Religion II

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This may come as a total shock to you, but the first-century "Christianity" landscape bore little resemblance to the Christianity of today. In fact...the first-century Christian groups were reviled and persecuted into extinction for being "heretical...by the very same Christian churches which reign in the present day. The doctrine of the first-century Christianity wasn't as "homogeneous" as you might think.

Where in my prior post do I say that the Christians were persecuting each other in the first century? I am reproducing my "previous post" here...so you could see that all I am saying is that the first-century Christians were PERSECUTED...PERIOD! The gnostics were a first-century religious group who were considered "Christian" by the Christians THEMSELVES! In fact, until the 3rd century...the gnostics attended the Christian gatherings alongside their "mainstream" Christian brethren. This all changed in the 4th century, however...when arguments arose within the then Christian community...concerning the "true nature of Jesus". That's when the gnostic persecution began...and their books started getting burned by the "mainstream Christians".

It's all out there...if you care to search for yourself. Of course...I know that you are ALLERGIC to the truth, in such matters. You enjoy the comfort provided for you by your religious-fundamentalist websites.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Even if John lived to be that old, that doesn't mean he wrote Revelation on his death bed.

I'm not talking about Revelation. I'm talking about the Gospel of John which theist scholars date to about 100 C.E. And he does not have to be on his death bed. Plenty of 90 year olds are in good health with their faculties intact.

I take it that you think that the three Johns (John the disciple, John the biographer and John of Patmos) were the same guy. Since John was a common name even then, on what do you base this?

There are no surviving original gospels or epistles. All that survive are copies. Do you accept that?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Where in my prior post do I say that the Christians were persecuting each other in the first century? I am reproducing my "previous post" here...so you could see that all I am saying is that the first-century Christians were PERSECUTED...PERIOD! The gnostics were a first-century religious group who were considered "Christian" by the Christians THEMSELVES! In fact, until the 3rd century...the gnostics attended the Christian gatherings alongside their "mainstream" Christian brethren. This all changed in the 4th century, however...when arguments arose within the then Christian community...concerning the "true nature of Jesus". That's when the gnostic persecution began...and their books started getting burned by the "mainstream Christians".

It's all out there...if you care to search for yourself. Of course...I know that you are ALLERGIC to the truth, in such matters. You enjoy the comfort provided for you by your religious-fundamentalist websites.

You're becoming as bad as Actor!

YOU:

...the first-century Christian groups were reviled and persecuted into extinction for being "heretical...by the very same Christian churches which reign in the present day.

Since "it's all out there", why don't you provide links? And the fourth century church was who exactly: Roman Catholics?

And if any of the ancient Christians considered the Gnostics to be true born again believers, they were dead wrong. They obviously didn't take to heart Paul and John's warnings.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'm not talking about Revelation. I'm talking about the Gospel of John which theist scholars date to about 100 C.E. And he does not have to be on his death bed. Plenty of 90 year olds are in good health with their faculties intact.

I take it that you think that the three Johns (John the disciple, John the biographer and John of Patmos) were the same guy. Since John was a common name even then, on what do you base this?

There are no surviving original gospels or epistles. All that survive are copies. Do you accept that?

All "theist scholars" or just your selected ones? Many scholars place the date of John's Gospel somewhere in the '80s -- some say as early as 70 and or late as 98. I favor an even earlier date because nothing is said about the Diaspora in 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. This silence is very strange given the historical magnitude of these events. But in either case, the Gospel was written by the apostle John while he was still alive.

There are no original manuscripts of the NT. John is the apostle "whom Jesus loved". Period.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There are no original manuscripts of the NT.

And the earliest surviving copies have no "by" line. Correct?

[Actor]

I could make boxcar stop believing in god.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Which disciples of what religious persuasion ever told the world that their Master returned to life?

The disciples of Sathya Sai Baba who died in 2011 according to secular records. His disciples say that he returned to life, that he was born of a virgin, that he walked on water, that he levitated. And there are thousands of witnesses to these events. And unlike the witnesses to Jesus's miracles and resurrection, who are definitely dead, thousands of these witnesses are alive today. You can look them up and ask them.

And let's not forget Menachem Mendel Schneerson whose secular death occurred in 1994 but witnesses will attest to his being alive today.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The disciples of Sathya Sai Baba who died in 2011 according to secular records. His disciples say that he returned to life, that he was born of a virgin, that he walked on water, that he levitated. And there are thousands of witnesses to these events. And unlike the witnesses to Jesus's miracles and resurrection, who are definitely dead, thousands of these witnesses are alive today. You can look them up and ask them.

And let's not forget Menachem Mendel Schneerson whose secular death occurred in 1994 but witnesses will attest to his being alive today.

Well then...since you believe all this stuff being that it's all recorded in SECULAR, UNBIASED records, how come you're not a disciple of one of these sects? Man...how can you pass that up...thousands of live witnesses and all...

Sounds to me, however, like a cheap copy-cat religion.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I could make boxcar stop believing in god.

No you can't because it's not possible to deceive a true believer.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And the earliest surviving copies have no "by" line. Correct?

Not that I know of...but the all "the earliest surviving copies" are virtually identical to one another.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well then...since you believe all this stuff being that it's all recorded in SECULAR, UNBIASED records, how come you're not a disciple of one of these sects? Man...how can you pass that up...thousands of live witnesses and all...

Sounds to me, however, like a cheap copy-cat religion.

Right. The question is why do you dismiss claims about the contemporary Sai Baba while accepting the identical claims about the 2000 year old version?

For the record, I dismiss both. It's all smoke and mirrors.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No you can't because it's not possible to deceive a true believer.

There are techniques which do not involve deception.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Not that I know of...but the all "the earliest surviving copies" are virtually identical to one another.

And later copies have "according to ..." written in the margin. Correct?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Right. The question is why do you dismiss claims about the contemporary Sai Baba while accepting the identical claims about the 2000 year old version?

For the record, I dismiss both. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Well then...for the record, all your arm and hand waving over the lack of secular, extra-biblical, unbiased sources as an excuse to not accept the truth claims of the bible is pure, unadulterated cow manure. (Why am I not surprised?)

I reject claims about Baba because the bible predicted false Christs would rise up. Thanks for the example, though, since it affirms Christ's prophecies.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

There are techniques which do not involve deception.

Since all truth is God's truth, then any attempt to disprove God, would by definition, necessarily involve deception.