he wasn't arguing for the existence of God so credible evidence of what? then by all means don't participate. Do you think he's trying to trick you into it?
I will try to define the debate, that seems to have evolved in this thread: 1. Christianity has a specific, objective definition. 2. Christianity is subjective, and means what anybody wants it to. The OP has taken the position of #1. Christianity has historical, precise, and exclusive definitions, given by the Founder. The existence of lies and distortions does not negate objective reality. They only clarify the truth and deceive the simple minded, or those wanting to be deceived. There exists an unbroken line of orthodoxy, beginning with Jesus, His earliest disciples, the early church fathers, and the apologists. Others have taken the position of #2: Christianity is whatever anyone wants it to be. It is a feeling based concept, with no historical reference or precise definition. The words of Jesus are vague, unknowable, and unexplainable. They have no objective meaning. The words and events in the biblical manuscripts are subjective, with no original intent. Personally, i find a debate like this to be an exercise in futility. If all is subjective feeling, how can ANYTHING be debated or examined, and how can there be ANY empirical knowledge, if everything in objective reality is dependent on a subjective, feeling based interpretation? IF.. We are to have a debate about what constitutes the historical, precise, objective definition of Christianity, THEN.. There has to be some kind of evidence.. facts, written records, history.. that CLEARLY DEFINE what Christianity is. EVIDENCE, not assertions, opinions, anecdotes, or feelings, should have superior weight in crafting definitions for anything. If we were to debate Islam, or Confucianism, or atheism, there would have to be an objective definition as to what those terms convey. You don't say, 'Atheism means whatever you want it to!' It has a specific, logical, historical definition, and conveys a specific meaning. Why is this different for Christianity? Why should it be given fluid, fickle definitions that have no objective meaning? It is because of this problem of definitions that Christianity HAS BEEN defined, stated, and defended, over the millennia. False teachings, lies, and distortions take over the narrative, and the actual Truth is lost amidst the flood of lies. That is why creeds, apologias, statements of faith, and scholarship on the historical accuracy and credibility of the scriptures has been a crucial part of Christian history. If there is no objective definition of Christianity, why are there objective definitions for other things? Why is Christianity singled out to be a meaningless, feeling based definition? Why can Islam, Taoism, atheism, etc, have specific, objective definitions, but Christianity cannot? Where all is but dream, reasoning and arguments are of no use, truth and knowledge nothing. ~John Locke
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Guess that is what got me all "brainwashed". Hahaha
It is simple: Examine the evidence. What do the ONLY historical written records of Jesus's words say? Since what He said is the core definition of Christianity, they should carry the most weight in defining the term. Instead of vague assertions of 'many denominations', why not be specific? We can then examine the definer's claims to see whether they are: 1. Heretical. Contrary to the clear teaching of Jesus. 2. Optional. An add-on with no clear directive. 3. Orthodox. In line with the biblical and historical exegesis of Jesus's teachings . I don't care about denominations. I don't believe they exist, in the realm of the invisible church. They are a human construct, and have mostly been a problem, in leading the followers of Jesus astray. So the arguments of denominations is irrelevant to me. What matters is orthodoxy. ..Holding fast to the Head, and abiding in the truth, not tossed about by the fickle whims of men, and their machinations. What are the teachings.. about Christ, man, God, redemption.. the core beliefs of the Christian faith.. THESE are the defining characteristics, not obscure 'denominations!' differences, that are not even defined. If you think some of the points of the OP are irrelevant to Christianity, or are add-ons, by all means, provide the evidence for that view. I am wanting a clarified, precise definition, instead of the vague, fluid narratives that are common now.
I would not say monolithic. But there is a historical, precise, and exact definition of Christianity that is rooted in objective reality. People usually fall into one of these categories, regarding the evidence for historical Christianity. Some don't care. They don't inquire, and the definitions are irrelevant to their lives. Some are very serious about the exact, precise definition of Christianity, and the evidence for it. Many scholars and historians have dedicated their lives, over the millennia, to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the evidence. Some are enemies, who sow misinformation and lies, to deceive. Some don't know, but are curious. It depends on your outlook, perspective, motivation, and goals. Seek the truth, trust what you've heard, or believe a lie. Those seem to be the basic choices, here. Ignorance, falsehoods, or truth. Those are the options in any pursuit of knowledge.
I have been struggling with this very thing for what seems like forever. It seem that because Christianity can be spiritual, some believe that's all there is to it. This gives rise to all sorts of superstition that, yes, even atheists subscribe to (for instance, the "old man that lives in the sky" "zombie jesus" etc.) Theology used to be known as a science because it took what we know to it's logical conclusion (this was before the scientism types decided that they own science). There is nothing new about what we are saying, this has been said before.
1. The NT manuscripts have a specific exegesis, that humans for millennia have understood. The historical corroboration of apologists and scholars provide a lineage for that exegesis, they did not craft it. 2. Deceivers have attempted.. also for millennia.. to distort, and deflect from the clear exegesis of the NT manuscripts. 'Sola scriptura!', was the correcting cry, a few centuries back, to bring us back to an objective, accurate definition of the Christian worldview. 3. Analyzing the motives and methodology of God is beyond my pay scale, at this time. I, like most people, am trapped in mortality, and lack the eternal perspective of an Omniscient Being.
Here again, the core definitions from the Founder of Christianity should take precedence. If something is ambiguous or vague, it cannot conflict with, or compel, an 'essential' status. If something is clear, repeated, and defended constantly throughout history, it is reasonable to conclude it as 'essential.' If something is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, and vilified as heresy continually in orthodox Christianity, it is reasonable to conclude it as 'not-Christianity'. We would have to look at specifics, in order to make an intelligent analysis. 'Heresy' can just be a smear term. But it also is a descriptor, to define departure from orthodoxy.
Their argument is with Jesus and the rest of the canon of scripture. That is a departure from orthodoxy, not a mere variation. This is not a mandate of what people should believe, but a definition of what constitutes historical, orthodox Christianity. People believe a great many things. ..some may be right, but most are likely wrong.
You mean this as mocking, but touch upon a significant Truth that was revived during the reformation: "Sola Scriptura!" It elevated the scriptures to authority in the believer's life, over the decrees of an elite. It also was the spark for the enlightenment and the concepts of natural law. LAW, not the fickle mandates of a ruling elite, was the Standard, and it was over all.. nobody was exempt. The Book. Yes. Sola Scriptura. Everyone in the invisible, catholic church owes a debt of gratitude to the reformers.
Then you're up against what Sola Scriptura actually is. Some think scripture is what they say it is. Check out the book "The Shape Of Sola Scriptura". You cant get around having teachers.
That seems untrue In fact, there was a large diversity of views among early Christians if you look at christianities across time and cultures we can see very large shifts of dogma in fact, Christ and the earliest Christians considered themselves Jewish, not christian Most early Christians could not read any manuscripts even if they were available most had access to only a few of the manuscripts of the NT There was in fact no agreed cannon of books for more than three hundred years Christians in Jerusalem certainly would not have considered Paul’s letters to be scripture In some cases you seem to have high confidence in your understanding of God’s intentions In other cases you do not
Some early Christians considered themselves Jews because they were. The two are not mutually exclusive.
You are so very brainwashed that you think I am mocking you. No. You are brainwashed. I am not mocking.
That is strictly Aristotle's philosophy. St. John was trying to start with Philosophy. Logos is a Greek philosophical term.
Nah, they pretty much are mutually exclusive these days Christians don’t go to synagogue, do not remain kosher, and think Christ was/is the messiah If you are Jewish you do not think The messiah has come, do not think the NT is scripture, and think that the original posting in this thread is bunk.
I'm not attempting to oppose your beliefs concerning god and heaven. I'm just pointing out that there are significant differences within Christianity, let alone between the broader collection of Abrahamic faiths.
OK - that's your choice, and I'm not here to suggest you are wrong, or even to question what the heck that means. However, I WILL point out that Islam considers Jesus one of its most profound prophets - the only prophet to have carried out miracles through the power of god, second only to Muhammad in that Muhammad came later and is considered to have delivered the more recent message from God. We spend so much time yelling "heresy" that we end up with fairly abstract claims without people really studying what the differences are and where they came from.
