm quite aware of the dates of certain surviving fragments of New Testament texts- the university I attended in Manchester has a very, very old piece indeed.

Just because the new testament wasn't formally decided upon until roughly the 4th century doesn't mean that the books were developed them or were not treated as scripture before then

Well, thanks for teaching me to suck eggs. Some books in the Old and New Testament were treated as being reliable, others were not. Even today, the Ethiopian Church (as a for instance) differs in what it regards as canonical works from other Christian sects. As I recall, there are a few passages in the New Testament (in one of Paul's epistles, if memory serves) where he specifically warns against fake 'Pauline' letters being distributed.

Given the various controversies and hair splitting it's a wonder any texts survived. I'm sure Kid would think that divinely ordained...

[Elok]

Kid, let me put it this way: Matthew 1 lists the genealogy of Christ--technically, of Joseph--and says the father of Joseph was Jacob. Luke 3 does the same thing (in reverse order) and lists the father of Joseph as "Heli." Now, there are ways to interpret this conflict away, for example by saying Jacob must have been also known as Heli, or by saying they were brothers, one died, and the other married his widow to provide his brother with an heir.

Be that as it may, which strikes you as a more reasonable position to take?
A. The Bible-as-Word, being somehow equivalent to Jesus, was created before the dawn of time with two conflicting accounts of a relatively minor player's paternity deliberately embedded in it for some inscrutable reason. Also that bit in the OT (I forget its exact location) where God orders a cauldron to be made in certain dimensions, in the process strongly implying that he thinks pi is exactly equal to three. That was included on purpose too, although as creator of the universe God knows pi down to the eighty-quintillionth digit and beyond.
B. The Bible was written by mortal men, one or both of whom (in the case of Joseph's father) may have made some error, or reported an event differently due to differences in their perspective. It doesn't really matter if little bits like these are wrong; as that anonymous quote you posted says, the Bible contains all things necessary for our salvation. It doesn't need to be infallible in every single detail, since we are not saved by Joseph's father or by an old cauldron, or any of a million other dinky accumulated errors which are the natural consequence of the Bible's peculiar composition. We need only have faith that it will show us the overall Truth--Who is Jesus.

I think B works better. I don't think the Bible is the Antichrist, or "the prophets were wrong," or any of the other offensive rubbish you imputed to me. I simply think the Bible must be approached as an account of God written by men, not as some avatar of God himself. I defy you to come up with any quote from the early church saying such a thing--do you seriously think that, after writing his Epistle to the Romans, Paul sat back and thought, "whew, I just transcribed a little hunk of God"?