Is Christianity something other than a religion?

The Bible. New Testament scripture and the relevance of Old Testament moral laws---not cultural and ceremonial laws.

It's not the job of the church to punish those who break local and federal laws. Those who don't believe the same things are welcome, however, the same people who would lead a gay pride march, Antifa demonstration, or other pagan organization are not going to be leaders in the church.

All people fall short keeping the law---however, there are greater sins and greater sinners. Greater Christians and lesser ones.

 

Do you suppose that your considering this a strong "possibility" might have been influenced by your preferences?

 

It is hardly a "deflection" to point out that there is no greater evidence that Hannibal once crossed the Alps than there is as regarding the historicity of the New Testament.

But evidently, you do not wish to address this point...

 

More than one person "claim[ed]" to have witnessed these things.

I will ask you just what I asked another poster: What greater historical evidence is there that Hannibal once crossed the Alps than there is as regarding Jesus (as codified in the New Testament)?

 

It was at Antioch that believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).

(No, this is not the same as Antioch, Tennessee--not far from where I reside--where a terrible church shooting took place just three days ago, as I write this.)

 

There are really only two forms of evidence: The rational and the empirical.

The rational is that which can be deduced.

The empirical is that which can be experienced or--yes, observed.

For instance, I have very little knowledge of auto mechanics; so I really do not know (rationally) just why it is that every time I place the car key in the ignition and turn it, the car starts.

Based upon experience, however, I know that it does (unless the battery is very weak, or the alternator is going out).

In other words, I know, empirically, that this will start the car.

Are you suggesting that this is "weak" evidence?

Do you have strong evidence that "the objectivity, integrity and honesty of the authors" of the New Testament should not be trusted?

If so, what is it?

 

Are you claiming, then, that you would believe--that you would really, really like to--if only we possessed slightly earlier documents?

 

Interesting perspective.

I am intrigued by how you determine if a old testament biblical stricture is a moral, cultural and ceremonial "law"? Do you consider the selection process objective or subjective?

You sure you understand the definition of pagan? Antifa ain't pagan and neither is being gay.

as for the notion of greater sins and greater sinners. Is that like felon vs misdemeanor? Are greater sinners measured by the number of sins committed or the type of sin or both?

 

So, anything that more than one person claims to have witnessed is actually true?

You mean more than absolutely none, which is what evidence exists for the existence of Jesus?

 

I personally believe that at least his teachings with perhaps some places included were logged down before the 4 gospels were even written. And here is where the garbage is injected, by creative minds. I think I read once where some scholars think there may have been a Q gospel, which was the source for some of the writings in the 4 gospels. Of course, if it ever existed it is long gone, perhaps decayed given it was not written in stone.

The Q document would have been written by one or some of his apostles.

With this said, I never trusted anything Paul wrote. The self appointed apostle. A roman citizen jew who is said to have prosecuted early christians. My own thinking on this is that Paul corrupted the message of christ, injected more jewish ideas than christ did, and this made christianity fit for the later roman empire. And then the way the various books were chosen later on, under Constantine. What did not fit in with what these church leaders believed, was excluded, including the gnostic gospels. And yet the gospel of thomas fits in so well with the more mystical gospel of john. And who even knows if the gospel of thomas did not date back to thomas? It could have been copied several times with the last time dated much later than the 4 gospels. Truth is, there is no way, no real way to know what happened. For scholars tend to have their own beliefs and biases. For they are human.

Personally, I believe JC was a mystic, later called a gnostic, for many of his words and teachings have that flavor to them. I thought that the first time while at university, I took the chore of reading the entire bible. A year later, I repeated this again over summer. This was after several courses in philosophy and a philosophy of religion course. And both times, I saw JC as an avatar, a mystic, the same thing you see in buddhism, taoism, and parts of hinduism, what Huxley called the perennial philosophy. And this makes much more sense than a christianity resembling judaism. JC used Judaism, but he differed greatly from it as well. Like the symbolism at his death, where the temple curtain, which behind it only the priests could enter in after a ritual cleansing, god's abode, was torn from top to bottom, symbolizing that human authority was now moot, and each person had a direct connect to god through consciousness, with no humans in between to corrupt it. But of course christianity has its leaders, its authority, which means to me, it was false, a false christianity. I have believed this since I read the bible from genesis to revelation. And BTW, no way in hell Revelation belongs in the NT. It looks to me like some idiot wanted a prophetic book to match the Jewish scriptures and tradition. I think it is bullshit. Nonsense.

 

to many republicans it's a tool to win elections, nothing more

 

It's interesting to note....I have heard those that study the Koran says it alludes to Christians as "followers of the Way".

 

Whatever it's origins, Christianity was and continues to be spectacularly successful. The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the western world. Obviously Judaism and the Jews themselves have been around longer. But the Christians swept Europe with nothing but the power of an idea and, later, with some competent and hard working administrators.

Many found it profoundly satisfying, unlike Communism and Nazism that were exposed as fraudulent in just a few decades.

If it didn't "work" for millions, it would have dissolved over a thousand years ago. But it does work; it keeps chugging right along, through all the abuses and scandals and scientific developments disproving many of the assumptions of the early church.

Of course there are other philosophies that work fine for millions of non-Christians.

 

Christianity is a business.

 

Knowing a car will start does not mean that it will. None of this proves that the story of the resurrection is fact.

There is no proof that I currently know of to the positive or the negative in terms of the level of objectivity, integrity and honesty of the authors.

 

And there you would be wrong!

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ps-italy-bill-mahaney-york-university-toronto

At the top of the pass where there are the two landslides matching the written account as told by survivors there is radio carbon dated mud containing pack animal feces which dates back to 218 BC.

Get back to us when you have radio carbon dated feces of Jesus and his disciples at the last supper, m'kay?

 

Without the originals your "objectivity" is non existent since your belief is entirely based on fables rather than factual first hand accounts.

 

The Gospels are suspect because no Jew would ever claim to be the "son of god" because that was blasphemy punishable by death at that time. The lack of current 1st hand accounts is also bizarre given that Jesus himself and a couple of his disciples were all literate. Why did none of them ever bother to take notes on what he was saying? Why did no one who turned up to hear him preach write down what he wrote and send it as a letter to anyone else? The absence of all contemporary writing is bizarre given that literacy was relatively common at that time.

According to one of the Qumran scrolls James, the brother of Jesus, called Paul "the man of the lie" for claiming that Jesus was the son of god. Yes, Paul was charged with dealing with the Jews and he could easily have used the Jesus myth as a means to subvert Judaism. As a Roman spy it would explain why Paul was released by them in short order after he was captured by them.

Then there is the editing to suit the powers that be throughout the centuries.

 

exactly, that was considered idolatry

 

You are assuming none of them ever wrote down what was said. I would imagine the resistance against his teachings by the jewish religious authority did not go away at this death. We may eventually find the original writings, lost to time, buried, hidden.

And lest you forget, JC used a verifiable scripture to support that man can be a son of god, jewish scripture. So the idea was already there, but tradition denied it, the religious authority denied it. And the reasons are fairly obvious I think. A son of god would usurp their authority in a sense. And changing tradition is a difficult thing, one as old as Judaism.

There was also an attempt to erase anything other than what became the Church. By force if necessary. I can only imagine at all of the documents destroyed. By originally the jews, later on the Church.

The idea brought to man by JC, that humans who sought and discovered the Kingdom within consciousness would destroy all religious authority, of the jewish priests, and of any new religion to arise "about JC". It is a dangerous idea for religious authority, men who interpose themselves between man and god, whether it be the jewish priests or Christianity's Popes, and priests. It is a power thing.

 

Well, if numerous people reported to a police officer just how an accident happened--and were in conjunction with each other--he (or she) would probably be inclined to believe them.

I mean exactly what I said: "What greater historical evidence is there that Hannibal once crossed the Alps than there is as regarding Jesus (as codified in the New Testament)?" (Bold in original)

In other words, why would you accept one (assuming that you do) while rejecting the other?

Do you not see this as a blatant double standard?

 

Well, it certainly is not for the person about whom I wrote: He reportedly took a significant pay cut, in order to become a pastor. (He did hold a fairly high-paying job, I believe.)

He simply felt that he had been called...

 

Well, mine always has in the past.

Most people would probably say that a 100 percent success rate, over a protracted period of time, is very strong evidence.

Do you have any "positive or...negative" knowledge of the "objectivity, integrity and honesty" of those who tell us that Hannibal crossed the Alps?

If not, then do you believe it?

And if so, then why?

 

So, you are saying that absence of (this particular) evidence equals evidence of absence?

 

Please answer the question; are you saying that anything that more than one person claims to have witnessed is true?

You don't even know what I think about the stories of Hannibal.