@Drich I must agree with Sheldon. The First Council of Nicea in AD 325 laid down the dogma and first bible. But even after that, there were disputes and changes.
When Luther broke away from the catholic church and formed the protestants, they dropped some of the catholic tenets and created their own bible(s). And since then, there have been many revisions and different versions of bibles.
Really? I didn’t know that. If it’s not too much trouble, could you explain
what you mean by ‘the core structure’ and the evidence you use to reach that conclusion
perhaps also explain from where you got the idea that the Christianity is some how homogeneous in doctrine and structure across the hundreds of sects which call themselves Christian
Pretty hard to do, as no one has any idea of exactly what was written in bible originally.
I strongly recommend the book cited below. It will be useful when ignorant proselytisers start rabbiting on about the bible being the inerrant word of god.
In fact, Most of Bart Ehrman’s books are worth a glance
The link below is to a short lecture by Bart Ehrman
((((((((((((((((((((((0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Addendum: just had a thought: The many ancient books we collectively call the bible were not adopted as the bible until the first Nicene council in the fourth century… At that time, a collection of works mainly arranged by one man (Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria) were ratified as the official doctrine/canon/dogma. We really don’t know how many, if any, original texts were extant at that time. Over a thousand years passed between then and Gutenberg’s printing press ca 1454. By that time the original contents of the bible were hopelessly muddled and riddled with error.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA …
AWWWW FUCK! The inane comment of the YEAR! Do you know anything at all about the development of Christianity? Paul’s version does not even match the version of the Gospels. Damn! There is ignorant and then there is IGNORANT!
Several posters have ready explained that christianity doesn’t exist as a constant, it has constantly changed, and would be all but unrecognisable to earlier adherents. However even were this not the case the longevity would in no way validate or lend any credence to the belief.
and i explain it is not supposed to exist as a constant, we were given 2 rules by christ in comparison to the hundreds the jews had. I also pointed out this was the core of christianity and all that is needed to be considered ‘christian.’ to this core we share with the first century church. so while things like worship methods change, the core of the church does not.
Then why waste time mentioning logical fallacies and specious dubious claims about longevity?
the question was rhetorical, not a fallacy, the reason it was asked was because you guys think this way. even your opening counterargument is based on this fallacy/rhetorical question that somehow the majority of the church must not change."
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Start there…
well that’s easy. God has made himself available to us. meaning if we approach him on his terms he in one form or another will show up. since we are not having a scientific discussion, there is no need to use that gradiant as a standard of evidence. and because eye witness testimony is enough to convict a man to death in this country. we will start with my personal evidence. it came in the way my judgement and a day trip to hell. then later had a ‘messenger’ tell me of my past present and what God had for me in the future.
Again this was my evidence… one on one time with God. all i needed. which is what is offered to you as well. if you humble yourself and seek him on his terms. before you run off and try to salvage the need to have scientific evidence, start with this: if God sat you down for an hour and you have complete access to him one on one, would this be enough evidence for you?
That is what is on the table that is what is being discussed.
perhaps you are unfamiliar with that fallacy. allow me to draw a distinct line between what i said and a no true scotsman.
A no true scotsman fallacy does not have a agreed upon rule set to define what being a ‘true’ scotsman would be. it’s like moving the goal posts.
What i said is the opposite. Core christianity is a set of rules written in the bible/ taught by christ himself as being fundamental to being a follower of christ. ALL christian churches agree with these core principles. this is the church. the rest is personal preferences and methods of worship. which are allowed to change.
Not interested since I didn’t claim you made a true Scotsman; I noted that you seem to be laying the ground work for one. If you want to have a discussion with me; you’ll need to stick to what was actually said. Not what you wanted me to say.
The two are not mutually exclusive of course, though you would need to explain what you mean by “core structure” and why that claim has any bearing on my point?
in fact they are mutually exclusive. as the core structure or core elements of christianity is shared by all denominations past and present…
these core elements start with the primary teachings of Jesus but are not limited to him. really any bible based precept found in the NT can be considered so long as it is a contextual and not piece together. but as a base or core of christianity the teachings of christ, his model of prayer, salvation, who he was how he lived, why he died and rules he gave must universally be agreed upon in order to be christian.
The reason i say they can be mutually exclusive is because someone in a roman catholic service can hold fast to the core beliefs (and to the declarations of the church) and a southern baptist can still believe in these core values 500 years apart and both are just as christian as the other. it’s the rules of the church the rules of worship the rules of the denomination that we add and most of you see as the embodiment of the church. the opposite is true.
why? because all religious expression is wrong. no one has it right. but if we have these core christian values, we are offered atonement when we openly and willfully sin. How much more is offered when we worship to the best of our ability and get it wrong? with these core values in place the rest of the religious junk society and time cobble together is really just window dressing to sell the core beliefs. which again are based on the very first teaching of christ thereby making the ‘church/the saved’ (not the religious company) the same from the time of christ to now.
what did he said about the two laws he gave? he said it embodied ALL OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. that if you were to follow just his two laws it is the same as if you followed all of the ot law.
Rather proving the original point about the changing nature of religions I’d say.
which is the reason Christ gave the church only two laws… to change the nature of all religion.
I already pointed out that according to the new testament, Jesus endorsed all old testament law.
And I responded that that this is just your unevidenced opinion, and it is contradicted by the new testament where Jesus endorsed all old testament law.
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
Wrong, see above. core doctrinal teachings endorsed by Jesus in the bible are no longer adhered to. You have yet to accurately define what you think this core is?
thus it is a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Here it is again…and if it is rhetorical you shouldn’t have put a question mark at the end.
I don’t know who “you guys” are, but I only speak for myself, and I am not aware of any logical fallacy I have used in this discourse so please do quote it for me? I never said nor have I ever said that the church must not change, I have said the exact opposite that it would be unrecognisable to many adherents from just a few decades ago, I used my grandparents as an example. So I am lost as to why you’re falsely assigning that claim to me. However I have pointed out that a message from a deity that had limitless knowledge to create it, and limitless power to communicate need not change or be remotely vague, ambiguous or open to interpretation. If that deity was also claimed to have limitless mercy then it is contradictory to offer a message containing those human errancies.
That’s just an unevidenced subjective opinion you’ve offered?
You don’t get to tell me what standard of evidence I require to believe any claim, and I already pointed out it is the same for all claims. If you wish to use a lower standard that’s your business, but you came here to make assertions about that belief, so I get to decide if I accept your assertions or not, and what standard I think is apropos, and I see no rational reason to lower my bar for belief because for religious claims, just because theists want to.
No we won’t, I already told you I will decide what standard I accept. If you think I will accept the anecdotal unevidenced claims of a stranger in an internet forum then that’s absurd, as I would have to extend that ludicrously low bar to all claims by all people, how exactly would I discard identical claims for other deities?
If you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence then please just say that is the case. don’t pretend you can easily do so, then immediately offer subjective unevidenced claims about personal experience.
Not what I asked for though was it, I asked…
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity.
You are offering unevidenced anecdotal personal experience.
Why would I? Your claim is just a hook religions use to try and indoctrinate the unwary, who lack the ability to think critically. It also wouldn’t work anyway, as other theists offer the same claims for different deities. So it wouldn’t get me any closer to Jesus or Allah, than it would to Thor or Apollo.
It may be all you have to offer, but you don’t get to decide what is being discussed.
Now can you, or can you not, offer any objective evidence for any deity?
Oh fuck! I don’t want to address this bullshit. I just don’t have the energy. Look… List your 2 core beliefs that you think have withstood the test of time in Christian thought. Lets stop fucking around.
1.
2.
Believe in me, Love me, Repent, Abide in me, Listen to me, Take up your own cross and follow me, turn over all your wealth to the poor, do not be of this world, Fear him who can destroy, Worship God in Spirit and in Truth, Do not worry about the necessities of life (You are more important than a fucking flower), Humble yourself in childlikness, Embrace mercy and forgivness unless your family rejects me and then you must hate them for brother will turn against brother and I have not come to bring peace but a sword. AWWWWWWWW Fuck, these stupid demands just go on and on and on. What in the fuck are you talking about?
How about writing two simple clear sentences.
So which teaching Jesus are you arbitrarily setting aside? As this rather destroys your previous claim? Can we assume this one is being ignored?
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished . Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
Only this destroys your first claim, as many Christians in living memory, have cited those very old testament laws to justify adhering to doctrine that Christians no longer do, for example exodus 21 and it’s specific endorsements of slavery, and the biblical laws citing homosexuality as "an abomination.
And there is that No True Scotsman fallacy Nyarl warned you were preparing the groundwork for. Moving the goalposts to exclude Christians who don’t share your subjective opinions on the bible, and which bits to believe, discard, cherry pick or amend.
So one can do anything the bible says, as Jesus is supposed to have claimed?
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished . Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
So much for core anything. many Christians in the US thought slavery was perfectly moral, as the bible endorsed it, the US amended the constitution to use secular law to abolish slavery, so now Christians in the US have changed their views in line with secular laws, maybe not all, but they abide by those laws and not biblical doctrine, doctrine Jesus said could not change one iota.
I disagree, and a cursory read of the bible’s murderous laws and torturous punishments for what most Christian’s would now consider acceptable, rather proves the point. It isn’t just about worship, assuming you mean this literally.
what murderous laws and torture are the christians supposed to partake in? can you provide book chapter and verse? I consider myself fairly well read on the subject matter and have never once come across such a list for christians to follow. that’s what makes the dark ages dark… the leadership of the church went off scripture to justify the murder and torture. So either history is wrong, or perhaps you are mistaken.
Biblical laws, endorsed by Jesus n the bible allegedly, endorsed slavery, and stoning unruly children. The biblical deity encouraged it’s adherents to commit acts of ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking female prisoners, and much much more. Though we needn’t go that far back.
Well this is all cap…
He said to slaves to honor their master but to the masters honor their slaves. that all are the same before god. He did not endorse stoning. as the pharisees brought a lady before him to be stoned, and they said she was caught in adultry by two men, the ot law says she should be stoned. they asked what do you say… He wrote out their sins on the ground before them and said he who is without sin cast the first stone. they all left. he said woman where are your accusers? she said they left, to which he replied i do not accuse you either go and sin no more. if he wanted or was for stoning he could have at that point.
As far as unruly children Christ said anyone who harms one of these, it will be better for them to have never been born.
If you are talking OT, then 1 so what. 2… this is a christian discussion concerning the church… you are in well before the church
Homosexuality is very specifically reviled in biblical doctrine as an abomination, and even post industrialised liberal western democracies had laws persecuting gay men and women. Yet all that has changed over just a few decades. The doctrine is disregarded as unjust or immoral by many mainstream Christians.
more cap… do you guys verify before you vilify?
in the ot yes homosexuality is outright identified and condemned. so what… its a rule for a religion not being discussed.
in the NT as so many of you will argue homosexuality is not outright identified. The reason why is what alludes most of you. in the NT the use a term that encapsulated ALL sexual sin. from visual lust to adultry to masterbation homosexuality all of it gets filed under one word we translate many different ways (porneia) which basically means ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY outside the bounds of a Sanctified Marriage. which destroys your argument that homosexuals are targeted. In Christianity to christ ALL sexual sin is as bad as what you think homosexuality alone is. And yet this is not the unforgivable sin. there is redemption for homosexuality as well as the rest of sexual sin if one repents. (Turns from sin/did say stop, but rather know it is evil and stop justifying your sin)
Yes, the fact this core doctrine wasn’t offered specifically as evidence had alarm bells ringing for me as well. I’d bet my ex wife’s share of the divorce he can’t offer any objective doctrine here, and that any other Christian’s might just laugh, or damn him to Hell, for his subjective viewpoint on core doctrine.
Looking at the inquisition in the context of his claim, I’m left wonder what all the fuss was about. Galileo must have been puzzled at the church’s (over) reaction as well.
dont assume… i left it vague to have one of you ask a question.
@Drich I must agree with Sheldon. The First Council of Nicea in AD 325 laid down the dogma and first bible. But even after that, there were disputes and changes.
When Luther broke away from the catholic church and formed the protestants, they dropped some of the catholic tenets and created their own bible(s). And since then, there have been many revisions and different versions of bibles.
so? do you not understand my argument?
I already quoted the text I had originally referred to.
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished . Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
If the bible offers contradictory texts, supposedly from an omniscient and omnipotent deity, then that infers something to me. Nevertheless your posts have shown that core doctrine is a matter of subjective opinion, and I have shown doctrine allegedly cited as being unable to change one iota by Jesus in the bible, has changed and still is changing to Christians.
Any chance you will share these two laws? Then explain why, according to the bible, Jesus has apparently contradicted himself?
Yes, and it appears to be naught but your subjective opinion, and at odds with the evidence I and others have cited. Christian beliefs change, and you can move the goal posts to subjectively cherry pick only two laws if you want, but other Christians don’t agree, nor does the bible. Which was the original point.
You also cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for your claim, or more importantly for any deity.
Really? I didn’t know that. If it’s not too much trouble, could you explain
what you mean by ‘the core structure’ and the evidence you use to reach that conclusion
thank you for your question.
The core structure argument has already been explained. they consist of the teaching of christ, which center on the fact he is the son of God, came to die on the cross for our sins, rose on the 3rd day. he taught us how to pray, lived a life we all should try and live gave us 2 rules to follow as christians. and in following these core beliefs we now have forgiveness for our sins. so if we can be forgiven when we willfully sin, how much more grace is available when we worship wrongly? when we do our best as his first commands dictates and fall short? this allows us the flexibility to build any number of christian church any way we like and still be christian.
The proof of this is in the teaching of all Jesus christ centered churches. IE we are all taught from the gospels which were hand written copies of what was verbally spoken to the first few century churches.
Pretty hard to do, as no one has any idea of exactly what was written in bible originally.
that’s not true. we still have complete record of it.:
I strongly recommend the book cited below. It will be useful when ignorant proselytisers start rabbiting on about the bible being the inerrant word of god.
In fact, Most of Bart Ehrman’s books are worth a glance
if you would like to take a few of barts best objections, i would like the opportunity to straighten them out for you. (maybe start a fresh thread, and you need to be able to defend his position a little, so i know you get what is being said and why./ please don’t dump and run. i will most likly ask for simple citations. or ask you to explain like why a copy of something is bad… Ie if i hand draft a copy of a treasure map, well enough for you or anyone else to find the treasure, what does it matter if it is a copy or the original?
you are aware we have 2nd and 3rd century manuscripts of the NT books as well as books from the OT that date back hundreds of years before christ right? that all we get from the council of nicea is which books were used, and the order they were compiled. we can source the content from period correct manuscripts. so it does not matter when nicea happened verses the first printing press. we have transcripts of the copies of the original 3rd 4th century manuscripts. these compilation of books are call codices.
which does change the content of our modern bibles, as older and older manuscripts are found. and new codices are compiled. FYI these changes generally amount to spelling and grammatical changes. content is rarely affected.
for instance the original KJV was translated from the “Textus Receptus” which was not a complete codex, meaning did not contain all greek manuscripts, some of it was latain/vulgate. (the koine greek being hundreds of years older than any latin manuscripts.) as time went on more and more manuscripts were found verified which from that new codices were compiled. in addition to the receptus, the Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus are also used to fill in the missing greek over 5000 hand written manuscripts written in the koine greek (which put them before the counsel of nicea met. ) so again we have writing older (over 5000 of them) older than the compilation of the bible itself. that is why i said the only thing we need from the council of nicea is the list of books to use and the order they come in.
I said all of that to give you an example of how little the bible changed. the biggest is found in the 10 commandments. the command in the old kjv read “thou shalt not kill” now it reads (because an older text proof verified the need for change) “Thou shalt not Murder.”
The first being a prohibition on the taking of all human life (which contradicts later commands to stone/or kill a sinner.) and the other is a prohibition on the unauthorised taking of human like, like again the death penalty or war.
Paul’s version does not even match the version of the Gospels. Damn! There is ignorant and then there is IGNORANT!
example?
Still waiting.
So church doctrine does change.
I quoted the new testament. though it seems to me you are now implying a perfect deity need two attempts to make itself clear, perhaps because it’s first attempt was barbaric and sadistic? This doesn’t sound rational to me, and Id suggest Occam’s razor offers a far simpler answer as to why the cobbled together narratives of the bible are contradictory, and filled with human errancy.
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished . Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
Exodus 21, sets out laws for buying selling keeping and beating slaves, even to death, was Jesus in error, or are these morally acceptable laws?
Yet mainstream Christian churches and many christians have changed their views on this core doctrine, quod erat demonstrandum.
I don’t care, as I don’t believe in supernatural curses like sin either, The point is that christianity has constantly evolved, often abandoning biblical doctrine. In every human society that has ever existed around 2.5% of them are born gay, for a deity to create this then condemn them for being as created is a nonsensical claim, or it is a sadistic and cruel deity. Luckily I no more believe in the Christian deity than I believe Poseidon rules the deep, and for the same reason.
What assumption? Being deliberately vague is simply sophistry, just speak plainly, and others will reciprocate.