Christianity, not Paulinism

[Dakini]

So basically, you're making a thread on the basis of "No true Scotsman"?

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.

[Aesthetica]

So you're a Christian atheist?

Gah, atheists 'believing' in a religion based on a 'son of god' when they don't believe in that god, but only in the non -god parts of the message (which ain't a hell of a lot) all of it apparently based off two books by modern pseudo-intellectuals?

It's just a splinter of the old message-not-man" christianity that lost the debate at the council of nicea in 325 ad, with god removed.

However since the message-not-man christianity centered around the message being FROM a god, without a god there is no message...

A Semantic null, an exercise in deliberate confusion for the purpose of appearing intellectual and being smug about it.

EDIT: And how can an Atheist follow a religion based on the teachings of a man who was anti-atheist?

[Farnhamia]

So you're a Christian atheist?

Gah, atheists 'believing' in a religion based on a 'son of god' when they don't believe in that god, but only in the non -god parts of the message (which ain't a hell of a lot) all of it apparently based off two books by modern pseudo-intellectuals?

It's just a splinter of the old message-not-man" christianity that lost the debate at the council of nicea in 325 ad, with god removed.

However since the message-not-man christianity centered around the message being FROM a god, without a god there is no message...

A Semantic null, an exercise in deliberate confusion for the purpose of appearing intellectual and being smug about it.

Welcome to NSG.

[The Alma Mater]

Can you define what you mean by "christ", since the literal meaning of "annointed" or "messias" can be used by anyone who has once used deoderant ?

See there is another problem I have with Bluthianity...

Christ - from latin Christus - from greek Christos, a literal translation of hebrew Messiach, "Anointed King" or just "Anointed"...

The original usage implies anointed by the hebrew god, but Bluthianity leaves that out so, what anointed by who, with what, when and for how much, and what makes that worthy of being the founder of a religion, least of all a non-theistic religion...

"some bloke who wasn't important said some stuff that didn't matter, bow before the altar of a nobody..."

Makes even less sense to this Atheist than good old theistic-as-hell Pauline Christianity...

Well, what you describe is kinda how the Jews view Christianity. After all, they do not recognise the christ/messias bit of Jesus

[Aesthetica]

Welcome to NSG.

[Threlizdun]

This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.

[Farnhamia]

This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.

What's your timeline here? I mean, the "three Jesuses" and Paul's writing and all. Just want to be sure.

[The Alma Mater]

This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him.

Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.

[Farnhamia]

This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him.

Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.

"Couldn't find it," my Paleolithic backside.

[New New York]

This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.

Historians (Or at least one historian) do place a man named Jesus - believed to be a miracle worker by his followers - in Judea. Jesus existing was not a later 'revision'.

[Farnhamia]

This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.

Historians (Or at least one historian) do place a man named Jesus - believed to be a miracle worker by his followers - in Judea. Jesus existing was not a later 'revision'.

Josephus? The Testamonium Flavianum is widely held to have been tampered with by a later Christian editor.

[Aesthetica]

This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.

Historians (Or at least one historian) do place a man named Jesus - believed to be a miracle worker by his followers - in Judea. Jesus existing was not a later 'revision'.

Which historian, asked the atheist casually...

[Threlizdun]

This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him. It wasn't until Paul wrote about it later that people started "rememberring" it, and the movement began to spread. So, it actually appears as though each generation interpreted a different version of Christ, with Paul crafting his own version, which ultimately through his work and the work of his sucessors came to be what we are told of Jesus today. I'd have to say that personally I find it highly unlikely that Jesus actually ever existed, and that he was merely an ideal individual crafted by various individuals to fit their definition of a perfect human.

What's your timeline here? I mean, the "three Jesuses" and Paul's writing and all. Just want to be sure.

The first recorded instance I have heard of was around 100 B.C.E., with them forgetting about it until I believe around fifty years later. Then of course the date accepted by modern civilizations for his birth stated it occured, and it was never mentioned again until Paul's writings, which actually never even mentioned his life, but only the crucifiction. The source I recieved this information from is questionable of course, being that its purpose was to criticize Christianity. It was a documentary title, "The God Who Wasn't There".

This is an interesting view on the matter, though much of the evidence observed indicates that the legend of Jesus's life, crucifiction, and resurrection was said to have happened on at least three seperate occasions throughout history, with each occasion resulting in the people completely forgetting about him.

Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.

Several resurrection stories appear throughout history, and Christ's story shows many similarities to all of them. The only reason I listed those three, is because those were all the times they specifically stated that it was Jesus.

[New New York]

Historians (Or at least one historian) do place a man named Jesus - believed to be a miracle worker by his followers - in Judea. Jesus existing was not a later 'revision'.

Josephus? The Testamonium Flavianum is widely held to have been tampered with by a later Christian editor.

It's also generally held that the passage originally mentioned Jesus, even before the likely tampering.

EDIT: Also, it is only the one passage that shows signs of later additions.

[Aesthetica]

What's your timeline here? I mean, the "three Jesuses" and Paul's writing and all. Just want to be sure.

The first recorded instance I have heard of was around 100 B.C.E., with them forgetting about it until I believe around fifty years later. Then of course the date accepted by modern civilizations for his birth stated it occured, and it was never mentioned again until Paul's writings, which actually never even mentioned his life, but only the crucifiction. The source I recieved this information from is questionable of course, being that its purpose was to criticize Christianity. It was a documentary title, "The God Who Wasn't There".

Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.

Several resurrection stories appear throughout history, and Christ's story shows many similarities to all of them. The only reason I listed those three, is because those were all the times they specifically stated that it was Jesus.

documentaries are not always 'questionable' even if they poke holes in cherished myths, depends on who made them and why...

The Discovery channel in America however does have a tendancy to commission 'questionable' documentaries that it knows will cause outrage, especially if they are produced on the cheap, lots of stock library footage of the pyramids etc intercut with a few stuffed shirts from a university doint talking-head bits in a hotel room...

Lot's of people tune in even if it's only to scream abuse at their tv's and throw bricks through the screen, and high viewing figures means Disco can charge more for the advertising slots...

[Threlizdun]

The first recorded instance I have heard of was around 100 B.C.E., with them forgetting about it until I believe around fifty years later. Then of course the date accepted by modern civilizations for his birth stated it occured, and it was never mentioned again until Paul's writings, which actually never even mentioned his life, but only the crucifiction. The source I recieved this information from is questionable of course, being that its purpose was to criticize Christianity. It was a documentary title, "The God Who Wasn't There".
Several resurrection stories appear throughout history, and Christ's story shows many similarities to all of them. The only reason I listed those three, is because those were all the times they specifically stated that it was Jesus.

documentaries are not always 'questionable' even if they poke holes in cherished myths, depends on who made them and why...

The Discovery channel in America however does have a tendancy to commission 'questionable' documentaries that it knows will cause outrage, especially if they are produced on the cheap, lots of stock library footage of the pyramids etc intercut with a few stuffed shirts from a university doint talking-head bits in a hotel room...

Lot's of people tune in even if it's only to scream abuse at their tv's and throw bricks through the screen, and high viewing figures means Disco can charge more for the advertising slots...

I only called it questionable due to it being a documentary with a specific objective, rather than say, "Planet Earth". It certainly will incorporate some facts, though you should always question some of the materials presented to you from a biased source.

[The Alma Mater]

Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.

"Couldn't find it," my Paleolithic backside.

Do note that their sandpaper was much rougher than ours

[Farnhamia]

What's your timeline here? I mean, the "three Jesuses" and Paul's writing and all. Just want to be sure.

The first recorded instance I have heard of was around 100 B.C.E., with them forgetting about it until I believe around fifty years later. Then of course the date accepted by modern civilizations for his birth stated it occured, and it was never mentioned again until Paul's writings, which actually never even mentioned his life, but only the crucifiction. The source I recieved this information from is questionable of course, being that its purpose was to criticize Christianity. It was a documentary title, "The God Who Wasn't There".

Only three ? Resurrection stories are quite common.
Personally I like Osiris. Chopped into bits, put back together - except the phallus his wife could not find, so had to replace with a big woody.

Several resurrection stories appear throughout history, and Christ's story shows many similarities to all of them. The only reason I listed those three, is because those were all the times they specifically stated that it was Jesus.

Interesting, I have to say, I never lined up the dates - such as they are - of Paul's letters and the Gospels. Of course, the Synoptics are more than likely based on stories about Jesus that had been circulating for 30 years before they were written down. One could make the case that Paul isn't interested in Jesus as a man but only as the son of God. Jesus' life is much less important to Paul than his death and resurrection.

Oh, and for people interested in the documentary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There

[Farnhamia]

"Couldn't find it," my Paleolithic backside.

Do note that their sandpaper was much rougher than ours

I ... what?

[The Alma Mater]

Do note that their sandpaper was much rougher than ours

I ... what?

Would you like a splinter

[Farnhamia]

I ... what?

Would you like a splinter

Ah. They had very fine "sandpaper." Well, sand. I had a ... well, just never you mind.

[Aesthetica]

Josephus? The Testamonium Flavianum is widely held to have been tampered with by a later Christian editor.

It's also generally held that the passage originally mentioned Jesus, even before the likely tampering.

EDIT: Also, it is only the one passage that shows signs of later additions.

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...

[Robert Magoo]

Your christianity isn't Christianity.

[Mount Shavano]

Because it often tends to turn into a threadjack, several have requested that I start a thread explaining what I mean by Christianity, so that the matter can be discussed without distracting from the main substance of the thread.

Essentially, my belief is that Paul and his followers corrupted the message of the Christ (manifested, but only imperfectly, in the person of Jesus). For whatever reason (Tolstoy offers a plausible and sympathetic explanation in The Gospel in Brief), they chose to emphasize the constructed myth of the divinity of Jesus's person over the truth of the divinity (in a non-theistic sense, such as we might say "this chocolate is divine!" though obviously with much more import) of the Christ's teachings, as transmitted (sometimes with errors) through the life and person of Jesus.

So the Christ is merely an abstraction, an ideal human being that serves as an example for all of us in living our own lives. Jesus came very close to this ideal--though not perfectly, as we shall see--and is the originator of the particular tradition (however corrupted it may have been by the Paulinists) in which I learned the teachings that will help me reach this ideal. Other traditions exist and are of course equally legitimate.

Now, the Christ is the example we should follow because it is the means by which we will be saved from destroying ourselves. The Christ shows us how to build a better world and live among one another peacefully and happily. Thus, any beliefs which conflict with this goal are literally incompatible with Christianity. Since there is in fact no god, supplication to a deity can do nothing towards building a better world--and it is a distraction from work that will actually have an effect. Thus, belief in a god is incompatible with being Christ-like; so atheism is not a part of Christianity. Of course, individual Christians may still fall short in this are as they do (myself included) in other areas. But ultimately, atheism is something a Christian should strive to embrace just like he should strive (whether or not he necessarily actually succeeds) to embrace the other attributes of Christness.

Now, it's pretty clear that Jesus was a theist. This is but one example of what I mean when I say that Jesus was only an imperfect manifestation of the Christ. He had his flaws, as do the rest of us. Jesus's imperfection indeed is one of the thing that makes him such a compelling teacher. Even if his imperfections aren't necessarily the same as my imperfections, I can certainly relate to the basic fact of being imperfect.

The Epistles are not part of Christianity because they are written under the presumption that the divinity is found in the person rather than in the teaching. Similarly, the Old Testament is not relevant to Christianity because it is simply the national mythology of the Hebrew people. It provides cultural context for understanding Jesus's specific actions, but it has no universal significance in and of itself. Finding Christianity requires focusing solely on the Gospels, edited to (a) remove the parts that are clearly physically impossible (e.g. the miracles) and (b) removing the parts where Jesus was not being the Christ.

I'm glad to answer whatever questions you may have. You might even ask a question that forces me to reconsider some things (others have in the past), or even everything.

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

You're trying to draw a divide that can't be made. The whole point of Jesus' ministry was that He was the Son of God, and had come to save the world by His death and resurrection. There is nowhere for you to draw a line between that and the rest of Jesus' teachings - its the whole message.

(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.)

Bold point #1: Christ makes it absolutely clear that his kingdom is not of this world, much to the chagrin of the Jews who hoped to see him overthrow Rome. In this instance, you're not just picking and choosing as you say you are, you're actively taking the opposite position from what His teachings were. How is actively contradicting Christ "Christ, not Paul"?

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.

Bold point #3: For someone who hates Paul's teachings, you sure sound a lot like him with this statement. Of course, while Jesus is familiar with our weakness, He never succumbed to it Himself.

Bold point #4a: Jesus Himself made His divinity clear (and He was clearly NOT talking about the chocolate kind). You don't have to go to Paul for that - if that's your only grounds for rejecting Paul, you should reconsider immediately.

Bold point #4b: Jesus Himself clearly made reference to the Old Testament as divinely inspired, relevant, and factual. He often builds upon it to make His points, and casts His whole life as a fulfillment of the Old Covenant. That is far, far more than simple cultural context.

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.

Bold points #5b: Who are you to decide what to take and what to leave?

Apologies if this attempt at analysis is off, but it really sounds to me like you have somehow concluded there is no God, and are trying to still fit Christ into that framework because you recognize the importance/Truth/value of His teachings. I suggest you do the following:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I hope this helps.

EDIT: Upon review of the topic appearing when I tried to post I feel obliged to mention that most people don't realize just how scant historical sources are. There is no relevant challenge to the historicity of Jesus; in addition to dozens of "Gospels" besides the four accepted at Nicaea, there are multiple "Josephus" type passing mentions in widespread and unrelated sources. While that doesn't sound like much in this day and age, it really and truly is for that point in time. The only intellectually valid alternative to accepting the historicity of Jesus is to synonymize "dawn of recorded history" with "invention of the printing press".

[Threlizdun]

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?