Greatest Sect of Christianity

[molly bloom]

I didn't say anything about the virgin birth, or even Christ's death and resurrection (which is really the only important thing, as far as Christianity is concerned).

I don't think it is possible to rationally seriously doubt the existence of a Jewish preacher named Jesus though.

Indeed. Yeshua was a fairly common name. There was even more than one preacher called Yeshua.

What is treated as Canonical hasn't changed.

Wanna bet ?

This argument about what is canon is just flailing by those who wish for an excuse to not believe.

Right. Because the proof is really so compelling. I don't need an excuse not to believe. I don't even need not to believe. Not believing in Odin, Krishna, Pollen Boy, Astarte, or the Morrigan seems not to have altered me one whit.

Believers, on the other hand, do need to buttress their faiths. And there's a difference.

[molly bloom]

You don't understand the Gospel according to John. You have no evidence at all that the doctrine of the trinity didn't come directly from Christ.

Do you have any evidence that a doctrine of the Trinity is expressed in the words of the Jewish preacher called Jesus anywhere in the New Testament ?


Perhaps it would help if you understood the word 'doctrine' and how a 'doctrine' develops, or is expressed. Calling a god 'father' or 'abba' would not have been evidence of a doctrine, for instance.

[molly bloom]

hint: the Gospels aren't a complete record of what Christ said, however they are sufficient. If the early church believed in the Trinity it's because of the record of what Christ said and the apoatolic tradition.

This is so appallingly stupid, I can't believe it's not the result of some brain injury or substance abuse. So the doctrine of the Trinity, as expounded by the later Christian church (after it had 'de-judaized' itself) does not actually appear in the Bible being formulated by Jesus, because, as you say, the Gospels aren't a complete record of what Jesus is supposed to have said. Hardly surprising given the various historical inaccuracies in them- it's not like they're 'Eyewitness News-Transcribed Live From Galilee'.

However, because it was later agreed upon as a doctrine by some of the Christians you therefore conclude it must have been expressed in some lost documents or apostolic epistles, because otherwise how could the early Christians expound it ?

Here's a clue- how many of the early Church fathers are actually meant to have met in the flesh, the Jewish preacher Jesus, or his mother, or God ?

This didn't stop them from theorizing about the separate wills or energies of Jesus and the Godhead or the nature of the union of the Trinity, or any other number of things that now seem utterly ludicrous (to me).

Here's Nestorius (who didn't make the final cut in the West or Eastern Roman Empire, but whose followers did quite well in Asia, for a while):

God could not be born to a woman (Mary) who was unable to carry a child who would be older than herself, so the term 'Theotokos' (Mother of God) applied to Jesus's mother, implies that the human aspect of Jesus is subsumed in the divine. He suggests using different formulae, such as 'Christotokos', meaning she who carried or gave birth to Christ.

Of such things are heresies and anathemas born. Not too surprisingly, the Nestorian Chruch found a happy(ish) home in the Sassanid Empire, which frequently warred with the Eastern Roman Empire, and later Byzantium. The Sassanids and Byzantines sponsored two separate Arab tribes as client states, using them as proxies in the conflict with each other. One tribe was Monophysite, one was Nestorian.

All very jolly and Christian, especially when they were killing each other, which they did on a regular basis.

[molly bloom]

So you're honest.

How kind of you to notice. Perhaps you'd care to apologize for unChristianly calling me a con artist....

Ok, what's the real deal with the hard on that you have for me now.

Ugh. What a revolting thought. I simply find your newly acquired faith and 'instant superknowledge' quite funny.

[molly bloom]

To be honest I haven't a clue about a good deal of the Bible .

And now at last you've stated something that the majority of posters here will concur with. Well done. Was it a revelation ?

[Kidlicious]

How kind of you to notice. Perhaps you'd care to apologize for unChristianly calling me a con artist....




Ugh. What a revolting thought. I simply find your newly acquired faith and 'instant superknowledge' quite funny.

You called me a con artist. Do con artists believe their own con? Your problem is that you're so arrogant that you refuse to believe that God does in fact revealed truth to people. All of your posts operate under the assumption that you know everything.

[Elok]

Can we please not turn this into another theist/atheist fight? We've had about two billion of them on here, and each one is invariably the same as the last.

[Kidlicious]

Do you have any evidence that a doctrine of the Trinity is expressed in the words of the Jewish preacher called Jesus anywhere in the New Testament ?


Perhaps it would help if you understood the word 'doctrine' and how a 'doctrine' develops, or is expressed. Calling a god 'father' or 'abba' would not have been evidence of a doctrine, for instance.

TheBible of course is the evidence.

[loinburger]

Can we please not turn this into another theist/atheist fight? We've had about two billion of them on here, and each one is invariably the same as the last.

Meaning that the atheists always win. ZING

[Elok]

....yyyyeaaahhh, nobody ever really "wins" when monkeys throw **** at each other. Except for the monkeys who like scat, of course.

[loinburger]

[Kidlicious]

This is so appallingly stupid, I can't believe it's not the result of some brain injury or substance abuse. So the doctrine of the Trinity, as expounded by the later Christian church (after it had 'de-judaized' itself) does not actually appear in the Bible being formulated by Jesus, because, as you say, the Gospels aren't a complete record of what Jesus is supposed to have said. Hardly surprising given the various historical inaccuracies in them- it's not like they're 'Eyewitness News-Transcribed Live From Galilee'.

However, because it was later agreed upon as a doctrine by some of the Christians you therefore conclude it must have been expressed in some lost documents or apostolic epistles, because otherwise how could the early Christians expound it ?

Here's a clue- how many of the early Church fathers are actually meant to have met in the flesh, the Jewish preacher Jesus, or his mother, or God ?

This didn't stop them from theorizing about the separate wills or energies of Jesus and the Godhead or the nature of the union of the Trinity, or any other number of things that now seem utterly ludicrous (to me).

Here's Nestorius (who didn't make the final cut in the West or Eastern Roman Empire, but whose followers did quite well in Asia, for a while):

God could not be born to a woman (Mary) who was unable to carry a child who would be older than herself, so the term 'Theotokos' (Mother of God) applied to Jesus's mother, implies that the human aspect of Jesus is subsumed in the divine. He suggests using different formulae, such as 'Christotokos', meaning she who carried or gave birth to Christ.

Of such things are heresies and anathemas born. Not too surprisingly, the Nestorian Chruch found a happy(ish) home in the Sassanid Empire, which frequently warred with the Eastern Roman Empire, and later Byzantium. The Sassanids and Byzantines sponsored two separate Arab tribes as client states, using them as proxies in the conflict with each other. One tribe was Monophysite, one was Nestorian.

All very jolly and Christian, especially when they were killing each other, which they did on a regular basis.

Does everything turn out how you expect it to? Nothing ever suprises you? You expect me to go right wing so that must be true. It just can't be false? If I said we had an earthquake in Oklahoma would you insist that I'm a con artist? Now that's what I call stupid.

[Kidlicious]

Can we please not turn this into another theist/atheist fight? We've had about two billion of them on here, and each one is invariably the same as the last.

Bump the last one to make it easy

[Imran Siddiqui]

I really don't have the golden key to the kingdom of God but I know there's something very wrong with denying that when men gather together in God's name they start slowly screwing it up more and more.

Matthew 18:15-20 (KJV)

15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Seems to indicate that Jesus WANTS people to gather together in God's name. Interesting He doesn't say He is in the midst of every individual believer (though I believe that He is), but when two or three are gathered in His name. He also speaks of a Church very often as well.

Divorcing our faith from a fellowship is something against what Jesus wants to do.

I also dispute that we are straying farther and farther from God over time - it was only a few hundred years ago where the revelation of God that slavery is wrong was heard loud and clear by Christians.

Furthermore, the Kingdom is already in our midst, Kid! We must try to bring it here more and more until Jesus comes again, resurrects the dead, and creates a new Heaven and new Earth!

[Kidlicious]

Typical protestant talk. Just because there are two or three of us together doesn't make us right. As Sloww eluded to, you should improvements yoursel. How can you do that if you don't know what your problem is? Protestants are always talking about how good they are.