Christianity, not Paulinism

[New New York]

Yeah well, all I can say is that the people who think Josephus spoke kindly of a messiah who worked miracles in his original latin and aramaic versions of his book have either never read any of his stuff except the jesus quote, or are trying to pull a fast one...

<snip>

You know, it's a little... Questionable...

Oh yeah, all Josephus can really be used for is to say, "There was a guy named Jesus (or indeed, any of the other translations), and people thought he was the Messiah and followed him." Maybe also, "And they killed him."

EDIT: snipped some of your post, as it was long, especially compared to my answer.

[The Alma Mater]

Yeah well, all I can say is that the people who think Josephus spoke kindly of a messiah who worked miracles in his original latin and aramaic versions of his book have either never read any of his stuff except the jesus quote, or are trying to pull a fast one...

He HATED messiahs, he'd seen too many of them, and seen them basically destroy his country, and wrote about them with some passion, and always in the negative...

As for the text it's self, well theres the western version, 'fixed' by a 4th c bishop who wrote "if history does not serve the interests of the church, the church must change history", then there is that version found in an orthadox russian library, dating from the 13th? century, thats far far less pro jesus (although still a little edited)...

That whole
"...and then there was that bastard Judas the messiah, bloody terrorist I really hated him and his...
Yo man respect, like man yeah jesus was a cool dude, homies, wicked and he did magic n stuff
..and two pounds of cheese, so I said to Hezakiah the messiah "shut your mouth beard face", and thumped him one"

You know, it's a little... Questionable...

Oh yeah, all Josephus can really be used for is to say, "There was a guy named Jesus (or indeed, any of the other translations), and people thought he was the Messiah and followed him." Maybe also, "And they killed him."

And since Jesus (well, ok, the Hebrew version) was a popular Jewish name, and there were always dozens of people calling themselves christ around, it would be silly not to believe that could be the case.
It is like not believing there was a guy called Harry living in Londen in the 1950s who people called boss

[Bluth Corporation]

Again, once you remove the OT, and any favorable or supportive references to it's teachings, and discard everything after 33ad and the cruci-fiction, what actual teachings of the "non-theistic Christ" do you have left.

"Love your neighbor"
"Turn the other cheek"

among others...

[Bluth Corporation]

Who is Paul?
I know a Paul.
But is it the same Paul?

One of Jesus' crew. Went by the street name Paul the Apostle, or the Apostle Paul, but his real name was Saul of Tarsus. Some would say and Saint Paul.

EDIT: @OP: I regard the bible as fiction, and would no sooner model my life after Jesus than King Arthur. Both reported as pretty good guys. Just probably didn't do any of the good deeds they are credited for.

Bob Marley. There's someone real.

It need not be real for it to serve as a valid model to emulate.

[Bluth Corporation]

Who is Paul?
I know a Paul.
But is it the same Paul?

One of Jesus' crew. Went by the street name Paul the Apostle, or the Apostle Paul, but his real name was Saul of Tarsus. Some would say and Saint Paul.

EDIT: @OP: I regard the bible as fiction, and would no sooner model my life after Jesus than King Arthur. Both reported as pretty good guys. Just probably didn't do any of the good deeds they are credited for.

Bob Marley. There's someone real.

It need not be real for it to serve as a valid model to emulate.

[Lessnt]

Your christianity isn't Christianity.

It is an ideology focusing on Jesus and the lifestyle he lived though. It's argueable whether or not it could be classified as Christianity, as it is not religious in nature, but it still certainly does have a focus on the Christ figure. Perhaps Christianism would be a more appropriate term?

Budda is really jesus.
Reincarnated.

[The Alma Mater]

It is an ideology focusing on Jesus and the lifestyle he lived though. It's argueable whether or not it could be classified as Christianity, as it is not religious in nature, but it still certainly does have a focus on the Christ figure. Perhaps Christianism would be a more appropriate term?

Budda is really jesus.
Reincarnated.

And both were avatars of Vishnu.
So Christians are hindus ?

[Bluth Corporation]

It's a natural extension of his posting habits concerning Christianity.

But still. Unless this means that he'll stop using the No true Scotsman fallacy in other threads, I'm not sure I see the point here.

The thing about informal fallacies is, not everything that has the same form of a model instance of the fallacy is necessarily an instance of the fallacy. That's why they're "informal."

In this case, when there actually are objective criteria to determine whether or not something is indeed X, and Y is indeed incompatible with them, it is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to say "No true X would Y."

[Lessnt]

Budda is really jesus.
Reincarnated.

And both were avatars of Vishnu.
So Christians are hindus ?

Sorry.
buddha was no avatar.
Buddha could however can be reincarnated into jesus.

[Conserative Morality]

I think a little Nietzsche can sum up my views here:

When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality… Christianity is a system, a consistently thought out and complete view of things. If one breaks out of it a fundamental idea, the belief in God, one thereby breaks the whole thing to pieces: one has nothing of any consequence left in one’s hand… Christian morality is a command: its origin is transcendental… it possesses truth only if God is truth – it stands or falls with the belief in God.

[The Alma Mater]

And both were avatars of Vishnu.
So Christians are hindus ?

Sorry.
buddha was no avatar.

There are quite a few HIndus who disagree with you on that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha_in_Hinduism

[Dakini]

Again, once you remove the OT, and any favorable or supportive references to it's teachings, and discard everything after 33ad and the cruci-fiction, what actual teachings of the "non-theistic Christ" do you have left.

"Love your neighbor"
"Turn the other cheek"

among others...

Actually, none of those would have been written by 33 CE. The earliest gospel was written sometime after 65 CE...

[Lessnt]

Sorry.
buddha was no avatar.

There are quite a few HIndus who disagree with you on that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha_in_Hinduism

Blasphemy!

[Dakini]

But still. Unless this means that he'll stop using the No true Scotsman fallacy in other threads, I'm not sure I see the point here.

The thing about informal fallacies is, not everything that has the same form of a model instance of the fallacy is necessarily an instance of the fallacy. That's why they're "informal."

In this case, when there actually are objective criteria to determine whether or not something is indeed X, and Y is indeed incompatible with them, it is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to say "No true X would Y."

You're saying "No true Christian would include Paul in their Christianity".

[Keronians]

Actually, Jesus never mentioned that.

Matthew:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus says Ot laws including the anti-gay, the dietary restrictions etc, are part of his message...

Unless of course Bluth says this was one of Jesus' non-christ moments...

Precisely. Jesus did not destroy the OT. He fulfilled it, thereby making it irrelevant for Christians today, apart from further reading, and contextual meaning.

[Bluth Corporation]

I think a little Nietzsche can sum up my views here:

When one gives up Christian belief one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality… Christianity is a system, a consistently thought out and complete view of things. If one breaks out of it a fundamental idea, the belief in God, one thereby breaks the whole thing to pieces: one has nothing of any consequence left in one’s hand… Christian morality is a command: its origin is transcendental… it possesses truth only if God is truth – it stands or falls with the belief in God.

This is certainly true of what Nietzsche thought to be Christianity. The thing is, what Nietzsche thought to be Christianity, isn't actually Christianity.

[Aesthetica]

I've bolded some specific erroneous points, worthy of addressing. I'll get to them in a minute.

[snip]

(I'm assuming that you are familiar with the Scriptures and I am not providing chapter and verse. I can dig them up on request, but it needs to be by TG since I can't promise to return to this thread.)

No thanks I can find them myself, and probably from a bible that isn't as expurgated as most popular modern ones...

[snip]

Bold point #2: Again, you are actively contradicting the teachings of Jesus, and again I ask "how is this 'Christ, not Paul'"? Moreover, while I can understand to a limited degree how someone could say "I don't know if there is a God", the flat statement "there is no God" is utter nonsense, even if you reject the Bible.

If I reject the bible, why not reject it's god too?

[snip]
Bold point #5a: I flatly reject your implied notion that "physically impossible" is equivalent to "impossible". I've seen miracles, clear and unmistakable demonstrations of the power of prayer, and cannot buy into your position for even a second. I am not going to share details on a public forum, however, as the details are enough to violate my policy of "no personal information on the internet". inb4 atheists whining about this.

Funny how all these absolutely reliable miricles take place where atheists can't see them or run tests to make sure it's actually true...

[snip]
A) Let go of your assumption "there is in fact no god". Is there anything to that theory other than that it is what intelligent, educated people are expected to believe these days? Peer pressure, both active and inactive, is powerful (believe me, I know) but NOT a valid basis for beliefs.

No evidence of any gods, no reason to believe in any...

If you can, go away from man's cities, and just climb a mountain somewhere (Mount Shavano, Colorado, would do nicely ) and look out at CREATION!!! It's really hard to stay atheist in paradise.

No, it's not, trust me on this, mountains do not change all the many reasons for not believing in gods, at all.

B) Since you obviously respect Christ, go back and re-read the Gospels, or at least Mark and then Luke. This time, rather than picking and choosing, assume He is completely reliable. That's less than 100 pages, barring HUGE PRINT edition, so you will have no trouble finding the time.

The four synoptic gospels cannot even agree with each other, let alone reality, about as reliable as a chocolate chastity belt in a convent of sugar-addict lesbian nuns...

C) If you have any more questions, either shoot me a telegram (I probably won't come back to this thread), or go talk to someone at a local, Bible-believing church. The latter is probably better, I'm not a good speaker.

Post and run eh? Fairly typical tactics...

I hope this helps.

[Robert Magoo]

I think a little Nietzsche can sum up my views here:

This is certainly true of what Nietzsche thought to be Christianity. The thing is, what Nietzsche thought to be Christianity, isn't actually Christianity.

No matter how many times you claim white is black, you'll never be right.

[Keronians]

Budda is really jesus.
Reincarnated.

And both were avatars of Vishnu.
So Christians are hindus ?

Jesus and Buddha were not avatars of Vishnu...

Claims to the contrary by various Hindus need scriptural evidence. They do not possess any.

Vishnu's avatars represented the evolution of man. Jesus and Buddha, as such, are irrelevant to this goal.

Buddha was a person who took Hindu teachings, adapted them, and took out religious references.

[Bluth Corporation]

The thing about informal fallacies is, not everything that has the same form of a model instance of the fallacy is necessarily an instance of the fallacy. That's why they're "informal."

In this case, when there actually are objective criteria to determine whether or not something is indeed X, and Y is indeed incompatible with them, it is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to say "No true X would Y."

You're saying "No true Christian would include Paul in their Christianity".

Exactly. And it is my position that Paulinism is objectively incompatible with Christianity.

[Conserative Morality]

This is certainly true of what Nietzsche thought to be Christianity. The thing is, what Nietzsche thought to be Christianity, isn't actually Christianity.

Actually, it's a very basic criticism of the idea that Christian axioms are applicable in the absence of acceptance of God.

[Bluth Corporation]

"Love your neighbor"
"Turn the other cheek"

among others...

Actually, none of those would have been written by 33 CE. The earliest gospel was written sometime after 65 CE...

The teachings existed before the writings.

[Lessnt]

And both were avatars of Vishnu.
So Christians are hindus ?

Jesus and Buddha were not avatars of Vishnu...

Claims to the contrary by various Hindus need scriptural evidence. They do not possess any.

Vishnu's avatars represented the evolution of man. Jesus and Buddha, as such, are irrelevant to this goal.

Buddha was a person who took Hindu teachings, adapted them, and took out religious references.

Its called truth.

[Bluth Corporation]

This is certainly true of what Nietzsche thought to be Christianity. The thing is, what Nietzsche thought to be Christianity, isn't actually Christianity.

Actually, it's a very basic criticism of the idea that Christian axioms are applicable in the absence of acceptance of God.

Rooted in an incorrect conception of what Christianity actually is.

[Conserative Morality]

Rooted in an incorrect conception of what Christianity actually is.

Not at all. Nietzsche goes in depth on what Christianity is, who Christ was, and what Christians are. He is mostly accurate on all three counts, though also quite biased against Christians and Christianity. In fact, he shares your damnation of Paul.