Christianity, not Paulinism

[Bluth Corporation]

My point is that applying the term "Christianity" to the specific set of beliefs he dealt with is inaccurate. It wasn't Christianity; it was merely called (incorrectly) Christianity.

What makes it incorrect, other than your insistent, baseless statements?

The fact that they reject the essence of Christness in the real world while I embrace it, even if I haven't fully achieved it myself.

[Keronians]

There is no name more descriptive of what I believe, or less descriptive of what the Paulinists believe.

It's like if there were millennia of inertia behind me calling myself the Emperor of China, but then someone else came along who actually was the Emperor of China, he'd have a greater entitlement to that term.

...No. If you were calling yourself Emperor of China for millions of years, you are the Emperor of China. Obviously.

Millenia = thousand.

[Robert Magoo]

What makes it incorrect, other than your insistent, baseless statements?

The fact that they reject the essence of Christness in the real world while I embrace it, even if I haven't fully achieved it myself.

To define "Christness" any differently from how Jesus Christ himself defined it (following Him and doing His will) is illogical and makes absolutely no sense.

[Aesthetica]

No, we can say that there is NO reliable contemporary evidence the man ever lived, we can't PROVE he didn't live, but you can't prove he did either.

Well, there's plenty of evidence--just not direct, and it's not conclusive. It establishes a probability (which I would put fairly high) that he did exist, and that's about the best you can do. Certainly, you can't say that he definitely did (or did not) exist.

You claim there is reliable contemporary evidence, share it...

[Bluth Corporation]

There is no name more descriptive of what I believe, or less descriptive of what the Paulinists believe.

It's like if there were millennia of inertia behind me calling myself the Emperor of China, but then someone else came along who actually was the Emperor of China, he'd have a greater entitlement to that term.

Not really, since you've effectively taken over his throne.

Even if I weren't actually ruling over China, but had just started calling myself that for no particular reason at all and was able to convince others to call me that too?

[Bluth Corporation]

The fact that they reject the essence of Christness in the real world while I embrace it, even if I haven't fully achieved it myself.

To define "Christness" any differently from how Jesus Christ himself defined it (following Him and doing His will) is illogical and makes absolutely no sense.

Only if you first accept that Jesus was indeed the Christ, rather than simply an imperfect manifestation of it.

[Nationstatelandsville]

...No. If you were calling yourself Emperor of China for millions of years, you are the Emperor of China. Obviously.

Millenia = thousand.

Damn it Kero. Stop being smarter than me.

[Nationstatelandsville]

Not really, since you've effectively taken over his throne.

Even if I weren't actually ruling over China, but had just started calling myself that for no particular reason at all and was able to convince others to call me that too?

...You'd be actually ruling over China.

[Siriant]

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

Paul one of the biggest missionaries of Christianity, used to be a sinful man named, Saul, allegedly God spoke to him, told him to change his ways and he renamed himself Paul.

[Nationstatelandsville]

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

Paul one of the biggest missionaries of Christianity, used to be a sinful man named, Saul, allegedly God spoke to him, told him to change his ways and he renamed himself Paul.

And, based on the knowledge that God thinks "P" is a good letter, Spider-Man is the second coming of Christ.

[Robert Magoo]

To define "Christness" any differently from how Jesus Christ himself defined it (following Him and doing His will) is illogical and makes absolutely no sense.

Only if you first accept that Jesus was indeed the Christ, rather than simply an imperfect manifestation of it.

If Jesus wasn't who He said He was, there's no basis for even believing in the concept of Christ or "Christness."

Why don't you just call yourself a humanist? Your beliefs seem pretty indistinguishable from humanism. Why do you need a different term?

[Keronians]

Not really, since you've effectively taken over his throne.

Even if I weren't actually ruling over China, but had just started calling myself that for no particular reason at all and was able to convince others to call me that too?

Yes, because of the bold.

[Dakini]

Not really, since you've effectively taken over his throne.

Even if I weren't actually ruling over China, but had just started calling myself that for no particular reason at all and was able to convince others to call me that too?

If you were actually ruling over Tibet, which you had incorrectly labeled as China and you managed to convince everyone else that this was China, you would still be ruling over "China".

[Bluth Corporation]

Even if I weren't actually ruling over China, but had just started calling myself that for no particular reason at all and was able to convince others to call me that too?

If you were actually ruling over Tibet, which you had incorrectly labeled as China and you managed to convince everyone else that this was China, you would still be ruling over "China".

Let's say I wasn't ruling over anyone. Let's say I just woke up one morning and said, "Hey, it'd be really cool if y'all would call me 'Emperor of China.' No reason why, and you don't have to, but it'd just be cool to hear people addressing me that way," and then everyone just went along with it because it wasn't hurting them any. Nothing actually changes in terms of relationships, just what people call me changes.

[Nationstatelandsville]

If you were actually ruling over Tibet, which you had incorrectly labeled as China and you managed to convince everyone else that this was China, you would still be ruling over "China".

Let's say I wasn't ruling over anyone. Let's say I just woke up one morning and said, "Hey, it'd be really cool if y'all would call me 'Emperor of China.' No reason why, and you don't have to, but it'd just be cool to hear people addressing me that way," and then everyone just went along with it because it wasn't hurting them any. Nothing actually changes in terms of relationships, just what people call me changes.

...You are the Emperor of China. Congratulations.

[Keronians]

If you were actually ruling over Tibet, which you had incorrectly labeled as China and you managed to convince everyone else that this was China, you would still be ruling over "China".

Let's say I wasn't ruling over anyone. Let's say I just woke up one morning and said, "Hey, it'd be really cool if y'all would call me 'Emperor of China.' No reason why, and you don't have to, but it'd just be cool to hear people addressing me that way," and then everyone just went along with it because it wasn't hurting them any. Nothing actually changes in terms of relationships, just what people call me changes.

And how does it compare with "Paulinism" where relationships DID change?

[Conserative Morality]

Let's say I wasn't ruling over anyone. Let's say I just woke up one morning and said, "Hey, it'd be really cool if y'all would call me 'Emperor of China.' No reason why, and you don't have to, but it'd just be cool to hear people addressing me that way," and then everyone just went along with it because it wasn't hurting them any. Nothing actually changes in terms of relationships, just what people call me changes.

Language is a funny thing.

[Dakini]

If you were actually ruling over Tibet, which you had incorrectly labeled as China and you managed to convince everyone else that this was China, you would still be ruling over "China".

Let's say I wasn't ruling over anyone. Let's say I just woke up one morning and said, "Hey, it'd be really cool if y'all would call me 'Emperor of China.' No reason why, and you don't have to, but it'd just be cool to hear people addressing me that way," and then everyone just went along with it because it wasn't hurting them any. Nothing actually changes in terms of relationships, just what people call me changes.

Then you've broken your analogy.

[Lessnt]

Kero needs more jesus in his life.

[Bluth Corporation]

Well, there's plenty of evidence--just not direct, and it's not conclusive. It establishes a probability (which I would put fairly high) that he did exist, and that's about the best you can do. Certainly, you can't say that he definitely did (or did not) exist.

You claim there is reliable contemporary evidence, share it...

To my knowledge, there isn't any contemporary evidence that survives. Just like, to my knowledge, there isn't any of Alexander. Which is why I said that the evidence is "not direct," and that it merely "establishes a probability" of his existence rather than saying "he definitely did...exist."

[Dakini]

You claim there is reliable contemporary evidence, share it...

To my knowledge, there isn't any contemporary evidence that survives. Just like, to my knowledge, there isn't any of Alexander. Which is why I said that the evidence is "not direct," and that it merely "establishes a probability" of his existence rather than saying "he definitely did...exist."

Yep, there's obviously only written evidence. We'll ignore the cities founded by Alexander, the statues, mosaics and coins minted bearing his image during his lifetime. No contemporary evidence here.

[Bluth Corporation]

Obviously archaeological records are a different matter.

It's easy for me with my (in progress) education to forget the immense value archaeological research can add, especially to our knowledge of ancient history (which is definitely NOT my field).

[Dakini]

Obviously archaeological records are a different matter.

Yep. Isn't it unfortunate that none exist for Jesus to go along with the absence of contemporary historians reporting on him too making claims equating the historicity of Alexander with the historicity of Jesus somewhat silly?

Not to mention the references and snippets from the contemporary sources on Alexander that did survive.

[Bluth Corporation]

Obviously archaeological records are a different matter.

Yep. Isn't it unfortunate that none exist for Jesus to go along with the absence of contemporary historians reporting on him too?

Indeed it is. You'll note I said above:

It's just that in the case of Alexander, the indirect/secondhand/thirdhand/etc. evidence to establish his historicity pushes the probability much closer to 100% than in the case of, say, Jesus.

"Archaeological evidence" should of course be added to that list.

[Dakini]

Yep. Isn't it unfortunate that none exist for Jesus to go along with the absence of contemporary historians reporting on him too?

Indeed it is. You'll note I said above:

It's just that in the case of Alexander, the indirect/secondhand/thirdhand/etc. evidence to establish his historicity pushes the probability much closer to 100% than in the case of, say, Jesus.

"Archaeological evidence" should of course be added to that list.

Yes, which is what makes Mount Shavano's initial claim about the historicity of Jesus and the historicity of Alexander the Great being the same rather silly, don't you think?