The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Kowani]

You would have to elaborate on that. Obviously pagan traditions had elements like resurrected figures, water washing ceremonies, and sacrificial ceremonies, but you would actually have to substantiate your claim that the Resurrection and the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist are somehow inspired by paganism. You can't just point to similar traits and say one is directly inspired and influenced by the other.

One can wonder why the resurrection of Jesus is deemed special and conclusive proof of the validity of Christianity, while the resurrection of pagans is not seen as proof their faith was correct.

The magic of confirmation bias.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Curious, then, that God includes 2 Peter in his holy collection, as it was a forgery not written by the same author as 1 Peter.

The individual authors of sacred Scripture are not dogmatically declared, neither are many of them even known. There is popular tradition on who wrote want (and you definitely need to actually provide evidence for your claim of forgery), but the name of the exact individual that wrote whichever book doesn't matter. What does matter is that their work is inspired by God, which is what the Biblical canon is.

Except in this case it does matter, as he’s acting with the authority of a Presbyter who never said this. I find it funny that God couldn’t get the first Peter to write everything needed for his Bible down, so he got a second one to make shit up.

[Hakons]

You would have to elaborate on that. Obviously pagan traditions had elements like resurrected figures, water washing ceremonies, and sacrificial ceremonies, but you would actually have to substantiate your claim that the Resurrection and the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist are somehow inspired by paganism. You can't just point to similar traits and say one is directly inspired and influenced by the other.

The resemblance between these mystic cults and Christianity is *uncanny*. Many of these cults (looking specifically at the cult of Osiris) shared several Christian traits and were active around the time of Jesus in a similar location.

Oh my goodness... this line of thinking has been... rather debunked to say the least. Here's a funny video on it. Once again, you actually need to substantiate literally any of your claims, which you haven't done at all in any manor for whatever reason. Merely saying two things existed at the same time does not in any way prove your claim that one caused the other.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

The resemblance between these mystic cults and Christianity is *uncanny*. Many of these cults (looking specifically at the cult of Osiris) shared several Christian traits and were active around the time of Jesus in a similar location.

Oh my goodness... this line of thinking has been... rather debunked to say the least. Here's a funny video on it. Once again, you actually need to substantiate literally any of your claims, which you haven't done at all in any manor for whatever reason. Merely saying two things existed at the same time does not in any way prove your claim that one caused the other.

I said Osiris, not Horus.

[Hakons]

The individual authors of sacred Scripture are not dogmatically declared, neither are many of them even known. There is popular tradition on who wrote want (and you definitely need to actually provide evidence for your claim of forgery), but the name of the exact individual that wrote whichever book doesn't matter. What does matter is that their work is inspired by God, which is what the Biblical canon is.

Except in this case it does matter, as he’s acting with the authority of a Presbyter who never said this. I find it funny that God couldn’t get the first Peter to write everything needed for his Bible down, so he got a second one to make shit up.

You still have yet to provide any evidence for this claim that 2nd Peter is "forged," whatever that is even supposed to mean. Then you end with a bad, crass joke.

[Hakons]

Oh my goodness... this line of thinking has been... rather debunked to say the least. Here's a funny video on it. Once again, you actually need to substantiate literally any of your claims, which you haven't done at all in any manor for whatever reason. Merely saying two things existed at the same time does not in any way prove your claim that one caused the other.

I said Osiris, not Horus.

Then you'll go to Mithras, ect...
No respected religious historian would say Jesus is an offshoot of, well, any other religious figure.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Except in this case it does matter, as he’s acting with the authority of a Presbyter who never said this. I find it funny that God couldn’t get the first Peter to write everything needed for his Bible down, so he got a second one to make shit up.

You still have yet to provide any evidence for this claim that 2nd Peter is "forged," whatever that is even supposed to mean. Then you end with a bad, crass joke.

https://books.google.com/books?id=TCSOK ... &q&f=false

The majority consensus among scholars is that it is a forgery.

[Hakons]

You would have to elaborate on that. Obviously pagan traditions had elements like resurrected figures, water washing ceremonies, and sacrificial ceremonies, but you would actually have to substantiate your claim that the Resurrection and the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist are somehow inspired by paganism. You can't just point to similar traits and say one is directly inspired and influenced by the other.

One can wonder why the resurrection of Jesus is deemed special and conclusive proof of the validity of Christianity, while the resurrection of pagans is not seen as proof their faith was correct.

The Resurrection is special and conclusive proof because it actually happened, while the resurrection of pagans is not proof because they didn't actually happen. Anyone can say they were resurrected, but the veracity of the claim is what actually determines the truth of the matter.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I said Osiris, not Horus.

Then you'll go to Mithras, ect...
No respected religious historian would say Jesus is an offshoot of, well, any other religious figure.

What about Robert M Price and Richard Carrier?

I would not cite Mithras as an example of a dying-and-rising figure, but I would cite him as an example of a demigod undergoing a passion narrative.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

One can wonder why the resurrection of Jesus is deemed special and conclusive proof of the validity of Christianity, while the resurrection of pagans is not seen as proof their faith was correct.

The Resurrection is special and conclusive proof because it actually happened, while the resurrection of pagans is not proof because they didn't actually happen. Anyone can say they were resurrected, but the veracity of the claim is what actually determines the truth of the matter.

That’s astounding circular reasoning.

[Hakons]

You still have yet to provide any evidence for this claim that 2nd Peter is "forged," whatever that is even supposed to mean. Then you end with a bad, crass joke.

https://books.google.com/books?id=TCSOK ... &q&f=false

The majority consensus among scholars is that it is a forgery.

Thank you for using support. Your claims of forgery still don't hold sway on the inspiration of scripture, for the reason that the Church doesn't give a wig about the opinions of biblical scholars (many of whom are not even in the Church), and for the less partisan reason that God would not permit false teaching to be in His scripture. While the individual authors are often not known, especially for the Old Testament, the truth and authority of scripture remains, because this comes from God and not the work of men.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

https://books.google.com/books?id=TCSOK ... &q&f=false

The majority consensus among scholars is that it is a forgery.

Thank you for using support. Your claims of forgery still don't hold sway on the inspiration of scripture, for the reason that the Church doesn't give a wig about the opinions of biblical scholars (many of whom are not even in the Church), and for the less partisan reason that God would not permit false teaching to be in His scripture. While the individual authors are often not known, especially for the Old Testament, the truth and authority of scripture remains, because this comes from God and not the work of men.

Your god is pretty lame-brained if he’s using a forgery that was obviously being used for political reasons, but couldn’t have communicated that clearly in earlier letters.

[Hakons]

The Resurrection is special and conclusive proof because it actually happened, while the resurrection of pagans is not proof because they didn't actually happen. Anyone can say they were resurrected, but the veracity of the claim is what actually determines the truth of the matter.

That’s astounding circular reasoning.

You will say everything is circular because you for some reason expect religious people to leave out religion from their argument.

[The Grims]

One can wonder why the resurrection of Jesus is deemed special and conclusive proof of the validity of Christianity, while the resurrection of pagans is not seen as proof their faith was correct.

The Resurrection is special and conclusive proof because it actually happened, while the resurrection of pagans is not proof because they didn't actually happen. Anyone can say they were resurrected, but the veracity of the claim is what actually determines the truth of the matter.

I see. Things are only true if you want them to be.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

That’s astounding circular reasoning.

You will say everything is circular because you for some reason expect religious people to leave out religion from their argument.

I say it’s circular because it is. If you don’t have a good reason for your beliefs, why the fuck do you still have them?

[Hakons]

Thank you for using support. Your claims of forgery still don't hold sway on the inspiration of scripture, for the reason that the Church doesn't give a wig about the opinions of biblical scholars (many of whom are not even in the Church), and for the less partisan reason that God would not permit false teaching to be in His scripture. While the individual authors are often not known, especially for the Old Testament, the truth and authority of scripture remains, because this comes from God and not the work of men.

Your god is pretty lame-brained if he’s using a forgery that was obviously being used for political reasons, but couldn’t have communicated that clearly in earlier letters.

You can't just spout claims of forgery, then go strait to saying it's for political reasons. You still haven't even addressed the religious aspects of my argument. This is the key problem whenever random internet atheists come here to rek the Christians. Christians believe in the metaphysical, and since you reject the metaphysical it is impossible for us to come to agreement or understanding. And, of course, the half-arsed jokes don't add anything to an argument.

[Hakons]

The Resurrection is special and conclusive proof because it actually happened, while the resurrection of pagans is not proof because they didn't actually happen. Anyone can say they were resurrected, but the veracity of the claim is what actually determines the truth of the matter.

I see. Things are only true if you want them to be.

Things are true that are true, not what I think of them, as my personal opinion has no sway on what is true.

You will say everything is circular because you for some reason expect religious people to leave out religion from their argument.

I say it’s circular because it is. If you don’t have a good reason for your beliefs, why the fuck do you still have them?

I have plenty of reasons, and frankly what an internet random thinks of these reasons as being good or not has absolutely no sway on if these reasons are actually good or not.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Your god is pretty lame-brained if he’s using a forgery that was obviously being used for political reasons, but couldn’t have communicated that clearly in earlier letters.

You can't just spout claims of forgery, then go strait to saying it's for political reasons. You still haven't even addressed the religious aspects of my argument. This is the key problem whenever random internet atheists come here to rek the Christians. Christians believe in the metaphysical, and since you reject the metaphysical it is impossible for us to come to agreement or understanding. And, of course, the half-arsed jokes don't add anything to an argument.

Well they didn’t forge it because they thought it might be cool to.
“Hey Dionysus, want to forge a first-century fisherman? It’ll be totally epic.”
“Nah sorry man, my mom says I can’t forge epistles anymore.”
“That’s balls, dude. We were maybe gonna write a whole gospel if we had time.”

I don’t reject the metaphysical. I reject useless presuppositions. If you can demonstrate to me a single useful quality that faith has in reality that other methods cannot also attain, we’ll then see what I think of it.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I see. Things are only true if you want them to be.

Things are true that are true, not what I think of them, as my personal opinion has no sway on what is true.

I say it’s circular because it is. If you don’t have a good reason for your beliefs, why the fuck do you still have them?

I have plenty of reasons, and frankly what an internet random thinks of these reasons as being good or not has absolutely no sway on if these reasons are actually good or not.

You and I both know that if you had legitimate evidence, you would have presented it instead of circular reasoning. Don’t play the “personal revelation” card, you’re talking to a former “prophet”.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That’s astounding circular reasoning.

You will say everything is circular because you for some reason expect religious people to leave out religion from their argument.

I think many parts of Abrahamic apologia are kind of circular. For example, the insistence that God is omnibenevolent. The only way I've seen people defend the idea that God is omnibenevolent is by insisting that God is benevolence itself. And by extension that any human who displays the traits of righteousness, goodness, or benevolence is merely reflecting that of God as the moon's light is a reflection of the sun's. I've been told as such by many Christians, be they Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant.

[Novo Vaticanus]

They were chosen because churches liked them, not because they were true, as we have had the misfortune of discovering from half the epistles of Paul, and 2 Peter.

Are you retarded or something? Go read the ecumenical councils and then come back when you have a grasp of Church history kid.

[Hakons]

You can't just spout claims of forgery, then go strait to saying it's for political reasons. You still haven't even addressed the religious aspects of my argument. This is the key problem whenever random internet atheists come here to rek the Christians. Christians believe in the metaphysical, and since you reject the metaphysical it is impossible for us to come to agreement or understanding. And, of course, the half-arsed jokes don't add anything to an argument.

Well they didn’t forge it because they thought it might be cool to.
“Hey Dionysus, want to forge a first-century fisherman? It’ll be totally epic.”
“Nah sorry man, my mom says I can’t forge epistles anymore.”
“That’s balls, dude. We were maybe gonna write a whole gospel if we had time.”

I don’t reject the metaphysical. I reject useless presuppositions. If you can demonstrate to me a single useful quality that faith has in reality that other methods cannot also attain, we’ll then see what I think of it.

Not only do you reject so called useless presuppositions, you reject any presupposition you don't agree with, with the defining factor of course being the certainly unbiased standard of whatever your finite and fleeting cognitive ability (not in an insulting manner, but recognizing the truly limiting nature of our rationality) deems personally understandable. What you consider to be useful is obviously another reason why you will never accept any of my reasoning. We believe Christianity is useful because it is true and brings us into unification with God. That is why our religion useful, and to dumb it down to comparing religions like they're NGOs providing useful humanitarian services is inherently contradictory to the entire mission of religion.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

They were chosen because churches liked them, not because they were true, as we have had the misfortune of discovering from half the epistles of Paul, and 2 Peter.

Are you retarded or something? Go read the ecumenical councils and then come back when you have a grasp of Church history kid.

I have, and it’s uninspiring. I’m sorry you don’t like my conclusions.

[Europa Undivided]

You can't just spout claims of forgery, then go strait to saying it's for political reasons. You still haven't even addressed the religious aspects of my argument. This is the key problem whenever random internet atheists come here to rek the Christians. Christians believe in the metaphysical, and since you reject the metaphysical it is impossible for us to come to agreement or understanding. And, of course, the half-arsed jokes don't add anything to an argument.

Well they didn’t forge it because they thought it might be cool to.
“Hey Dionysus, want to forge a first-century fisherman? It’ll be totally epic.”
“Nah sorry man, my mom says I can’t forge epistles anymore.”
“That’s balls, dude. We were maybe gonna write a whole gospel if we had time.”

I don’t reject the metaphysical. I reject useless presuppositions. If you can demonstrate to me a single useful quality that faith has in reality that other methods cannot also attain, we’ll then see what I think of it.

"Forged" indeed, lmao.

[The Grims]

Well they didn’t forge it because they thought it might be cool to.
“Hey Dionysus, want to forge a first-century fisherman? It’ll be totally epic.”
“Nah sorry man, my mom says I can’t forge epistles anymore.”
“That’s balls, dude. We were maybe gonna write a whole gospel if we had time.”

I don’t reject the metaphysical. I reject useless presuppositions. If you can demonstrate to me a single useful quality that faith has in reality that other methods cannot also attain, we’ll then see what I think of it.

Not only do you reject so called useless presuppositions, you reject any presupposition you don't agree with, with the defining factor of course being the certainly unbiased standard of whatever your finite and fleeting cognitive ability (not in an insulting manner, but recognizing the truly limiting nature of our rationality) deems personally understandable.

How nice. You have something in common with eachother.
I see the beginnings of a beautiful friendship.