Julian

To me, apologetics is a tendentious debating style that assumes the bible is correct and then forces all the data to fit that fact.

I am an atheist and agree with your assesment of the christian mythlogy, however, I don't think that you can lob the posters you mention into the apologists ranks. Not all believers are apologists. I find that the posters in question understand that much of the bible is questionable and that their posts are helpful in trying to uncover the facts behind the book and its history.

Now, in my mind, despite their prodigious knowledge, they arrive at entirely erroneous conclusions but that, in no way, invalidates their contributions to the discussions of the facts regarding early christianity.
No, it can't but for a liberal christian it doesn't have to. It is the inerrantist and fundamentalists that are the whack jobs. The liberals, although wrong in my mind, are harmless. Remember, christians come in many degrees of fanaticism or not.
I am not trying to convince christians of anything. That is futile, I have tried. I am trying to learn the facts behind early christianity for my own interest. The christians can have their god, whatever. If they need that crutch, then far be it from me to interfere. Until such time as they start to interfere in my life, that is, but now we are talking fundies again.

If someone asks me about christianity, I tell them the facts to the best of my ability. They are usually shocked. That makes me smile...

If find that the easiest way to discern whether a christian is of a scholarly mindset or not is to ask him/her about the synoptic problem. If he/she insists that there is no problem, beware. Otherwise, they can certainly contribute like everyone else to the extent of their knowledge.

Julian

Steven Avery

It's always humorous how quickly these little harangues descend to psycho-babble.

I don't know how to break this to you, Johnny, but here goes.... I don't see much substance in your questions.

As I indicated I will put under advisement such a thread.

Johnny, your nature of God posts are a bit more interesting, but they truly rumble and ramble. Maybe you should explain what happenned to your psyche that you decided to look at every darkness with a "blame God" heart. Do you ever now have a prayerful heart ? How do you feel at the time of a sunset, or a walk in the park ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Johnny Skeptic

Why don't you ask your questions to someone who is blind and has no legs? It would have been interesting if you had asked your questions to the late Vincent Humbert who lived in France. He was quadriplegic, blind, and mute. He wanted to die, and he asked French President Chirac for an exemption to the French law that prohibits assisted suicide, but Chirac refused. An unknown person compassionately killed Humbert. No one should have to live in such a state if they want to die. If the God of the Bible exists, his lack of compassion for people like Humbert is utterly detestible. How did you feel when God created Hurricane Rita and sent it to New Orleans?

Regarding the New Testament canon, there were hundreds if not thousands of writings that were not chosen, and you have never told us how the choosers knew that they were making the right choices. If they made their choices based upon faith, then why were any discussions necessary? Hundreds of millions of people died without ever having heard the Gospel message. Such being the case, why was it necessary that anyone ever heard the Gospel message.

You think that you know God, but you don't. The following Scriptures depict what God is really like:

Exodus 4:11 "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?" Who needs the Devil around to attack humans when God is doing such a good job of it himself? God is bi-polar. Proof is the fact that he is usually quite happy to usually cure the common cold, but frequently creates hurricances and sends them to populated areas. You would never tolerate that kind of behavior from a human who had the power to prevent natural disasters but frequently refused to do so, and always refused to give any explanations at all for his refusal, but for some reason you tolerate such behavior from God. Love is protective, and love is consistent. God is not like that. You plan on spending a comfortable eternity in heaven, but I submit that you won't. It would not be in character for God to change his inconsistent bi-polar ways and allow you to consistently enjoy a comfortable eternity in heaven. God does not owe you anything. There is not any evidence at all that God has ever promised anyone a comfortable eternal life IN PERSON. All of God's promises have been made through human proxies. The writings of humans can be questioned, misinterpreted, and misunderstood. Only God can adequately explain his actions and allowances, but he always refuses to do so. The claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his blood remitted the sins of mankind, are completely non-verifiable by any means other than by faith. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that is was any different back then? In Jesus' time, BOTH SIDES supposedly acknowledged that he had supernatural powers, but the Pharisees believed that his powers came from Beelzebub. Today, both sides DO NOT acknowledge that God performs miracles healings today.

Mark 14:21 "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born." The verse if vicious and hateful.

Revelation 9:3-6 "And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them." Same as before.

Revelation 14:9-11 "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Same as before.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I do not oppose religion in general, or Christianity in general, but I definitely do oppose fundamentalist Christianity. That is because fundamentalist Christians are the chief opponents of physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, and same sex marriage. The majority of them try to legislate their religious views at the expense of other groups of people who do not agree with their interpretations of various Scriptures, trampling the U.S. Constitution in the process. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, our second and third presidents, were strong opponents of combining church and state. So was Benjamin Franklin and a number of other early American statesmen.

You can believe whatever you wish in your dream world that has faith but no substance, but please do not attempt to trample upon the rights of other groups of people who disagree with your interpretations of various Scriptures. If that does not apply to you, then please disregard my comments. So, now you know my only reasons for debating at this forum. I believe in live and let live. If you do too, then we have nothing to argue about.

Steven Avery

Have you followed any of the threads ? Hardly any other writings were even on the radar of the emerging church, way before any times that we know of canon lists. Outside of Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, and a couple more, there were few that were barely considered relevant in terms of ANYBODY considering them scripture amongst the early church from 100 - 350 AD and including dozens of church writers and synods. Yet you come back with your hundreds and thousands, making the discussion somewhat disengenuous.

And your political ruminations show your main interest in all this, but is simply not my topic here. It was a bit more when Theresa Schindler was being murdered in the 'judicial execution' (Nat Hentoff's term).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Johnny Skeptic

Your arguments are utter nonsense. The point is, regardless of how many writings were available for consideration, why were the writings that were chosen for the New Testament canon considered to be inspired? Any writer can write anything that he wants to write, but what makes one writer's writings inspired and another writer's writings not inspired? Did the New Testament writers claim that their writings were inspired?

You don't really have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. No one knows how many writings were written, how many were lost, and how many were discarded after they were read. Paul most certainly wrote letters that were lost or discarded, or were not chosen to be included in the New Testament canon because of the preferences of the choosers.

Oh my, you can ruminate with the best of 'em. You are quite content to defend the New Testament canon, which you know full well was chosen by faith (just like Roman Catholic cardinals choose popes), most certainly not by logic, but you conveniently refuse to tell us why you became a Christian because you are afraid that you will embarrass yourself. Your defense of the New Testament canon IS NOT the main issue here. The main issue is WHY you are defending the New Testament canon. In other words, the main issue is what factors led to you want to defend the New Testament canon. You are well aware that is much easier for you to defend the New Testament canon than it would be for you to tell us why you became a Christian. The latter is much more important, and the undecided crowd are wondering why you refuse to state why you became a Christian, which would tell us why you are defending the New Testament canon. I submit that if you state why you became a Christian, which you most certainly should do, and which the New Testament most certainly says that you should do, you will embarrass yourself. I never refuse a challenge to defend my beliefs.

Since hundreds of millions of people died without ever having heard the Gospel message, why is it important that anyone ever heard the Gospel message? How in the world were people supposed to live their lives prior to Christianity?

Johnny Skeptic

Getting back to my topic question, regardless of how many writings were available for consideration, why were the writings that were chosen for the New Testament canon considered to be inspired? Any writer can write anything that he wants to write, but what makes one writer's writings inspired and another writer's writings not inspired? By what criteria were PARTICULAR writings by a PARTICULAR author chosen and other writings by the same author rejected? Surely Paul wrote letters other than the ones that were chosen.

As I told praxeus in my previous post:

darstec

And it didn't stop with the early writers. We have volumes of stuff (and forged stuff) by Eusebius for example. It has been recorded that he changed all his views some years before he died, yet nothing remains of those later writings. But of course this also sounds like, "Darwin recanted on his deathbed", doesn't it?

Johnny Skeptic

Yes indeed, and consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: "...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals."

Larry Taylor: How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002:

By the 3rd century Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostic heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, which made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective.

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’�

It is important to note that the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder and theft of property. The victors often warred among themselves for the spoils of victory. Around the time that the U.S. annexed Hawaii in 1900, Christian missionaries bought up many thousands of acres of land at fire sale prices. For about 90% of the time since the founding of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians favored slavery and the subjugation of women.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: If you were part of the group of people who chose which writings to include in the New Testament canon, what criteria would you have used to choose which of Paul's many writings to include in the canon?

Johnny Skeptic

But by what criteria did Peter and Paul determine what was or was not Scripture? How certain were they of their choices?