Getting Down To The Root...

[Kat22]

Hi Kat22! May I suggest that you take the time to consider what makes sense to you. I too, am a follower of Christ, however... he was NOT promoting what you see as traditional Christianity today... but, just about the opposite!

 

There is no literal hell, no throwing away of people, but peace and joy for everyone eventually. May I ask, how do you feel about that?

 

If you want to, and are brave enough to learn about biblical positions, you've come to the right place! :wink:

 

Thanks for the welcome, Amanda You say that Christ started out teaching a different kind of Christianity? Could you elaborate and give quotes and links?

 

As for how I feel about your other statement, I would love to answer but it will have to be outside of this topic. Otherwise I am breaking my own request for no IMOs

 

Pardon my blatant cynicism, but...having once been a Xtian who would have seen a site like this as a playground to minister in...I am curious as to the motive of this discussion. Particularly since you ask for "facts". Can you clarify the direction you are taking this in, Kat?

 

Gladly, wideawake

 

I still believe that there is not enough evidence to officially disprove Christ. However, I am still in the process of learning and really want to know what is out there, not just the Christian side but the whole side. If I find out different than I already know, I will have to re-evaluate my position. However, if my current belief is merely confirmed, then I will continue down my currrent path. Either way, this topic is not only beneficial for me (and everyone) finding out what real Christianity was, but it can also help others who only look at half the information (including myself, because my bias can tend to lead me in that direction).

[Kat22]

Thanks for the information, freeday:)

 

Do you have links or other sources where people (including myself) can go to read up on these issues for ourselves? It's very important, in this topic, to not only bring your knowledge but where you got oyur knowledge. That way it is available for everyone to check out.

[Kat22]

I also want to re-mention the no speculations or IMO's. I know that it's normally very accepted in the Lion's Den (which is why it is called the Lion's Den) but I want to try and keep this as civil as possible. That way people can get information, and give it, without feeling attacked.

 

The reason this topic is in the Lion's Den is because it is not meant as a formal debate but more of a "This is what I have learned and where I got my information". It is beneficial to boths sides to give facts and sources instead of oppinions.

 

 

Thanks again

[freeday]

Thanks for the information, freeday:)

 

Do you have links or other sources where people (including myself) can go to read up on these issues for ourselves? It's very important, in this topic, to not only bring your knowledge but where you got oyur knowledge. That way it is available for everyone to check out.

 

a lot of my resources comes from www.gotquestions.org, quest study bible, and wilkinson and boa bible handbook, and belivers bible comentary by william macdonald which is my favorite.

[Mythra]

christianity is no different now then when it was began by Jesus.

 

I'd love to see the proof for this "fact" alone.

 

The problem, Kat - is that the "facts" are sparse, and can lead to a variety of conclusions.

 

The end result is one of a probabalistic nature. You investigate as much detail as you can - and dismiss those conclusions that require the most conjecture or have to make multiple assumptions based on blind faith. You have to examine everything you can, then make your opinions based upon the best explanation; the conclusion that makes the most sense.

[Antlerman]

how has christianity come to what it is.

 

christianity is no different now then when it was began by Jesus. He was opposed then and will always be opposed by certain groups.

No slaming, but to point out one of the earliest examples of the divergance of Christianity from the original. That would be the Apostle Paul himself against the James and the others at the Chruch of Jerusalem. Once Paul comes on the scene, the unity of early Christian beliefs begins to be changed.

[Amanda]

Thanks for the welcome, Amanda You say that Christ started out teaching a different kind of Christianity? Could you elaborate and give quotes and links?

 

Kat22, what I have done is I've researched many different aspects of the Bible by going back to the manuscript from which the KJV was taken and researching each word back to its prime root meaning. It is very clear that today's translations have the 'spin' of their times, and NOT the intentions of the initial movement attributed to Jesus. This technique is very time demanding, and one of the easiest way is to use the concordance tools at www.crosswalk.com, without the associated commentary... only meant to progress their own spin. Also, I have a much better concordance, yet that means I have to research everything without the benefit of the computer. So, I recommend that you keep that in mind too.

 

What I discovered on this site is the immense amount of mythology incorporated into the Bible. I often found this in my research via the concordances, and wondered what it was talking about then. You might want to check out some of Mythra's posts... that is where I learned a lot. Also, some scientific and mythology aspects from HanSolo. Perspectives from Antlerman have kept me from going out in the deep end, and Mr. Grinch has slapped some sense into me every once in awhile.

 

As you visit here and interact with people, research what they say for yourself, and you will find people that are objective, honest, and forthcoming. IMO, everyone can help with a different perspective, and the more perspectives one has of a subject, the more we know what it really looks like. :wink:

[Kat22]

 

The problem, Kat - is that the "facts" are sparse, and can lead to a variety of conclusions.

 

The end result is one of a probabalistic nature. You investigate as much detail as you can - and dismiss those conclusions that require the most conjecture or have to make multiple assumptions based on blind faith. You have to examine everything you can, then make your opinions based upon the best explanation; the conclusion that makes the most sense.

 

I completely agree, Mythra

 

Which is why I wanted to start this topic. I have some information and sources, you have some and everyone else has some. If we all come together, we can share the information and sources which lead us to our current conclusion. This way everyone who is willing to participate, and anyone who just wants to follow the conversation, has many sources at their disposal and everyone (including myself) can leave saying they have been completely informaed and given a true oppotunity to make an educated decision.

 

how has christianity come to what it is.

 

christianity is no different now then when it was began by Jesus. He was opposed then and will always be opposed by certain groups.

No slaming, but to point out one of the earliest examples of the divergance of Christianity from the original. That would be the Apostle Paul himself against the James and the others at the Chruch of Jerusalem. Once Paul comes on the scene, the unity of early Christian beliefs begins to be changed.

 

That makes sense since Paul attracted a different kind of crowd (considering his attitude before he became Christian). Can you give examples? If the source is outside the bible, please note what source you used.

[Kat22]

Next question:

 

What about this Ignatius guy?

 

I have been getting mixed reviews on the accuracy of his writings. I guess there is the long version and two types of the middle version (one being called the short version). From what I understand, the long version contains added writings not from Ignatius and the other versions have to be sorted through in order to find out what was really from Ignatius and what was added later. Does anyone know where to find the final conclusion? I have been checking out the information in the ECW site. It is rather interesting and talks of the first 7 letters being mentioned by Irenaeus and Palycarp. How can we tell which versions of the first 7 letters are the most trustworthy? I am sure they had to have figured out at least a basic idea of what was original and what wasn't, right?

[Sparrow]

Pardon my blatant cynicism, but...having once been a Xtian who would have seen a site like this as a playground to minister in...I am curious as to the motive of this discussion. Particularly since you ask for "facts". Can you clarify the direction you are taking this in, Kat?

 

I must admit that I tend to agree with this.

 

This is really starting to look like another "Amy-Marie".

[mwc]

christianity is no different now then when it was began by Jesus. He was opposed then and will always be opposed by certain groups. i think christianity returned to its biblical teachings during the protestant reformation in the 16th century.

 

1-“Sola Scriptura” or Scripture Alone

2—“Sola Gratia” Salvation by grace alone

3—“Sola Fide” Salvation by Faith Alone

4—“Solus Christus” In Christ Alone

5—“Soli Deo Gloria For the Glory of God Alone

The wonderful thing about all your Latin phrases here is that I grew up Lutheran and I later went to a Baptist school. The Baptists didn't quote these little gems at me for some reason. They thought the Lutherans had lost sight of the path. So during the week I heard one set of dogma and on the weekend another.

 

As to my point, what scripture did jesus teach? There wasn't any other than Jewish scripture and we all know that xians don't adhere to that very well. So that's a bust. The measuring doctrine against the bible fails since apologists will go to any/all lengths to justify their position. Jesus plainly states the law is to remain in effect and that he will answer any/all prayers but people apply conditions to these statements that never came from his mouth. Scripture alone? I think not. The whole salvation by faith and grace, well, considering in Revelations it says we will all be judged by our works (no mention of faith) shows that this concept is a bust. Solus Christus assumes that we're willing to ignore the OT and Sola Scriptura and accept human sacrifice. I'm not so it's not valid. And the last one. This one is valid. What more can be said. The whole damn thing is to get god off so all five in the list should be that one item.

 

mwc

 

P.S. I didn't mean to refute each point. I would have itemized them for easier reading. Oh well.

[Kat22]

Next question:

 

What about this Ignatius guy?

 

I have been getting mixed reviews on the accuracy of his writings. I guess there is the long version and two types of the middle version (one being called the short version). From what I understand, the long version contains added writings not from Ignatius and the other versions have to be sorted through in order to find out what was really from Ignatius and what was added later. Does anyone know where to find the final conclusion? I have been checking out the information in the ECW site. It is rather interesting and talks of the first 7 letters being mentioned by Irenaeus and Palycarp. How can we tell which versions of the first 7 letters are the most trustworthy? I am sure they had to have figured out at least a basic idea of what was original and what wasn't, right?

[Sparrow]

Next question:

 

What about this Ignatius guy?

 

I have been getting mixed reviews on the accuracy of his writings. I guess there is the long ...

 

What's your point?

 

If you want to know all of this look it up on the internet or go to a university library.

 

You have everyone running around for you like some servents, supplying you with information that you should either 1 - already know, or 2 - be researching for yourself.

 

What game are you playing here?

 

Sparrow

[Checkmate]

What's your point?

 

If you want to know all of this look it up on the internet or go to a university library.

 

You have everyone running around for you like some servents, supplying you with information that you should either 1 - already know, or 2 - be researching for yourself.

 

What game are you playing here?

 

Sparrow

My sentiments exactly, Sparrow! (I hate it when people beat me to my own cynical punch like this! )

 

While I applaud you, Kat22, for being willing to study these things, why must WE step and fetch for you? Besides which, it doesn't matter what any past Christian said/thought/did. Why don't YOU simply read the bible, put on your AGNOSTIC thinking cap, and make up YOUR mind? That's how most of us came to our current understanding.

 

"Go with Grinch."

 

....and Mr. Grinch has slapped some sense into me every once in awhile.

'Twas my diabolical pleasure, m'dear!

 

[Antlerman]

That makes sense since Paul attracted a different kind of crowd (considering his attitude before he became Christian). Can you give examples? If the source is outside the bible, please note what source you used.

Sure, give me some time to put together something better. This interests me a lot, but I need some time (which I'm pressed for right now) to be able to document this in an organized manner. Hopefully soon...

[Sparrow]

 

My sentiments exactly, Sparrow! (I hate it when people beat me to my own cynical punch like this! )

 

…

 

Hey Mr. Grinch!

 

It’s damn near depressing how transparent in their motives people like Kat22 are (not long ago it was Amy-Marie) when they use the “I’m taking you evil-athiest, anti-christians seriously so please ….. ” ploy.

 

If they really and honestly took the time to look over the forum and at some of the “Introductory Stuff” they’d understand what they’re up against.

 

If it wasn’t so amusing it’d be nearly boring – one of them shows up, makes some dumb-ass statements, gets showered in all manner of factual shit, tries to tell everyone they’re all wrong, gets showered in factual shit again till it’s up to their bottom lips, moans, groans and bitches, then disappears in a cloud of blue-smoke, never to be seen again, then another one turns up and whole cycle happens again.

 

I just wish one of them would turn up every now and then and actually say something novel or new … or … or at least interesting!

 

Sparrow

[NotBlinded]

When I first read her post, I was glad she was willing to investigate...until I got to the "facts" part. My little siren was screaming that she was going to do something like, "See, your beliefs rely on faith too!"

 

I hope this is not the case...I have been wrong many times before, but the use, and insistence, on facts seems like she is wanting to turn the tables on us. I hope the links people are providing will prove her wrong and not allow her game to be played as she plans...if that is the case.

 

I could just be paranoid too...

[freeday]

When I first read her post, I was glad she was willing to investigate...until I got to the "facts" part. My little siren was screaming that she was going to do something like, "See, your beliefs rely on faith too!"

 

I hope this is not the case...I have been wrong many times before, but the use, and insistence, on facts seems like she is wanting to turn the tables on us. I hope the links people are providing will prove her wrong and not allow her game to be played as she plans...if that is the case.

 

I could just be paranoid too...

 

i think you are being a little paranoid.

 

That makes sense since Paul attracted a different kind of crowd (considering his attitude before he became Christian). Can you give examples? If the source is outside the bible, please note what source you used.

Sure, give me some time to put together something better. This interests me a lot, but I need some time (which I'm pressed for right now) to be able to document this in an organized manner. Hopefully soon...

 

whenever you post this up, send me a PM so i don't miss it.

[RHEMtron]

When I first read her post, I was glad she was willing to investigate...until I got to the "facts" part. My little siren was screaming that she was going to do something like, "See, your beliefs rely on faith too!"

 

I hope this is not the case...I have been wrong many times before, but the use, and insistence, on facts seems like she is wanting to turn the tables on us. I hope the links people are providing will prove her wrong and not allow her game to be played as she plans...if that is the case.

 

I could just be paranoid too...

i think she's sincere.... you just got to have faith!!

[Mythra]

What about this Ignatius guy?

 

Okay, being the dummy that I am - I'll bite.

 

You cannot talk about facts when dealing with Ignatius (or about a thousand other early writings)

 

What you have to discuss is scholar's and textual critic's opinions. Whether they make valid points or not.

 

Some of the arguments that support all of Ignatius' epistles being either spurious or falsely dated:

 

1. Anachronisms within the text. One such example is with regards to persecutions and punishments inflicted upon christians. There was no such persecutions during the reign of Trajan.

2. Early citations of Ignatius that disagree with regards to when he was martyred. Eusebius has him martyred during the reign of Aurelius, which would date his martyrdom around 169 C.E. - not anywhere near the 107 C.E. date that would make his references among the first.

3. Other highly regarded theologians who regard all of Ignatius as spurious (including Calvin)

4. Differences in writing styles between the various epistles lead scholars to suspect several different authors.

 

Polycarp's Epistle is also debatable with regards to authenticity.

 

But - ignoring all of this - If the short recension of Ignatius were genuine - was actually written in 107 C.E. as Ignatius was on his way to Rome to be executed - what do you assume this would prove?

 

That there were christians in existence by 107 C.E.? As far as I know, that's already a fairly common opinion.

 

It surely doesn't prove that the gospel story is historical.

 

Any more than a Mormon in 1900 writing about Joe Smith's escapades proves that the Urim and Thummim actually did help Joe read the golden plates.

[Sparrow]

…

I could just be paranoid too...

i think you are being a little paranoid.

 

I don’t know, Freeday, I think a little skeptism is warranted.

 

Kat22 does seem to be attempting to go somewhere with all this, and in reality she / he could be obtaining the requested information from a web-site or library in a format that best suited her / his particular belief. Yet here she or he is, on an ex-christian web-site no less.

 

It’s seems a relatively typical pattern, and by that I mean that whilst a number of Christians are here to genuinely discuss, most seem to turn up to show the rest of us poor, misguided, lead-astray heathens the error of our ways.

 

Sparrow

[Kat22]

ok, one last time...

 

If you notice, I am posting very little about my opinion and sources and mainly just asking questions to all and answering questions directed at me. I AM researching and not expecting others to do everything for me. However, I also am honest enough to state I HAVE A BIAS!!! Because of this bias, there is the chance that I may unintentionally overlook important evidence. One thing I have learned, in my walk to faith, has been to be held accountable. Who better to hold me accountable than those who would be glad to call BS on me?

 

This forum sticks me in a position where, if I do not see it (or choose not to mention it), it is pointed out to me (and also to anyone else who might be missing something). Therefore, if you don't like my approach, DON'T POST! Simple as that. Otherwise, I will just think you are looking to argue and I will choose to ignore any further attacks on my reasons for starting this thread. At that point, any further comments I make on this issue will be "Refer to my previous statements."

 

Thank you to all who choose to take this conversation seriously in order to give me, and anyone else who wants to learn, a chance to share information and grow in knowledge.

[RHEMtron]

Kat.... all i can say is Wikipedia is your bestfriend

 

Also, maybe you can try posting what your thoughts are on the questions you asked, and then we can fill in any holes, or shed new light on the matter.

[Ouroboros]

Kat, you have a very good attitude, and it makes sense. You could research the same facts and data, but with your preconceived belief you will see the connections one way, while we might see them another way.

 

I pinned this topic earlier, now I'll move it to Colosseum. It's not bad to get one topic where the facts and short explanations and conclusions are posted. And we all should try to keep this topic as objective as possible and stay to facts. Even though that is quite hard, since the facts by themselves not always point one way or the other, and Kat wants our view on it. So whatever... try to keep the conclusions as objective and coherent as possible.

[RHEMtron]

As a tangent to what Han said about having a bias, rhemember what i said to you when you first joined Ex-C: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?act=...&pid=183109

 

<snip>

first i just wanted to say im glad to hear you are open minded. just make sure you are COMPLETELY open minded. yes, i applaud you for questioning and listening to skepticism, but i must question you when you say you seek what Christians have to say to skeptics. Once a rebuttal is made by a Christian apologist, do you in turn seek a rebuttal from a skeptic? We must be careful not to stop questioning when we hear an answer that we want to hear.

 

So remember, even though we have a bias, our belief does not equal truth.

 

-Rhem