Christianity, not Paulinism

[Lessnt]

Are you saying that Jesus, the son of God, and God himself, never existed? If so, you cannot call yourself a Christian, as being a Christian implies the believe in the Trinity; God, his son and the Holy Spirit.

Why is there a holy spirit now?

[Conserative Morality]

I think you're missing the point.

What he calls Christianity is what was widely called Christianity and is what people who called themselves Christians. I don't doubt that, or that he understood it very well.

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.

I think you're missing the point. He deconstructed Christianity and Christians, sure, but he also deconstructed Christ and his teachings directly without later influence (Although not entirely void of admiration). He dealt with both modern (His modern, at least, can't say it's changed much) Christianity and the teachings of Christ.

[Aesthetica]

--snip--

Not going to waste my time replying to your general mockery, although I would like to thank you for getting to me clarify a couple points that I suppose I left unclear.

Don't mention it...

First, I am not trying to say "Ooh, I have shiny evidence that you can't see but you should believe it anyway." I am only attempting to protect my identity on the internet. Anyone who I am convinced is genuinely interested in learning, and I can be confident won't go re-posting it everywhere, is welcome to telegram me on the subject.

Pass the "You won't use this to demonstrate miracles are false" test and I'll show you the evidence, atheists need not apply. A I said, you have no evidence which is why you never provide any...

Second, I am not "posting and running", I am just not going to waste my time arguing with fools like Aesthetica,

Nice insult, so I'm a fool because I don't accept fact free assertions from arrogant and apparently ignorant strangers on the web...

and don't have the time to read through long threads full of similar folks to find the people who are worth responding to. Anyone interested in genuine discussion is free to telegram me on any point I brought up (With the obligatory caveat that I am not on NS very often and it may take some time for me to get around to replying).

So you are only interested in sharing your truths with people who won't ASK for the supporting facts...

Oh and in reply to your "Edit" on your first waste of forum space...

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,

The ones christians don't accept? And just because they are not in the bible doesn't mean they are not christian propaganda nor does it make them reliable, especially as most can be shown to have been written 100-300 years later than the man.

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.

There are bugger all 'passing mentions' that in anyway provide conclusive evidence of a historical jesus. The best you have in contemporary sources is Pliny the Younger, writing in the early 2nd c (as in about 80 years after the cruci-fiction) stating that the 'christians' he encountered claimed they followed the teachings of a man called Christ. That's it, no mention of Jesus in other CONTEMPORARY non christian writings. Stuff written several hundred years later by members of the clergy, doesn't count as reliable evidence.

The only intellectually valid alternative to accepting the historicity of Jesus is to synonymize "dawn of recorded history" with "invention of the printing press".

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.

So much for another Hit-&-Run Preacher...

[Vestr-Norig]

Are you saying that Jesus, the son of God, and God himself, never existed? If so, you cannot call yourself a Christian, as being a Christian implies the believe in the Trinity; God, his son and the Holy Spirit.

Why is there a holy spirit now?

What do you mean?

[Lessnt]

Why is there a holy spirit now?

What do you mean?

Why add it?

[Vestr-Norig]

What do you mean?

Why add it?

Because that is one of the three in the Trinity, and he says he does not believe in the two others; God and his son.

[Lessnt]

Why add it?

Because that is one of the three in the Trinity, and he says he does not believe in the two others; God and his son.

I guess people like 3 rather than 2.

[Nationstatelandsville]

You sir, are a walking oxymoron. We have a club, and we meet every Tuesday.

- The Completely Sane Madman

[Bluth Corporation]

Are you saying that Jesus, the son of God, and God himself, never existed? If so, you cannot call yourself a Christian, as being a Christian implies the believe in the Trinity; God, his son and the Holy Spirit.

That's the common belief, yes, but the common belief is wrong.

In truth, being a Christian necessarily excludes those very teachings you wrongly believe are essential.

[Nationstatelandsville]

Are you saying that Jesus, the son of God, and God himself, never existed? If so, you cannot call yourself a Christian, as being a Christian implies the believe in the Trinity; God, his son and the Holy Spirit.

That's the common belief, yes, but the common belief is wrong.

In truth, being a Christian necessarily excludes those very teachings you wrongly believe are essential.

Ahem. You are not a Christian, you are something else entirely. That term belongs to the people who believe that Jesus was a messiah.

[Bluth Corporation]

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.

[Bluth Corporation]

That's the common belief, yes, but the common belief is wrong.

In truth, being a Christian necessarily excludes those very teachings you wrongly believe are essential.

Ahem. You are not a Christian, you are something else entirely.

I disagree.

That term belongs to the people who believe that Jesus was a messiah.

I disagree.

[Aesthetica]

In Reply to the edited second half of the post replied to previously...

Firstly, if you forgot something you wanted to add to a thread, rather than editing a post pages back, make a new post, as otherwise it's hard to follow and bloody irritating...

--snip--

[preachy snip]

*I can understand how someone rejecting Biblical infallibility can reject the historicity of Jesus. My point it that is inconsistent to reject Jesuses but accept, for example, Alexander's. Any such rejection is going to be ideologically motivated.

no it's wedded to the fact that Alexander was written about by people who were contemporaries, some of whom such as Ptolemy actually KNEW him, and of course there was that little thing he did, conquering the persian empire, building loads of cities named after himself, appointing generals as governors all over the place, passing laws etc, you know little inconsequential things like verifiable history...

[snip]... I don't really have anything else to contribute.

Finally something you got right...

[Nationstatelandsville]

Ahem. You are not a Christian, you are something else entirely.

I disagree.

That term belongs to the people who believe that Jesus was a messiah.

I disagree.

Disagree all you want, it's a simple fact. They have made the term their own and you are coming off as saying "NUH-UH, WE'RE THE REAL CHRISTIANS YOU GUIZE!" by insisting they are using incorrect terminology.

[Bluth Corporation]

In Reply to the edited second half of the post replied to previously...

Firstly, if you forgot something you wanted to add to a thread, rather than editing a post pages back, make a new post, as otherwise it's hard to follow and bloody irritating...



[preachy snip]

*I can understand how someone rejecting Biblical infallibility can reject the historicity of Jesus. My point it that is inconsistent to reject Jesuses but accept, for example, Alexander's. Any such rejection is going to be ideologically motivated.

no it's wedded to the fact that Alexander was written about by people who were contemporaries, some of whom such as Ptolemy actually KNEW him, and of course there was that little thing he did, conquering the persian empire, building loads of cities named after himself, appointing generals as governors all over the place, passing laws etc, you know little inconsequential things like verifiable history...

To be fair, the direct firsthand accounts of Alexander are, as I understand it, scanty to nonexistent. There are some known to have been written, but as far as is known they have not survived to the present.

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.

[Bluth Corporation]

I disagree.


I disagree.

Disagree all you want, it's a simple fact. They have made the term their own

And I'm working to rectify that error that's been perpetuated by historical inertia.

[Vestr-Norig]

Are you saying that Jesus, the son of God, and God himself, never existed? If so, you cannot call yourself a Christian, as being a Christian implies the believe in the Trinity; God, his son and the Holy Spirit.

That's the common belief, yes, but the common belief is wrong.

In truth, being a Christian necessarily excludes those very teachings you wrongly believe are essential.

How do you know my belief is wrong? I do respect you views and belief (or disbelief?), however, I cannot call you a Christian, due to the fact that Christianity implies the belief in God (as a god, and the only god), who also showes himself in a human body; Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

[Conserative Morality]

If you can't win through wordplay, redefine words!

[Nationstatelandsville]

Disagree all you want, it's a simple fact. They have made the term their own

And I'm working to rectify that error that's been perpetuated by historical inertia.

There's no error. They are Christians, plain and simple. As far as I know, I could very well be wrong here, but they were first. Get your own name.

[Nationstatelandsville]

If you can't win through wordplay, redefine words!

"Win - the state of having more cocaine than your opponents"

Ripped straight from the Dictionary of Charlie Sheen.

[Bluth Corporation]

And I'm working to rectify that error that's been perpetuated by historical inertia.

There's no error. They are Christians, plain and simple. As far as I know, I could very well be wrong here, but they were first. Get your own name.

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.

[Nationstatelandsville]

There's no error. They are Christians, plain and simple. As far as I know, I could very well be wrong here, but they were first. Get your own name.

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.

[Robert Magoo]

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?

[Aesthetica]

What do you mean?

Why add it?

4th Century.... The Roman Imperator, constantine made the Cult of Sol invictus the official religion of the empire, together with the cult of Mithras, which was practiced by many of his soldiers, he then added Christianity, a religion popular with slaves and the social underclass.

The first two are a Solar deity, incorporeal, and a Solar connectd deity, represented as a fatherly man, a stern soldier, both have sun-day as their special day of the week, both celebrate their annual feast in late december (can you guess which 'eve'). Constantine closed the courts on sun-day so people could have a day off to compensate for the loss of all the old official religious feast days.

So Jesus became the son of the Sun (thats where halos seem to have originated in christian art), and hey presto, God the Holy Spirit (The spirit that whispered in Mary's ear getting her pregnant confused with Sol Invictus), God the Father (YHVH confused with Mithras), and God the Son (Jesus), there is your "Trinity", and why Christians pray on sunday.

[Keronians]

There's no error. They are Christians, plain and simple. As far as I know, I could very well be wrong here, but they were first. Get your own name.

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.