Iskander

Yes, my choice is: With people listening to the teachings of Jesus, derived from his interpretation of Jewish tradition.

I also said that it was an obvious choice. You are very discrete when you say “You didn't choose that answer, though” and I value your discretion.

When I read the choices available I approached the poll as a multiple-choice test in an exam. In this type of exam it is possible to mark the right choice even if the examinee is uncertain whether he/she is right or not by a prudent elimination of unpromising candidates.

Number one: Christian texts say that their religion is based on the word of a man (known to them as Jesus or Christ, or Chrestus or ...) etc, and non-Christian specialists in ancient history have attested the existence of those texts. In addition there is a flourishing and successful Christian Civilisation as evidence on the subject.

Number one, then, appears to be the safe choice (as in multiple-choice exams), but the process should not be completed until some negative aspects can be ascribed to the remaining possible choices.

Number 2 seem to be a choice planted there by very friendly examiner that does not want anyone to fail. Like asking, is Baltimore –1 A city in the USA –2-a city on planet Jupiter?
The Christian texts say that Paul (whoever he may be) was instructed by Jesus and we know that paganism has a long history of religious visions and ...As I say: is Baltimore a city on Planet Jupiter?

Number 3 This choice has more merit than number 2. -The multiple-choice format must test knowledge of what is allegedly known to the community in which is put to use, and taken this into consideration we must choose Jesus.

Number 4 – This one choice is of the Baltimore on planet Jupiter type. It goes something like this:
The Word Became Christianity
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Constantine and the Word was Constantine. He was in the beginning with Constantine; all things were made through him...
Only creationists would choose this one.


Number 5 is a tricky one, but the students being tested are a mixed, multicultural lot. There is no sufficient evidence only for those who say that the evidence means nothing to them or even worse that they consider anything to do with Christianity false and evil. But, it is a test of what one knows about others, and is not about faith.

There is sufficient evidence to choose number one as the answer. The test does not require a precise formulation of the doctrine, attribution of authorship, for Jesus to be truly god, or the texts to be pristine, or contradictions not to exist,... all that comes later.

Chili

. . . and how has he been? On a piece of paper and that's all because the entire event takes place in the mind of one man who no longer is hu-man, or earthly, and it was and always will be Jesus, so personified, to have the human condition of the Jew crucified, as he did it to the Jew they called Joseph then and will do it to either a Jew or Catholic now.

When did it happen? It happens all the time or at least often enough so that there is a unity among them and Paul was one of those who so met Jesus but never saw him. We call them Jesuits as they called them Nazarites (by nature, or course, but note that we have sacramental Jesuits as well).

The difficulty with the question 'if Jesus was real' lies in our interpretation of the word "real", which becomes much easier to answer if we accept that we are not real and that our life is an illusion . . . and that so myth is real. After all, if our temporal life is an illusion eternal life must be real and we are just extracting our human life from that life wherein we potentially are eternal and can indeed be cold, lukewarm and hot. This then also is how science extracts from omniscience while cold for which reason it was said of Newton that "all was hid and dark until God said: 'let Newton be' and all was light." Same with Einstein and a whole slug of others include Spinoza who thus also was made real.

bacht

Maybe originally you could say that Christianity was a universalized version of monotheistic Judaism minus the animal sacrificial system. But the Trinity, and later Mary & the saints, watered down the purer monotheism of the Jews.

You could also see Xtianity as a typical Roman phenomenon, an absorption of Eastern religion into a Western cultural frame, like they absorbed Hellenism.

More negatively, the fatalism of an afterlife-focused religion was suited to the pessimism of the late empire. Also the monotheist idea seems to work well for autocratic regimes such as the later emperors became.

Chili

The trinity is a very simple concept wherein the left brain is the son, the right brain is the father and the sporadic relationship between these 2 is called the holy spirit . . . until the conversion of these twain happens at rebirth when the veil is rent that created this divide and so the HS must descend because the father and I are one.

It is only if this veil is partially rent that the HS will 'fly the coop again' and that so is the difference between 'born again from above' and from 'below.'

If then 'from above' Mary becomes the mediatrix since she hold the dowry of this divine union and thus a love affair with Mary instead of Jesus is in evidence of the divine.

The saints are just in evidence of heaven on earth and will have made their contribution wherein they are infinitely a part of the Church Triumphant, as they call it.

Afterlife begins with rebirth and has no end but eternal life ends with the second death.

The animal sacrifice ended with the redirection of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob (was it?) to Christ and for this it is claimed that Jesus paid the price but in reality is what the 30 silver pieces was all about (I think), which then makes Catholics NT people with a testament of our own. The only thing we share is their Genesis when we come full circle in our own life and that for us ends at Gen.3.

The fact that the HS flows also from the son (as per the 'iota argument') in the Roman rite just makes it more aggressive which certainly has its benefit but for which there is a price to pay.

J-D

I made the general point that there is a difference between the origins of a thing and the origins of a word used to name that thing. I mentioned some examples to illustrate this point and you irately rejected them as irrelevancies. The irateness is even more peculiar than the rejection.You appear not to know what the word means, yet you are participating in this discussion.You want me to cut the bullshit? You're the one asking bullshit questions.

J-D

It's not my saying so that makes them wrong, but they're wrong.I already said that I didn't start this thread to have an argument about my position.

aa5874

Up to now you have not shown any prejudice on my behalf.

You fail to even understand that some people who called themselves Christians in antiquity did see some RELEVANCE with the origin of the word "Christ" and being called Christians.

This Theophilus to Autolycus 1.12 It is obvious that one may use the otigin of a word to make some dertemination on when some were called Christians.


But, look at your answer.

Chili

Originally posted by Chili
[quote ]
The saints are just in evidence of heaven on earth and will have made their contribution wherein they are infinitely a part of the Church Triumphant, as they call it. [/quote]

There is a lot more to write on this but we have the Church Militant where believers are social animals like sheep that are herded hither and thither and often do not know why or to what end, but the [unspoken] aim of the Church is to create a herd mentality (clay) with social norms as Catholic who do what Catholics do . . . untill they dare to say 'no' and begin to 'tax' their own religion much in the way Paul did or even Joseph in his own kind of way.

Then we have the Church Suffering which is equal to Galilee but we call it Purgatory and these pple are not welcome in church where they would be trouble makers and mislead the flock. They will be transfigured and that alone is a foreshadow of the stigmata to follow which then is the reason why the Eastern rite does not celebrate Christmas until Epiphany (no illumination means no transfiguration means no resurrection).

Then we have the Church Triumphant where the Saints are at.

J-D

Of course not. It is not possible for one person to show prejudice on another person's behalf.No, I understand that clearly. But it does not change the fact that there is a difference between the origins of a thing and the origins of a word used to name that thing.The original question was not about when people were called Christians. That's a different question.Yes, I know what I said. That doesn't change the fact that your questions were bullshit questions.

aa5874

What????


Well, I hope you really do understand. I am not sure you do.

You don't understand that there are certain words whose origins can help to determine where some people originated or where a cult originated.

For example, the origin of the word "Buddha" may help to determine when and where Bhuddism was started.

Irrelevant. You don't understand how the origin of certain words can help to determine where and when certain cults were started.

What??? Are you implying that Christianity started before people were called Christians?

It must be that when people were first called Christians is an indication of when Christianity started.

It would seem that you DON'T know what Christianity means.


I simply asked you to clarify the BS you wrote about the meaning of Christianity.

At any serious level your description of Christianity is hopeless.

Christianity is what the word means

1. in general discourse, online and offline.

2. in standard works of reference, online and offline.

If we replace Christianity with any word the BS of your response is even clearer.

What BS!