The root of Christianity

[DrZoidberg]

Hardly by chance, every generation of editors had incentives to strategically include or exclude certain texts.

While both atheists and faithful alike like to think the Bible as coming together as part of a grand plan. It's mostly just random accidents. This guy was responsible for assembling the first canon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

How did he do it? Early in the church the number of Biblical texts were ever multiplying. The canon wasn't nailed down. Churches wanted his guidance on which books to buy. What's worse Christian gnostics were trying to make Christianity into a pagan mystery cult, ie really weird theology really fast. In an attempt to curb gnostic weirdness in his diocese he wanted to freeze the canon.

But books are expensive. He didn't want to waste this investment by the churches. So he made a survey of which Biblical books Egyptian churches had bought. The most common ones formed the canon. A super simple and pragmatic method which annoyed the least number of people.

In the first council of Nicea and 50 years later all of Christendom had to agree on a single canon. But it was a total mess around the empire. Except in one region, Egypt. Also the greatest number of Christians anywhere. It was hard to argue for the tremendous waste of money it would have been to do anything other than to go with the Egyptian canon. By sheer chance, this canon consisted of the earliest books. Which Romans liked. They liked anything old.

So it was mostly just a bunch of random practical choices that steered us towards the existing canon. I haven't read anything to indicate there was much strategy involved, other than to minimise wasted money.

 

[Politesse]

You think Athanasius of Alexandria wasn't politically compromised?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You think Athanasius of Alexandria wasn't politically compromised?

I don't actually. Not from outside the church. The Roman regime didn't give a shit what the Christians were up to as long as they paid their taxes, and when required showed up at the local temple and made some minor symbolic offering to the emperor. The Roman authorities weren't asking much and was super liberal and easy going regarding religion. All you needed to do to be left alone was to show respect to the official religion of Rome.

Christians in Rome weren't innocent victims.

I don't think he was politically compromised. There was all kinds of political pressure inside the church. But that's fine. That's not being compromised.

The prime evidence for that the process was quite random is the fact that the Bible is a doctrinal mess. It's a mixed bag of various temporary phases in a rapidly evolving church. There's letters from the maverick Paul and the evangeliums which are quite different types of religion.

There are major interesting omissions, like Marcionism and Gnosticism. While large and popular at the time, they were newer. So fewer Biblical books of them were in circulation. We know Anastacious were against both Gnostics and Marcionists. Which might have influenced the timing of when he assembled the canon. But the method by which he did it and the contents strongly indicate that their was no grand plan or theological manipulation of the contents. If that were true wouldn't it have been more streamlined and less messy? Why four accounts of the Crucifixion? Why accounts with contradicting time lines?

 

[Learner]

I'll just say it, as you often do try to make the bit in bold your usual rethoric. Either you're mistaken, or you're lying. Sorry about that.

Prove it. Show me where I have lied. And show me why any of the arguments I made are faulty.

I stand behind what I said in the post you responded to. If you are making up shit, or being deliberately dishonest, I will call you out on it. Especially when you repeatedly engage in such behavior, and then come back with a post preaching about speaking the truth (because Jesus), when you clearly are unwilling to engage honestly. The way to avoid being called out is to not engage in such behavior.

The false claims,I was on about was your incessant rethoric of me, "making things up." Now we're not going to agree here on this particular aspect but secondly - the false caim thing was originating from one particular post is where I pointed out to you, your disingenuous manner, when you brought up some past history you say you've had with Lumpy, which had nothing to do with the mentioned post#90... you were actually trying to make some argument from your history encounter.

To this day:
1. you have not been able to acknowledge that Lumpy's argument from ignorance, which you endorsed is flawed (and you made a similar argument yourself later).

2. you have not been able to acknowledge that the evidence indicates that the Jesus miracle stories are almost certainly not factual.

That speaks to dissonance and lack of integrity.

I endorsed his input for the single route and his suggestions in the form of questions (also not claims) which were worth consideration and debating about of course. The plural route was there, so why not?

There is no evidence that Jesus miracles are not factual. Even If it were written about, despite if these events were to be actually true - it's likely you (plural) would see it just the same way as you do now, imo.

Miracles is 'out of place' from everyday logical understanding and aquired knowledge, yes.. but there is no evidence these writers were 'making this up,' the psycology (mannerisms, emotional quotient etc) is consistent.. .. and beyond what they could fathom as they saw themselves, these miracles are not normal things! They understood only few could perform these miracles and they would be rare.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner you are ignoring and not responding to our fundamental qesation related tothe roots of Christianity.

The question is simple. Is Christianity based on a small collection of short documents, the gospels, which are taken to be factual or is it not?

This is one of those yes or no questions for which there is no debate.

Christianity is based on the gospels as truth or not. What say you Learner?

 

[Learner]

Learner you are ignoring and not responding to our fundamental qesation related tothe roots of Christianity.

The question is simple. Is Christianity based on a small collection of short documents, the gospels, which are taken to be factual or is it not?

This is one of those yes or no questions for which there is no debate.

Christianity is based on the gospels as truth or not. What say you Learner?

Ok...

Based on truth, is my view.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner you are ignoring and not responding to our fundamental qesation related tothe roots of Christianity.

The question is simple. Is Christianity based on a small collection of short documents, the gospels, which are taken to be factual or is it not?

This is one of those yes or no questions for which there is no debate.

Christianity is based on the gospels as truth or not. What say you Learner?

Ok...

Based on truth, is my view.

You probably do not understand how frustrating you are to us, you still dance around the crux of the roots issue.

Are the gospels as basis for Christianity which have no contemporary corroboration taken as factual?

Yes or no. I am guessing you have never been confronted with the question before. Christians do not think about the basis, they follow the Christian crowd and believe.

 

[atrib]

The false claims,I was on about was your incessant rethoric of me, "making things up." Now we're not going to agree here on this particular aspect but secondly - the false caim thing was originating from one particular post is where I pointed out to you, your disingenuous manner, when you brought up some past history you say you've had with Lumpy, which had nothing to do with the mentioned post#90... you were actually trying to make some argument from your history encounter.

To this day:
1. you have not been able to acknowledge that Lumpy's argument from ignorance, which you endorsed is flawed (and you made a similar argument yourself later).

2. you have not been able to acknowledge that the evidence indicates that the Jesus miracle stories are almost certainly not factual.

That speaks to dissonance and lack of integrity.

I endorsed his input for the single route and his suggestions in the form of questions (also not claims) which were worth consideration and debating about of course. The plural route was there, so why not?

There is no evidence that Jesus miracles are not factual. Even If it were written about, despite if these events were to be actually true - it's likely you (plural) would see it just the same way as you do now, imo.

Miracles is 'out of place' from everyday logical understanding and aquired knowledge, yes.. but there is no evidence these writers were 'making this up,' the psycology (mannerisms, emotional quotient etc) is consistent.. .. and beyond what they could fathom as they saw themselves, these miracles are not normal things! They understood only few could perform these miracles and they would be rare.

Your argument could also be used to support every other claim humans have ever made regarding supernatural events. You cannot prove that the supernatural stories about Hanuman or Ganesha are not true, for example. Why would the authors of these stories lie? Do you believe the stories about Hanuman or Ganesha? The claim is based on a lack of knowledge - "Why would the writers lie?", instead of "What is the evidence to support this claim?", which is the question you should be asking. It is a claim from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy, which makes it unreliable. You have no fucking clue what a logical argument is, or what a fallacy is, and you sure as fuck don't want to learn.

I am tired of repeating myself. You have not responded to any of the arguments I have made, or even attempted to address them. I am not even sure that you understand anything I have said in this thread.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Learner you are ignoring and not responding to our fundamental qesation related tothe roots of Christianity.

The question is simple. Is Christianity based on a small collection of short documents, the gospels, which are taken to be factual or is it not?

This is one of those yes or no questions for which there is no debate.

Christianity is based on the gospels as truth or not. What say you Learner?

Ok...

Based on truth, is my view.

I find this, attitude uninteresting. We know from a variety of sources and research that the Bible isn't factually correct.

If you think it is factually correct it is because of one of two reasons.

1) You can't be bothered to do your homework.

2) You really really want to believe it's factually correct so you avoid doing your homework.

Either way you are not going to be equipped to hold your own in a discussion on it. To be able to engage in a meaningful discussion on this topic you will need to do your homework.

The Bible is the most well studied book in history. No book is easier to find solid scholarly work on. If you are a Christian there's no excuse really. If you can't be bothered to seriously study your own religions sacred text, are you really a Christian?

I find the lack of curiosity in the Bible among Christians provoking. Why call themselves Christian if they're this damn uninterested in its contents and creation?

That was my little frustrated rant based on all the discussions with fundie Christians I have had here.

There's loads of Christians who have done their homework. Lots who have been here. My girlfriend is one such. I just find it provoking that there's a single Christian who just doesn't care about the Bible.

I guess.. Each to their own

I love studying the Bible and I have never been Christian

 

[Learner]

You probably do not understand how frustrating you are to us, you still dance around the crux of the roots issue.

Are the gospels as basis for Christianity which have no contemporary corroboration taken as factual?

Yes or no. I am guessing you have never been confronted with the question before. Christians do not think about the basis, they follow the Christian crowd and believe.

Ok, I think I understand there's frustration, because when one can just simply ignore a post, when it's deemed to be 'a waste of time' they don't ignore it.

Funny thing, I asked similar questions to theists when I was not one.

(Seriously... there are good questions, responses from all the posters. I'll get to them soon, cheers))

 

[atrib]

At Dr Zoidberg:

For most Christians, I believe it is a matter of cognitive dissonance. It is not that they lack the ability to think rationally; they choose not to think rationally when it comes to matters of their faith. It is much easier just to believe.

In this particular case, I don't think the poster has the reading and writing skills needed to participate effectively in such discussions. Couple that with religious indoctrination induced cognitive dissonance, and you end up with a mess.

 

[steve_bank]

You probably do not understand how frustrating you are to us, you still dance around the crux of the roots issue.

Are the gospels as basis for Christianity which have no contemporary corroboration taken as factual?

Yes or no. I am guessing you have never been confronted with the question before. Christians do not think about the basis, they follow the Christian crowd and believe.

Ok, I think I understand there's frustration, because when one can just simply ignore a post, when it's deemed to be 'a waste of time' they don't ignore it.

Funny thing, I asked similar questions to theists when I was not one.

(Seriously... there are good questions, responses from all the posters. I'll get to them soon, cheers))

The question always goes unanswered because to consider it brings into question one's faith. Our minds subconsciously protect ourselves, an emotional immune system of a kind. I doubt you will let yourself answer the question. There is no scriptura to quote. You can rtereat into the Christian warm fuzzy cocoon.

 

[steve_bank]

I worked with very good Christian creationist engineers. They compartmentalize the practical application of science and creationism which is scientifically irrational.

The mistake us atheists can make is trying to fit the debate into rational Aristotelian logic and reasoning where the best data wins.

AsI like to say, religion is only one emotional irrational aspect of us humans.

 

[atrib]

Ok, I think I understand there's frustration, because when one can just simply ignore a post, when it's deemed to be 'a waste of time' they don't ignore it.

It is not a waste of time to challenge misinformation and point out the flaws in bad arguments, even if you have no hope of changing the mind of the person making the bad arguments. The forums are read by many people, some of whom are Christians who may be willing to listen to arguments based on facts and reason, and may change their minds as a result. Many of the atheists on this forum were Christians before they were exposed to arguments pointing out the fallacies and inconsistencies inherent to religious apologetics.

 

[Learner]

You're making the common Christian reinterpretation of the past to fit current ideological needs of the Christian church. No, matter how much you want it not to be, we know very well how to read wisdom litterature.

Since the written word varied so much between books the ancients had a much less rigid view of anything theological. We read texts differently before and after the printing press was invented.

Are you making the common non-Christian reinterpretation of the past to fit current ideological needs of the non-Christian perspective?

It is quite odd why you (plural) still think this way. Here for example, when the dead-sea-scrols were discovered and then comparing with other books of various ages. There are no changes to the narrative, the characters and who they are, in their roles.

I think the ancients understood the difference between genuine wisdom and political propaganda. Both the New and the old testament is full of both.

BTW, the ten commandments are just obvious stuff. Nobody needs to be told any of that. The first three commandment is the only interesting ones. I think the other commandments are there to sell the first three. And these three are 100% political. It makes no difference to the faithful if they worship one or twenty gods. The top three commandments are the result of the king (I forget which) wanted to raise money by insisting that all Jews only sacrifice animals to Jehova in the temple of Jerusalem AND they only sacrificed animals bought from the king. It was a tax essentialy. Inadvertently he invented Abrahamic monotheism.

I agree with the underlined above.

The Ten commandments you see as obvious stuff, well yes, but they need to be told or reminded of, because of the consequences attached to each of them.

The first ten are just the first ten commandments. There is 613. The ancient Jews thought they were all as important.

Jesus (and Paul) thought this was silly and thought some of them were anachronistic and could be stricken. He then inadvertently created a new religion. Which changed the original meaning of the first three commandments.

Jews would understand that sometimes when new Prophets come on the scene, thus new covenants and laws are made. It's the biblical tradition. Jesus, although more than a Prophet, brought in the 'two greatest commandments' like those brought in from those before Him. There are no contradictions.

Archeologists have found small private shrines to Baal, Dagon, Anat, Moloch, etc active well into Post Christian Times. Jews understood full well how much the king of the Jews could be greedy and full of shit. Archeology backs it up.

Christianity is a more streamlined and simpler religion than Paganism. Which makes it easier, but it also leads to intellectual laziness. Christian theology is more shallow than pagan theology is. For this reason I think the ancient Jews were more cynical about the Old Testament than what modern Christians are, who often seem to swallow it uncritically.

It just goes to show, that archeology corroborates with the bible, since the bible mentions the names of those gods in your quote: baal, dagon, moloch and quite a few others etc..

I could go with that, that Christianity should be simpler, and of course, it is a way also made for gentiles to be included as well. Jews had various sects, and they seem to be cynical of each other.It's strange that the first Christians were Jews yet oddly, Christianity is considered some how to be alien to the OT rather than an extension of it, since Christianity teaches the OT as well as the NT.

We have a very good understanding of how the ancients used wisdom litterature.

Christianity is interesting in that it stresses the need of accepting and NOT think. Ie faith. But that wouldn't have made sense to those writing and reading the Bible in those early days. They were all pagans and would be thinking and reading like pagans. Ie the people the Bible was written for and who they tried to convince. Only a modern Christian would have the ability to chose to interpret the Bible as you do.

"We have a good understanding... " Yes we do. And in the modern world, It would better then, to have you interpret the bible for me, instead.

(We agree to disagree)

 

[steve_bank]

Learner probably can not articulate why e posts here in the first place.

Like most Christians it just feels good to babble nothing and quote scripture once and a while.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are you making the common non-Christian reinterpretation of the past to fit current ideological needs of the non-Christian perspective?

It is quite odd why you (plural) still think this way. Here for example, when the dead-sea-scrols were discovered and then comparing with other books of various ages. There are no changes to the narrative, the characters and who they are, in their roles.

What are you talking about? You're making it sound like it's a question of personal conviction and a question of us all examining the evidence and reaching our own conclusion. This is science. This is a product of serious scholarly work going back to the 18'th century. There's no hard scientific field that has gotten the amount of study as scholarly Bible studies. And I'm not even including cooky evangelical sects promoting various interpretation. Only serious study.

Its funny how scholars discussing ancient dead religions are never questioned. But when it comes to an ancient living religion then suddenly respect for academic credentials suddenly evaporates.

The Ten commandments you see as obvious stuff, well yes, but they need to be told or reminded of, because of the consequences attached to each of them.

I see. That explains how our streets are full of rampaging atheists murdering and raping everything in their way.

Nobody needs to be threatened to follow commandment 4 - 10. They're the product of human instinct. Evolution.

In extreme cases humans might break them. But the taboos against it are strong, in every society. No, nobody needs to be taught that. Which begs the question why they are featured so prominently in the commandments. If these truly are obvious to all people then what's the point teaching them to anyone or threatening people with consequences? Why do you think God so emphatically tries to tell people to do stuff we all think is obvious?

 

[Learner]

Learner probably can not articulate why e posts here in the first place.

Like most Christians it just feels good to babble nothing and quote scripture once and a while.

I wasn't Christian when I joined the forum. So start a petition to ban us.

Anyway. I thought it would be obvious when quoting scripture. Sometimes there's the need to correct the misrepresentions of the scriptures when you're quoting them yourselves.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner probably can not articulate why e posts here in the first place.

Like most Christians it just feels good to babble nothing and quote scripture once and a while.

I wasn't Christian when I joined the forum. So start a petition to ban us.

Anyway. I thought it would be obvious when quoting scripture. Sometimes there's the need to correct the misrepresentions of the scriptures when you're quoting them yourselves.

Ban you? Perish the thought. That would be contrary to basis of the site. The only way to get banned is to chronically violate the TOU, usually for being hostile and abusive.

On the contrary people from the forum in the past have been banned from Chrsitian sites.

The risk for any who post on the forum not just with religion is having bad arguments perilously taken apart. It is on the poster to defend statements.

As the old saying goes, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

Or Daniel in the lions den, or yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, or other common passages. Christins know the words, but may not know what it mens in practical terms of faith.

What you pose as arguments and responses are shown to be lacking. How you take that is not our problem.

Two questions. Why do you believe the gospels as truth without any corroboration, and if you truly believe how could anything we say bother you?

Most of us atheist here can clearly articulate why we believe and what we believe, the result of debate, reading, and introspection. All we are really asking of theists is to articulate why.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Learner probably can not articulate why e posts here in the first place.

Like most Christians it just feels good to babble nothing and quote scripture once and a while.

I wasn't Christian when I joined the forum. So start a petition to ban us.

Anyway. I thought it would be obvious when quoting scripture. Sometimes there's the need to correct the misrepresentions of the scriptures when you're quoting them yourselves.