I do not see 'access' as the primary benefit, but 'freedom'. From the christian perspective, that i included in the summary, human politics is a tiresome, but necessary evil. Christians were living under duress and persecution, and the prospect of freedom to meet openly, and express themselves were of much more significance than any political advantage or manipulation. Hob nobbing with the rich and powerful has NEVER been the goal or focus of Jesus's followers. They would not, and did not, suddenly become political opportunists.
No, you're right. It is 'imminent' to every generation of Christians, whether they live to see it, or not.
All you have done is restate your premise. .. but even worse you double down on "faith alone" doctrine ? You then claim that my passages fit this perspective which is completely untrue as there is not a single reference to faith as the mechanism of salvation in the entirety of Mark and Matt Then you have the glaring fact that the majority of Christianity does not accept Sola Fide (Orthodox and Catholic). Repetition of premise, as proof of claim, is logical fallacy. Avoidance and denial of information to the contrary is a thought stopping mechanism ? Making false statements about the passages I posted (bold)? Not sure what to say about that ? Perhaps the most inane is that you contradict yourself in your own post ? You state "I could not solve it for years" but then, two sentences later, you claim that you have solved the issue by making defacto claims "Faith is the thing that brings salvation" If you have not solved the issue - this means that "you havn't solved the issue" so you have no business making defacto claims.
Ah well.. i tried. You seem to be triggered by this concept, so i see no positive outcome in continuance.
But freedom was not in the hands of the Bishops it was in the hands of an Emporer...he decided what freedom was and how it should be exercised. Docetism, modalists seperationists all views were quoshed by dictate how could that be considered freedom? Orthodoxy by force... is that the christian way...the way it should have been? The Gnostics were hounded to extinction because they believed in a slightly different modality of faith...what happened to their freedoms?
Bourgeois? I would put historical Christianity as the domain of the proletariat. If the question is, Did God appoint Constantine as head or overseer of the church? ..no. God uses many things, in bringing His purposes about, but that does not imply approval or Divine Right.
1) Of course there is conflict in the synoptic gospels ? - No serious theologian or biblical scholar makes this claim. I point out a number of examples in my post such as: A) No virgin birth in Mark - Jesus deified as a man of 30 B) No long ending of Mark - No takes of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death. And there are a host of other conflicts not mentioned. Your claim is simply false. 2) 3) Authenticity of nt manuscripts - what are you talking about ? what manuscripts? .. name one manuscript I(from the synoptic gospels) that exists that is from the time that it was written. Scholarly research - archaeology - historical evidence corroborates what ? This does not relate to anything stated in my post .. as such it is just deflection from, and avoidance of the material presented. 4) What is speculative and what "lies" are you referring to ? Standing on a soapbox twirling around crying "Lies Lies Lies" is not an argument for anything ? Clement as far as we know - did not even know of the Gospel of Matt or John ? Augustine was not born until 354 AD ? We only have one piece of writing from Polycarp - a letter to the Philippeans which you clearly have not read. Your claim that he quotes extensively from Cannon is abject falsehood. Irenaeus is writing around 170-180 AD. While he talks about of Polycarp (as he should given they lived at the same time) - he does not claim to have been his student, nor does he claim that polycarp was a pupil of John. Sorry.
From the perspective of the Christians, they got freedom. They were no longer persecuted. That did not result in enlightenment style 'freedom' of conscience, but only provided a brief respite from persecution. What emperors and kings did, persecuting other worldviews was another issue. Christians are told to respect the governing authority. But that only extends as far as their secular authority. If there is any conflict, God's authority is first. Borgias were more than a thousand years later.
Tis you who are "triggered" friend I am not the one who has resorted to making false statements about your post because I can not bear to directly address the information in your post. For some reason you want to avoid addressing the teachings of Jesus in the Bible that I cited. I am not the one engaging in fallacy - Repeating a claim over and over as if this constitutes proof of claim. I am not the one avoiding information that conflicts with my dogma. What triggered you was passages from the Bible that conflict with your man made dogma. It is not like this is my first rodeo friend. I can't count the number of times this has happened. The response is similar to those under the influence of sophisticated mind control ( not saying that you are but the reaction is similar). They will engaging in various thought stopping techniques in an attempt to not think about the "bad thought" - info that conflicts with dogma - particularly when it is from the Bible. The adherent can not deal with the "Bad thought" and so they engage in various techniques such as - Avoidance, Denial and Demonization of the other. While you have not done too much demonization, your avoidance and denial reaction is strong.
I'd say mine is closer to the truth than yours since I am an ordained minister and you're not, and the people who think these issues are unresolved are the ones who lost the arguments.
Oh! I am so-o-o-o impressed! Did God speak to you, to tell you to use the "from authority" argument? I kinda doubt it, since it's a very ordinary fallacy...
No, that was the "I have studied this stuff and you clearly have not" argument. As it is, you don't even have an argument aside from blowing people off for saying things you don't want to hear.
You proposed there are "a great many other great scientific minds who did not hold to an atheistic, naturalistic view". I clarified by pointing out that when they mixed spirituality with their science, their science was not at all good. They succeeded when they DID hold their work separate from religious philosophy. That exclusion allowed the progress that differentiated them from the crowd. With 2 above you then double down on your suggestion that there is no conflict. But, there is plenty of opportunity for philosophical beliefs to conflict with science. We see that all the time. In fact, exclusion of ones philosophical beliefs is a significant challenge of science. As for your Einstein quote, I would point out that religious philosophy is also never complete - and for the same reasons. In fact, there is a further issue, which is that religion provides no method for making decisions. That's demonstrated by the large number of current and past religions that have been differentiated on the basis of some factor that the various philosophies of mankind considered to be of crucial importance.
You asserted, "There is only one CORRECT interpretation", concerning Christianity. That is so ridiculous, after two thousand years of heresies and Reformations... that is really, really deserved to be blown off. Then you went on, with an argument from authority... with yourself as the authority. Basically, your argument is, "I'm right because 'I'm right'!" And you insist!!
...And you have yet to tell us ONE THING about the differences between what you call "interpretations". Tell me, do Lutherans not believe that Jesus was crucified and rose again on the third day? How about Baptists? Methodists? Catholics? Come now, enlighten us.
Ever hear of the Council of Nicaea? That's where the Church blew the heretics you speak of out of the water.
I have taught you how to fish and showed you the way. You are on your own. Cut the verbosity or I will iggy you next.
That's like poling Catholics to demonstrate that god intended there to be popes. So, Christianity is the branch of the Abrahamic faith that believes jesus was one with god, while the other two major divisions do not. And of course there are all the other religions.
Despite Christianity being in opposition to my own ideology, I have to say I liked the way you organized this post, usfan. It's definately informative about your views.
