Christian Discussion Thread V

[Gim]

Basically what He does in the New Testament: Healing the paralyzed, Giving eyesight to the blind, Teaching His disciples and people about God.

Many people in the Bible have preformed Miracles, the Bible even says that False prophets can preform miracles.

Jesus is the only one who can perform miracles.

[Tafhan]

Many people in the Bible have preformed Miracles, the Bible even says that False prophets can preform miracles.

Jesus is the only one who can perform miracles.

What was with Moses turning the Staff into a snake then? Or Parting The Red Sea?

[The Alexanderians]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e5lbnBMP2U
These people are all real preachers.

Brace yourselves, it's the "Prosperity Gospel"!

I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Const...Am I rubbing off on you ?! Quoting a movie and linking it in the quote like that is something I do. But I've never seen you do it.

[Menassa]

Many people in the Bible have preformed Miracles, the Bible even says that False prophets can preform miracles.

Jesus is the only one who can perform miracles.

How do you figure?

[Constantinopolis]

Time for another multi-reply...

You are correct that the Gnostics did not use anything like the New Testament we have today, and instead they used many heretical scriptures... all of which had been written in the second century.

By contrast, our New Testament is mostly composed of first century texts.

"The Sect that became Catholicism" (and Orthodoxy) was the original Christian Church, using the oldest existing writings about Jesus. The Gnostics were a collection of later sects, which mostly represented syncretic attempts to combine Christian and Zoroastrian beliefs.

Actually, no, some their texts were written in the first century...to say the "New Testament" was the only compilation whose books were written in the first century is just not correct.

Is that so? And which Gnostic texts are you referring to, precisely, when you say that some of them were written in the first century?

Because as far as I know, almost all first century Christian texts were included in the New Testament. Meanwhile, nearly all known Gnostic texts are dated to the second century, although the possible date ranges for some of them dip into the late first century.

When you compare the date ranges for New Testament writings vs. Gnostic writings, there is no way to avoid the obvious conclusion that, on the whole, New Testament writings originated significantly earlier.

"The original Christian Church" (according to themselves) also used texts from the first century. but purged the texts they didn't find consistent. Picking and choosing their books to compile, just like every other sect of Early Christianity.

What else would you have expected them to do? Throw in everything that anyone ever wrote about Jesus, including the second century equivalent of tabloid rumors?

They started from the most reliable (and earliest) texts, such as the synoptic Gospels and the authentic letters of St. Paul, and then they decided which other writings to include based on whether those other writings agreed with these established early sources or not. Do you have a better idea for how to decide which texts are reliable?

Liberalism and pluralism are modern inventions. In the historical periods we're talking about, no one was on the side of "free thought". Everyone agreed that it's good to impose your beliefs on others, the only issue was which beliefs are true and what is the appropriate way to impose them.
of the monastic life.

Yes. True, they were all pushing for their own agendas. Look, I am not saying they were good because they lost. Some of which, I just think were better than the one we have now (definitely not all). I wouldn't have wanted the Ebionites to survive, I wouldn't have wanted the Montanans to survive, I definitely wouldn't want all the gnostic sects to survive. I just think some, Like the Ophites, Like the Cathars, would have been nicer to at least have around today.

Well, fair enough. I disagree with you on that, of course, but to each his own. Obviously we all have our own preferences regarding ancient sects and religions.

I have no idea what makes you think I'm a liberal...Or that you're using that as an insult even though you're clearly leftist yourself.

I'm a communist. We've been using the word "liberal" as an insult since the days of Marx and Engels. Because liberalism is an individualistic, self-centered and bourgeois (i.e. pro-capitalist) worldview.

But, in this particular case, I wasn't using the word "liberal" as an insult. When I said that liberalism and pluralism are modern inventions, I meant that as a simple statement of fact. I only wanted to emphasize that you should not assume that anyone in ancient or medieval times held liberal or pluralist views.

To see what happens when heretics win, I will remind you of Geneva under John Calvin. Not exactly the most free-thinking place in the world, what with being a theocracy and all.

Well, when puritans win, yes, it absolutely becomes terrible. And not the most "free thinking" place.

By the way. Your "One True Church" was a heretic to everyone else, and still is to every other religious group.

Of course. I'm very much aware.

Although, I should mention that the label "heretic" technically applies only to people who are of the same religion as you but hold views that you consider to be deeply mistaken about some essential theological issues. So, different Christian groups may consider each other heretical, but Christianity and Hinduism (for example) cannot consider each other heretical, because they don't share the same faith. They are entirely separate religions.

This is kind of where me and Constantinopolis had our initial disagreements with, if I recall correctly. that he starts from a point of authoritarianism whereas I start from a point of liberalism/libertarianism and we go to either side (me more or less libertarian, while he goes more or less authoritarian) when we discuss policy.

Precisely. My default approach to policy is to use state authority to solve problems, unless there is some reason why state authority won't work in a particular case. In other words, my default position is statist/"authoritarian", but I will move away from that whenever it's necessary to do so for pragmatic reasons.

Was the disciple Thomas (the Doubter, remember!) wrong when he fell at Jesus' feet and declared, "My Lord and my God!"? (cf. John 20:24)

That passage is generally misinterpreted. Thomas does not use the vocative form "O my Lord! O my God!" which is the form if he were *addressing* Jesus as God; he is simply *exclaiming* "My God!" in amazement that Jesus is alive. Since our language lacks this distinction, it is easy to fall into this misunderstanding

What are you talking about? The verse in question (John 20:28) says, in the original:

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμας καὶ ειπεν αὐτω, Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

The underlined is literally "O my Lord and O my God." Absolutely word for word.

The verse also mentions that Thomas said these words to Jesus. It doesn't say "Thomas exclaimed, O my Lord and O my God." It says "Thomas said to Him, O my Lord and O my God."

[Constantinopolis]

Now, on a more personal note...

I'm a cisgender guy and I'll most likely never have sex in my life. Not because of some desire to remain celibate, but because I consider myself asexual and I'm okay with that. So, another difference from 'sexual repression' is just a lack of interest in having sex in the first place.

I am also asexual... sort of. I am attracted to women, but I've never had any desire to have sex, not even in a dream.

Since we're apparently sharing, I'm also a cisgender (I'll admit that I'm not a hundred percent sure what exactly this means, but the general gist of how it's used seems to apply) guy who will most likely never have sex in my life, because in all honesty I don't see myself as being called to that particular vocation. My desire or lack thereof has nothing to do with it, and perfect chastity does not seem repressive at all to me(and I would posit that most people for whom it does have probably never tried it).

Since we are, indeed, apparently sharing, I want to add a few details about myself. I am also male, which I think everyone already knows. I am quite certain that I am not asexual (nor leaning in that direction), given the fact that I can have, shall we say, an active imagination. I have only ever had one sexual partner, who is my wife. I was a virgin throughout my teenage years and into the early part of my 20s, but I cannot claim any kind of moral high ground, because I did not do this for moral or religious reasons. I was only a "generic Christian" back then, I did not attend any church, and in retrospect I would say I wasn't taking my faith very seriously. The reason I did not have sex (despite having the desire to do so) was simply because pursuing sexual relationships in my teenage years looked like something that required tremendous amounts of time and effort and would almost inevitably result in heartbreak and tears. That's what I saw among my peers. Even those who supposedly had "no strings attached" sex ended up emotionally involved - and hurt - in a myriad different ways. Observing my peers taught me that there really is no such thing as "no strings attached"; there are always emotional consequences, no matter how much one tries to deny or suppress them. So, for me, it was simply a case of "Well, I feel the urge to do this, but I really don't think it's worth the cost, so I'll pass. Looking around, I think those who pursue casual sex are making a big mistake; it seems to cause a lot more misery than happiness."

Eventually, I became friends with a certain young woman that I seemed to have a lot in common with, and we ended up spending a lot of time together as friends without particularly meaning to, and it got to the rather amusing point where our friends asked us point blank if we were together and keeping it secret from them. We had to rather awkwardly explain that no, we were honestly just friends. But that's how we began to consider the idea that, you know what, maybe we should try a romantic relationship, since we like each other's company so much... And to make a long story short, some years later we got married.

In retrospect, I would not change a thing.

Brace yourselves, it's the "Prosperity Gospel"!

I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Const...Am I rubbing off on you ?! Quoting a movie and linking it in the quote like that is something I do. But I've never seen you do it.

It's possible that you are rubbing off on me, of course.

But the reason I linked the clip there was because I was worried people wouldn't get the reference otherwise.

I also considered linking to the relevant TvTropes page.

[Grave_n_idle]

Many people in the Bible have preformed Miracles, the Bible even says that False prophets can preform miracles.

Jesus is the only one who can perform miracles.

That's not what the Old Testament says.

Exodus 7:9-11=2 "When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent. And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods."

According the the scripture - there most definitely are other people who can perform miracles, and it's not a sign of being divine.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee."

But I'm not surprised you haven't been taught about Old Testament miracles, because it's the teaching about miracles that proves that Jesus was a false prophet, and thus was evil, and should be put to death.

[The Flutterlands]

Now, on a more personal note...

I am also asexual... sort of. I am attracted to women, but I've never had any desire to have sex, not even in a dream.

Since we're apparently sharing, I'm also a cisgender (I'll admit that I'm not a hundred percent sure what exactly this means, but the general gist of how it's used seems to apply) guy who will most likely never have sex in my life, because in all honesty I don't see myself as being called to that particular vocation. My desire or lack thereof has nothing to do with it, and perfect chastity does not seem repressive at all to me(and I would posit that most people for whom it does have probably never tried it).

Since we are, indeed, apparently sharing, I want to add a few details about myself. I am also male, which I think everyone already knows. I am quite certain that I am not asexual (nor leaning in that direction), given the fact that I can have, shall we say, an active imagination. I have only ever had one sexual partner, who is my wife.

I can have the underlined as well, leading to, well, habits that the Episcopalian Church, unlike the RCC, call harmless, but outside of that, I have no real sexual attraction or interest towards anyone in the real world.

[The Patrimony of Saint Peter]

I'm not a big fan of kissing and telling. I'm a chaste guy. Chastity is important in a Christian life, I figure. I was in the Seminary but not anymore. I'm not an of that asexual or cis stuff. I don't really know what any of that is. I'm heterosexual, but I figure sex is a distraction from my goals and ambition so I try to go without it.

Am I attracted to women? Of course. But I try to live my life in accordance with chastity and understand that, to unite myself with the example of Christ, I see no other way that I ought to live. I am still (loosely) discerning the priesthood or religious life, but I see no interest in marriage. It would only weigh me down.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Basically what He does in the New Testament: Healing the paralyzed, Giving eyesight to the blind, Teaching His disciples and people about God.

Many people in the Bible have preformed Miracles, the Bible even says that False prophets can preform miracles.

What about coming back from the dead?

[The Alma Mater]

Many people in the Bible have preformed Miracles, the Bible even says that False prophets can preform miracles.

What about coming back from the dead?

Depends. Do we accept sources outside the Bible ? Because tales about coming back from the dead were found in almost every religion of the time.

[Gim]

What about coming back from the dead?

Depends. Do we accept sources outside the Bible ? Because tales about coming back from the dead were found in almost every religion of the time.

Miracles, all in all, are done by Jesus or God. No human being can perform miracles.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Depends. Do we accept sources outside the Bible ? Because tales about coming back from the dead were found in almost every religion of the time.

Miracles, all in all, are done by Jesus or God. No human being can perform miracles.

So Zeus is basically Jesus is what you are saying?

[Gim]

Miracles, all in all, are done by Jesus or God. No human being can perform miracles.

So Zeus is basically Jesus is what you are saying?

Zeus is not God. So, no.

[The Alma Mater]

So Zeus is basically Jesus is what you are saying?

Zeus is not God. So, no.

But he could perform miracles. How ?

[Gim]

Zeus is not God. So, no.

But he could perform miracles. How ?

Zeus can't. What is said about him is a myth.

[Grave_n_idle]

Depends. Do we accept sources outside the Bible ? Because tales about coming back from the dead were found in almost every religion of the time.

Miracles, all in all, are done by Jesus or God. No human being can perform miracles.

That's not what the Old Testament says.

Exodus 7:9-11=2 "When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent. And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods."

According the the scripture - there most definitely are other people who can perform miracles, and it's not a sign of being divine.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee."

But I'm not surprised you haven't been taught about Old Testament miracles, because it's the teaching about miracles that proves that Jesus was a false prophet, and thus was evil, and should be put to death.

[Diopolis]

Zeus is not God. So, no.

But he could perform miracles. How ?

Zeus not existing is a fairly foundational doctrine of Christianity(monotheism).

[The Alma Mater]

But he could perform miracles. How ?

Zeus not existing is a fairly foundational doctrine of Christianity(monotheism).

I did ask if we would accept non-Biblical sources on this. Sofar the answer has not been "no".

[Gim]

But he could perform miracles. How ?

Zeus not existing is a fairly foundational doctrine of Christianity(monotheism).

There's a marked difference between God-inspired doctrine and mere mythology of an ancient civilization.

[Grave_n_idle]

But he could perform miracles. How ?

Zeus can't. What is said about him is a myth.

Right? None of it is contemporary, and what there is was all written by his followers.

[The Alma Mater]

Zeus not existing is a fairly foundational doctrine of Christianity(monotheism).

There's a marked difference between God-inspired doctrine and mere mythology of an ancient civilization.

I would not call Rome ancient. Egypt otoh - well, they had a civilisation millenia before God even created the earth (according to the date proposed by young earth creationists)

[Gim]

There's a marked difference between God-inspired doctrine and mere mythology of an ancient civilization.

I would not call Rome ancient. Egypt otoh - well, they had a civilisation millenia before God even created the earth (according to the date proposed by young earth creationists)

Christians aren't necessarily creationists. Also, how can you be so sure God created the Earth after the Romans existed?

[Grave_n_idle]

I would not call Rome ancient. Egypt otoh - well, they had a civilisation millenia before God even created the earth (according to the date proposed by young earth creationists)

Christians aren't necessarily creationists. Also, how can you be so sure God created the Earth after the Romans existed?

Egypt. Not Rome.

And the answer is dating.

[Gim]

Christians aren't necessarily creationists. Also, how can you be so sure God created the Earth after the Romans existed?

Egypt. Not Rome.

And the answer is dating.

I'm sure Egypt came about after creatures and the Earth were created.