What do you do with missing evidence? Like the global dirth of mid Jurassic fossils

columbus said:

Do what you know is Right."

Click to expand...

But how does one know what's "Right"?

For example, is sacrificing children to appease the Deities "Right"? How would one know if they're not taught?

BTW, the Roman emperor did not take control of the Church as it existed long before him, plus he was never the head of the Church nor was he ever a spokesman or a theologian for the Church.

sooda said:

Because if you strip away the lies and legends and political agendas, there is something.

Click to expand...

If you strip away the lies and legends and political agendas, there is nothing left. The entire Bible OT and NT are just stories ("legends").

God created Adam and Eve.
God's flood killed everything except what was on the ark.

Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus is 1/3 of the God Entity.
Jesus died and came back to life and then ascended into heaven.

Nuttin is left.

columbus said:

It doesn't matter if scriptures claim that God said something.

Click to expand...

A good part of the NT scriptures relate what Jesus allegedly said. Are you discarding all that?

columbus said:

But then, a Roman Emperor took control of Christianity and now we have what we have.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, the Roman Emperor did not change scripture.

ecco said:

A good part of the NT scriptures relate what Jesus allegedly said. Are you discarding all that?

Click to expand...

Not exactly.
I'm just pointing out the difference between "Jesus said" and somebody says that "Jesus said".
The two are quite different.

ecco said:

As far as I know, the Roman Emperor did not change scripture.

Click to expand...

But you don't really know, do you?
The Roman Emperor had his own agenda, and he picked the people who decided what Christianity means. Christians who had a different belief about Christianity were deemed heretics.
So ,yeah, a Roman Pagan Emperor decided what Christianity means. By deciding which Scriptures are the True Christian scriptures.
1500 years later, it's the only Christianity left.
And even now, most Christians think that most other Christians aren't True Christians. Try to get a Southern Baptist to agree that Catholics and Mormons are True Christians.
Tom

columbus said:

The Roman Emperor had his own agenda, and he picked the people who decided what Christianity means. Christians who had a different belief about Christianity were deemed heretics.
So ,yeah, a Roman Pagan Emperor decided what Christianity means. By deciding which Scriptures are the True Christian scriptures.

Click to expand...

That simply is not true as Constantine wouldn't even know enough to know where to begin. Plus, there's no indication that the bishops were hand-pickled by him because theology wasn't his thingy-- power was.

Had he supposedly had such power, the minute he croaked would have brought about a change back to normalcy since the Church was already over three centuries old. No one has that amount of power, such as even many popes have been chagrined at while trying to make changes, and the more recent popes are no exception to that rule.

As the old saying goes, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time", so after Constantine was dead and buried the Church would have most likely reverted to its earlier beliefs over the centuries. The Church can and does change but all so s-l-o-w-l-y.

columbus said:

Not exactly.
I'm just pointing out the difference between "Jesus said" and somebody says that "Jesus said".
The two are quite different.

Click to expand...

That's confusing. Perhaps you could give an example of each.

columbus said:

But you don't really know, do you?
The Roman Emperor had his own agenda, and he picked the people who decided what Christianity means. Christians who had a different belief about Christianity were deemed heretics.
So ,yeah, a Roman Pagan Emperor decided what Christianity means. By deciding which Scriptures are the True Christian scriptures.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can provide some evidence of what you are asserting.

However, we do know they kicked Marcion out. If they hadn't done that, no Christians would be arguing against Evolution.

metis said:

That simply is not true as Constantine wouldn't even know enough to know where to begin. Plus, there's no indication that the bishops were hand-pickled by him because theology wasn't his thingy-- power was.

Had he supposedly had such power, the minute he croaked would have brought about a change back to normalcy since the Church was already over three centuries old. No one has that amount of power, such as even many popes have been chagrined at while trying to make changes, and the more recent popes are no exception to that rule.

As the old saying goes, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time", so after Constantine was dead and buried the Church would have most likely reverted to its earlier beliefs over the centuries. The Church can and does change but all so s-l-o-w-l-y.

Click to expand...

// ... since the Church was already over three centuries old. //

Evidence for this claim? The general use of the word "christian" did not exist prior. There was no bible or generally accepted canon/scripture.

Moreover, there were 1000's of individual little groups, each having a unique claim/story/version of what was "accurate"-- often, killing the other groups over the tiniest of things.

Hmmmm.... it's as if there was no outside force of any sort, trying to keep control of, or even give guidance to.... anyone... as if nothing was there at all...

Bob the Unbeliever said:

// ... since the Church was already over three centuries old. //

Evidence for this claim? The general use of the word "christian" did not exist prior. There was no bible or generally accepted canon/scripture.

Click to expand...

Names often change, not only with people but sometimes with organizations. The closest to an formal name at first is believed to be "the Way", and the name "Christian" that shows up in Acts appears to be used as an insult at first but began to be used by the Church as its own in the 2nd century. Also in the 2nd century, the descriptors "catholic" ("universal") and "orthodox" ("truth") were used, and as we slipped into the the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century "Catholic" is the one that shows up the most in internal documents.

The "mark" of the "true church" was whether your bishops could be traced through a chain of appointments going back to the apostles. This is called "apostolic succession" and it is recognized by the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Moravian, and some Scandinavian Lutheran Churches. See: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

Contrary to popular belief nowadays, it was not based on who was pope, as that title and importance evolved over time. It's the bishops that are of paramount importance with this.

BTW, just for the record, I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church but converted to Catholicism when I was 30, left for over 20 years but reconverted last summer-- long story. My original conversion was based on my studies, and the irony is that most of the resources I used were from Protestant sources.

metis said:

Names often change, not only with people but sometimes with organizations. The closest to an formal name at first is believed to be "the Way", and the name "Christian" that shows up in Acts appears to be used as an insult at first but began to be used by the Church as its own in the 2nd century. Also in the 2nd century, the descriptors "catholic" ("universal") and "orthodox" ("truth") were used, and as we slipped into the the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century "Catholic" is the one that shows up the most in internal documents.

The "mark" of the "true church" was whether your bishops could be traced through a chain of appointments going back to the apostles. This is called "apostolic succession" and it is recognized by the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Moravian, and some Scandinavian Lutheran Churches. See: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

Contrary to popular belief nowadays, it was not based on who was pope, as that title and importance evolved over time. It's the bishops that are of paramount importance with this.

BTW, just for the record, I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church but converted to Catholicism when I was 30, left for over 20 years but reconverted last summer-- long story. My original conversion was based on my studies, and the irony is that most of the resources I used were from Protestant sources.

Click to expand...

The whole problem with "apostolic succession" is that you cannot actually maintain that through the dark ages. Moreover, records prior to about 300CE are so spotty, that you cannot trace it through there, either.

The closer you get to the "year zero" the worse the records get-- until you are into the first 50-70 years, and you have no records of any kind. None. Nada. Nothing that isn't "friend of a friend" third-hand (and worse) hearsay.

But that's not the worst of it-- during the Middle Ages? The number of "pope fights" becomes quite large-- popes literally murdering to gain "ascension" and worse.

You cannot claim a continuous "blessing" or "laying on of hands" from Peter to the present day, because of these numerous gaps. Both in the records, and in the violent acts of one pope replacing the previous ones. There is no way that a pope having the previous one murdered, he could be blessed by his victim.

So. As I asked earlier? Where are your records for "christianity" existing 300 years prior?

Bob the Unbeliever said:

The whole problem with "apostolic succession" is that you cannot actually maintain that through the dark ages. Moreover, records prior to about 300CE are so spotty, that you cannot trace it through there, either.

The closer you get to the "year zero" the worse the records get-- until you are into the first 50-70 years, and you have no records of any kind. None. Nada. Nothing that isn't "friend of a friend" third-hand (and worse) hearsay.

But that's not the worst of it-- during the Middle Ages? The number of "pope fights" becomes quite large-- popes literally murdering to gain "ascension" and worse.

You cannot claim a continuous "blessing" or "laying on of hands" from Peter to the present day, because of these numerous gaps. Both in the records, and in the violent acts of one pope replacing the previous ones. There is no way that a pope having the previous one murdered, he could be blessed by his victim.

So. As I asked earlier? Where are your records for "christianity" existing 300 years prior?

Click to expand...

That's simply not logical, as when the Church was in the multiple thousands, there's no logical way it could have had such a mistaken-identity crisis. It's like here in the States waking up some day and thinking we're Afghanistan.

From the early 2nd century on, letters were being written within the Church itself. Yes, we certainly don't even have most of them, but we have enough to know that the Church had a continuous identity.

Again, the Church had a continuous identity, and it seems logically impossible that somehow it would confuse its identity with something entirely different.

gotta go

metis said:

That's simply not logical, as when the Church was in the multiple thousands, there's no logical way it could have had such a mistaken-identity crisis. It's like here in the States waking up some day and thinking we're Afghanistan.

From the early 2nd century on, letters were being written within the Church itself. Yes, we certainly don't even have most of them, but we have enough to know that the Church had a continuous identity.

Again, the Church had a continuous identity, and it seems logically impossible that somehow it would confuse its identity with something entirely different.

gotta go

Click to expand...

No, that makes zero sense-- especially when you consider that Constantine and his army, brutally murdered anyone they could lay hands on, who didn't belong to the "proper" brand of "christianity".

"Convert or Die" became the mantra of the first Official Christian Church™ under his brutal regime.

So. Your claim, once again, is without merit.

I also notice you ignored my point about the incomplete like of "popes" during the Middle Ages.

Bob the Unbeliever said:

No, that makes zero sense-- especially when you consider that Constantine and his army, brutally murdered anyone they could lay hands on, who didn't belong to the "proper" brand of "christianity".

Click to expand...

Political leaders usually are not also religious leaders, and Constantine simply was the former, not the latter, evidenced by the fact that he had the bishops make the theological decisions-- not him.

Bob the Unbeliever said:

"Convert or Die" became the mantra of the first Official Christian Church™ under his brutal regime.

Click to expand...

Yes, he was brutal, but again that was his politics that was involved. Generally speaking, pretty much all leaders demanded conformity, even when it came to religion, which was quite true of the Roman emperors, but with some exceptions in the conquered areas.

Bob the Unbeliever said:

So. Your claim, once again, is without merit.

Click to expand...

I've done the research, which is why I converted out of what I had been brought up to believe.

There are ways that you can better inform yourself, with one of them reading the letters from the 2nd through 4th century patriarchs that came from various areas both inside and outside the confines of the Roman Empire that includes how they viewed the Church.

Two books I highly recommend, but unfortunately both are out of print: "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican), and "Introduction To the Bible" by William Barclay (also Anglican). I saw Hanson's book used on sale at Amazon, but they wanted almost $100 for it. Fantastic book as he heavily documents his historical accounting. "The First Christians" by Martin Marty (Lutheran) is quite good but he doesn't use that much documentation.

Bob the Unbeliever said:

I also notice you ignored my point about the incomplete like of "popes" during the Middle Ages.

Click to expand...

I covered that in a previous post, namely that it makes not one iota of difference in regards to any question who might have been pope at any one point in time simply because "apostolic succession" deals with the bishops, with the pope being one bishop (of Rome).

Anyhow, as I posted before, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Moravian Church, and several Scandinavian Lutheran Churches all accept the concept of apostolic succession, which covers the vast majority of Christianity, and yet they disagree on quite a few other items. Even Luther didn't question that at first if you read any biography on him.

So, I'll go with them because this is the same conclusion I reached after doing the research starting back almost 40 years ago. If you disagree, I can accept that as your opinion, so with this there's nowhere else to go.

Take care.

metis said:

Political leaders usually are not also religious leaders, and Constantine simply was the former, not the latter, evidenced by the fact that he had the bishops make the theological decisions-- not him.

Yes, he was brutal, but again that was his politics that was involved. Generally speaking, pretty much all leaders demanded conformity, even when it came to religion, which was quite true of the Roman emperors, but with some exceptions in the conquered areas.

I've done the research, which is why I converted out of what I had been brought up to believe.

There are ways that you can better inform yourself, with one of them reading the letters from the 2nd through 4th century patriarchs that came from various areas both inside and outside the confines of the Roman Empire that includes how they viewed the Church.

Two books I highly recommend, but unfortunately both are out of print: "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican), and "Introduction To the Bible" by William Barclay (also Anglican). I saw Hanson's book used on sale at Amazon, but they wanted almost $100 for it. Fantastic book as he heavily documents his historical accounting. "The First Christians" by Martin Marty (Lutheran) is quite good but he doesn't use that much documentation.

I covered that in a previous post, namely that it makes not one iota of difference in regards to any question who might have been pope at any one point in time simply because "apostolic succession" deals with the bishops, with the pope being one bishop (of Rome).

Anyhow, as I posted before, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Moravian Church, and several Scandinavian Lutheran Churches all accept the concept of apostolic succession, which covers the vast majority of Christianity, and yet they disagree on quite a few other items. Even Luther didn't question that at first if you read any biography on him.

So, I'll go with them because this is the same conclusion I reached after doing the research starting back almost 40 years ago. If you disagree, I can accept that as your opinion, so with this there's nowhere else to go.

Take care.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your polite responses-- so very pleasant and so very unusual for this sort of subject.

However, the many schisms of the church down through the ages, pretty much eliminates any possibility of an unbroken "laying on of hands" from Peter to the current whomever.

In fact, it's the very existence of these many failures of the church to remain On Point, that tells me none are being guided by anything remotely divine in nature.

A truly divine guide, would outshine all mere human agencies-- if you study how ideas are spread among populations (pre-internet), it's not unlike how diseases are spread, as a matter of fact.

But, ideas are more powerful in many ways than any disease-- for they can capture the mind.

Any idea that was of divine origin? Would be self-evidently divine, I would think-- else it's not truly divine, is it? But a mere human invention/discovery/creation.

My skepticism stems from that: if there truly were a Divine Guide that communicated-- even with a selected few Teacher's Pets*, then anything coming from such an agency would outshine all others, just by existing.

The fact that every single case of "divinity" seems so... ordinary? Tells me that it is very ordinary. Mundane. Not divine at all.

45,000+ different versions of 'The One True Christian Faith' and growing? Tells me that none have any sort of divine backing. Not a one.

What mere human agency could compete? None.

I expect Gods to act..... Godly. What I see in the world? Is mere human creations. I have studied some of the most Awful Popes down through history-- and these guys could have given Evil Lessons to Caligula.

The fact that they were permitted to do as they did, and were not struck down? Tells me that if there is a god? It's Primary Attribute is one of total Indifference.

But that's how it goes-- I'm always Optimistic: Someone may, one day, present something that is Truly Divine. I'm prepared to be Amazed.

That hasn't happened, though. Don't expect it to, either.

.....

* Special Teacher's Pets is actually quite immoral. The bible's use of God's Chosen, and God's Special Messenger, and worse? Tells me that the authors had no idea of Morality, when they wrote those stories. Sad, really. But it does show the bible is of mere human construction-- and nothing more.