Christianity: A Summary

[Kenny]

I see that you still don't know how to use a facepalm. There really is not much difference between Spiderman and King David. They are both mythical figures.

 

[usfan]

I'll restate my goal here. I am NOT trying to get anyone to like the basic tenets of the Christian faith, but to clarify them, so it can be defined and understood .

There are plenty of straw men, caricatures, and heresies floating around over the last 2000 years of history. I am trying to present a clarified summary of the biblical, historical worldview that is labeled 'Christianity.'

There is an unbroken line of orthodoxy that defines the Christian faith. Jesus started it, and the first disciples passed down His teachings and precepts to subsequent followers. Scholars and philosophers have taken this very seriously, over the millennia, and have sought to convey an accurate, historical, and scholarly account of the life and mission of Jesus, which is the crux of Christianity. During this time, deceivers, heresies, distortions, and diversions have abounded, so a careful, historical, and scholarly process has been the standard in Christian history. We have the historical records from the apostles, early church fathers, and apologists in an unbroken line to the present. Creeds, statements, and systematic theology present and preserve the historical timeline of the Christian worldview.

This is not a list of all 'Christianity inspired' beliefs, institutions, or offshoots. It is an attempt to summarize and clarify the central, essential elements in the ideology labeled, 'Christianity.'

People get an idea about something from many sources:
1. News
2. Schooling
3. Family, friends
4. Movies, books
5. Other people's opinions

This thread is an historical examination of the factual elements that comprise the historical worldview of 'Christianity'.

It seems to me, that the Founder, His early followers, and the recorders of the words and events surrounding the dawning of Christianity would have more credibility in defining the movement/worldview they began, than revisers of history millennia removed from the events.

 

[usfan]

There are indeed countless hundreds upon hundreds of different Christian denominations, because the much of the Bible clearly is open to interpretation rather than meant to be taken literally.

I disagree. Just because there are lies, distortions, or heresies floating around, it does not negate the OBJECTIVE, HISTORICAL TRUTH, based on evidence.

The early church fathers, gospel writers, and commentators CLEARLY believed in a literal, factual, historical Jesus, and described His life, message, and mission in specific detail.

Not all denominations of Christianity believe Jesus Christ will literally return to historically end all evil and suffering of this world.

Yes, there are, and have been, many 'inspired by' copies and offshoots from historical Christianity.

Jesus Christ's return was a spiritual event that has already happened rather than a historic event that has yet to become fulfilled.

so you believe. But the biblical writers, apologists, and defenders of orthodoxy do not agree.

If believers in Christ keep waiting around for Christ's Second Coming as a literal historical event , they will continue to become more sorely disappointed with the passing of each generation not having experienced a historical second coming of J.C.

..so you believe, yet historical xtianity has continued, in spite of your prediction.

a perceived unfulfilled promise of Christ would be good reason for people to give up on Christian Faith.

People give up and change their beliefs and opinions for many reasons. I doubt that many xtians have abandoned the faith because Jesus did not return in their lifetime.

All of this stuff in the OP is an empty boast.

As is your unevidenced rebuttal.. pot, kettle, black?

I noticed you left out of your Christian Basics regarding God any mention of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union. I find this very odd. These descriptions of God are peculiar to Christianity, setting it apart not only from other world religions, but also apart from other monotheistic faiths.

It is in there, just not emphasized. I did emphasize it later.. it is part of the Nature of God, from the xtian perspective.

Ah, but who's to say that the Arians, or the Gnostics, or the Docetists, or the Psilanthropists were wrong,

..someone with historical facts, and the original caretakers of the Message.

The teachings of Jesus, then the apostles, the earliest church fathers and apologists ALL AFFIRM the core teachings.. the essential basics, that defines xtianity. They clearly expose and refute heresies and departures from orthodoxy.

There is no single set of beliefs that are Christianity.

..by the definition given by the Founder, His earliest followers and apologists, there is. Departures are 'not Christianity'.

It reminds us that one of the nice things about science is that it endeavors to maximize objectivity when testing for truth.

Yes, that is what historical evidence is for. It removes the subjective, feeling based opinions, or revisionism that typifies religio/philosophical beliefs.

There are zero contemporaneous historical records of Jesus Christ life or teachings.

Contemporary? Like from now? How could there be? But if you mean there is no corroborating evidence from contemporaries THEN, you are quite mistaken. The historical evidence for Jesus, and His life and words are overwhelming. Denial and bias are the only reasons to reject them.

New Testament scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.

Well sure.. 'New Testament scholars!', can say, believe, or mean many things, anything, or nothing. A wise person ferrets out the facts, and does not rely on the pontifications of self proclaimed experts.

I have much more credibility for the earliest writers, apologists, and eyewitnesses, than some johnny-come-lately, 2000 years removed, pretending to 'know what really happened!'

If the ACTUAL TRUTH was indeed the ACTUAL TRUTH then I would expect that those with the ACTUAL TRUTH would be able to provide verifiable evidence for their claims that those who claim a FALSE CHRISTIANITY cannot.

expectations are often disappointing. Reality is the best we have. Historical evidence is not like mathematics.

You see ACTUAL TRUTH should be verifiable. I can claim that 2 + 2 = 4 and someone else can claim that 2 + 2 = 5.

Right. Historical evidence is not mathematics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have been a student of Christian history and the Bible for over 45 years. My goal here is to offer a simple summary and historical consensus of the Christian faith. I will try to avoid denominational issues or cultural influences, and concentrate on the central elements of historical, biblical Christianity. Many of the terms will be of classical usage, and might carry ambiguity for some. I will try to clarify if there is confusion.

And I will respond to every point from my atheist perspective.

Christianity has been the caretaker of a worldview, concerning the nature of God, man, and the universe.
God
God is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He created all things with a word. He is everywhere, and has no constraints of time and space. He is perfect, without flaw, gender, or limitations common to the creation.

Sounds like this god is everything and nothing at the same time.
So how can we objectively distinguish such a god from a non-existing one?
Sounds to me like this is just some bare claim that cannot be supported by any evidence.
It's an unfalsifiable, untestable, undemonstrable propositions - which seems intentionally devised to be unfalsifiable, untestable and undemonstrable.

Such claims are potentially infinite in number.

Man
Man was created as a perfect being, and enjoyed open communion with God. God created man in His image, and shares traits with the creature. Man was created as an eternal soul, that transcends his material being.

This is false as "man" evolved from ancestral primate species, a process which started some 7 million years ago (when the lineage that would eventually become homo sapiens split off from the other primates).

The Universe

The universe was created in purity and perfection, and will be restored to that state when the fallen era ends. The order and majesty of God is reflected in the material universe.

This makes no sense to me as the universe seems to be a chaotic mess and the little order we find in it, is the result of natural forces like gravity acting upon that chaos.

Next to that, this claim of yours is again untestable, unfalsifiable, undemonstrable.

The Fall
Evil and discord entered the universe when an angelic being rebelled against God, and corrupted the perfection of God's creation. Death and suffering became part of the experience of all living creatures. Man joined in that rebellion, where lies, murder, and human corruption ran rampant. Both the material and spiritual realms are in discord, in this cosmos of rebellion and enmity toward God.

Death has been a part of the universe ever since life existed.
At no time in life's history was death not a part of it.

This again makes no sense in light of observable reality.
And all that stuff about angels etc, are obviously just religious statements without any measureable value in reality.

Redemption
God made provision for the rebellion of man. Even though man's sins and corruption were contrary to the standard and nature of God, He provided a Way of escape from the coming reckoning. He became a man, Himself, and took the penalty for all of man's sins, if they will receive it. God appeared in the person of Jesus, and revealed the nature of God. He outlined the process of redemption, for those who would accept it. It is a spiritual transaction that has been likened to rebirth, or going from darkness to light. It is a quickening of the soul, where the lost human is awakened to the perception of spiritual reality. It usually involves acknowledging God and the atonement of Jesus, repentance for past wrongs, and the reception of God's Spirit into the redeemed soul. It is a very personal transaction, and transforms the life of the recipient.

This is the part about christianity that sounds most nonsensical to me.

Basically.... here we have a god who "sacrificed" himself to himself, to save us from himself, to rectify a bad situation that he himself is responsible for in the first place.

As the Hitch used to say: "we were created sick and commanded to be well"

It's obvious nonsense and reads like a page coming straight from to "how to" handbook of con-men.

First, it tells you you that you are a sick...
And then it conveniently provides the only cure.

It however never can sensibly show how you are sick.
Neither can it show that its cure actually works.

Obvious nonsense.

Citizenship
The redeemed souls are now God's people. They have been likened to the children of God, His beloved bride, and a home for His dwelling. They are no longer of this fallen world, even though they still live in it. Their primary loyalties are to God and His government, not to any earthly institution of man.

People who feel like their religious beliefs put them "above the law" are extremely dangerous, so let's hope that there aren't too many of these "redeemed souls", as you say.

Islamist terrorists are such people btw.... they answer to their god and not to "earthly institutions of man".

Deception
This world is under the influence of a great deceiver. His goal is to kill and destroy, and to bring confusion to man so he cannot understand the redemption process, and be reconciled to God.

And if this God of yours had any basic moral values, he would remove this "great deceiver" from existance, which he could do but with a snap of his virtual fingers, if you truelly is "infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent" as you said previously.

So I guess that's the difference between me and this god you worship: if I had to power to remove the "greatest deceiver", who's only goal is to kill and destroy, from existance - I would.

Restoration
The evils, suffering, and deceptions of this world are temporary, and will end when Jesus returns to make all things right. The universe will change, and God's kingdom and rule will be absolute and complete. Sin, death, and evil will no longer define the cosmos, but a restoration will take place, and make all things new.

My goal here is to present a concise summary of the basic, historical Christian faith. I feel that footnotes and proof texts would detract from this goal, but i would be happy to elaborate on any point. My perspective here is one of a 20th century American, but i have tried to avoid temporal or regional biases in this summary. This is, however, my perspective of the basic consensus of Christian belief and teaching, over the last 2000 years.

There are many more nuances and expanded points of science, empiricism, miracles, eternity, destiny, and origins that can be examined in greater detail, if there is interest. But i hope this provides a basic framework for better understanding of the Christian faith.

Cool.

I was aware of it all already.

 

[usfan]

My goal here is to offer a simple summary and historical consensus of the Christian faith.

I'll restate my goal here. I am NOT trying to get anyone to like the basic tenets of the Christian faith, but to clarify them, so it can be defined and understood

You seem to have missed the point...

And I will respond to every point from my atheist perspective.

The definition of historical Christianity is not a philosophical opinion, but historical fact.

Sounds like this god is everything and nothing at the same time.

This makes no sense to me as the universe seems to be a chaotic mess

This is the part about christianity that sounds most nonsensical to me.

And if this God of yours had any basic moral values, he would remove this "great deceiver" from existance

Yes, this is your opinion ABOUT Christianity, but it does not refute the core beliefs. You seem to confirm that this is the biblical Christian perspective, even though you don't like it.

 

[blü 2]

..someone with historical facts, and the original caretakers of the Message.

I think a strong case case been made that the gospels are not historical, simply authoritative for theological purposes, and it's on the latter basis that I've been arguing in this thread.

And therefore (for example) the Trinity doctrine, while it may be accepted doctrine to a large majority of Christians, is not supported ─ instead, flatly contradicted ─ by the NT. That's a set of facts about the text. We can add an historical fact too ─ the doctrine didn't exist before the 4th century.

The teachings of Jesus, then the apostles, the earliest church fathers and apologists ALL AFFIRM the core teachings.. the essential basics, that defines xtianity. They clearly expose and refute heresies and departures from orthodoxy.

But the NT doesn't support what you wrote in your OP, only a smallish part of it. And I mention again that there's no such single thing as Christianity when it comes to doctrine.

 

[usfan]

More history of disputes & mini creeds, over orthodoxy, in early Christianity:

Circumcision
Acts 15:1Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
...
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
...
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.

24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell

Paul's mini creed:
1Cor 15:
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance a : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, b and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Irenaeus’ “Rule of Faith” (Late 2nd Century)
“…this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; And in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; And in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race…”

As the years passed, more detail, emphasis, and clarification was used, in the defence and focusing of precise Christian orthodoxy.

Jude 1:3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people.

It has been a constant and necessary part of the historical Christian faith. Offshoots, departures, and destructive heresies have threatened the integrity of the Message, from earliest times. It is no different, now, with confusion and misinformation muddying the pure living waters of the Message that Jesus brought.

Obviously, not everyone believes this message, but it is good to clarify what you don't believe about Christianity, rather than ridicule a strawman or caricature.

Edit:
..and, if you believe differently than the historical, orthodox position, that's fine. You can have a 'New! Improved!' version, or an evolved ideology, 'inspired by!' the original. But isn't it helpful to know and understand the original, to see where you have come?

 

[usfan]

I think a strong case case been made that the gospels are not historical, simply authoritative for theological purposes, and it's on the latter basis that I've been arguing in this thread.

They are authoritative BECAUSE they are historical.

“Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” ~ Jerome

But the NT doesn't support what you wrote in your OP, only a smallish part of it. And I mention again that there's no such single thing as Christianity when it comes to doctrine.

Of course it does. Your summary dismissal has no basis. My simple list of basics has been echoed over the centuries, and expanded in much more detail.

And there ABSOLUTELY IS, a precise, exact, historical, and exegetical 'definition' of Christianity. I'm not implying there are not offshoots or departures. There are. But there is an historical original, that inspire the rest.

 

[Road Warrior]

There is very little if any historical evidence for King David. The stories about him are as reliable as the stories about King Arthur.

LOL. You slide from "very little" to as reliable as the stories about King Arthur". Once again you prove you have a religious agenda to push, not a factual or truthful one.

Admittedly the evidence from almost 4000 years ago is weak, but it exists: King David
however, recently discovered direct and indirect evidence provides greater substantiation for David's life and kingship (although little to back up the Biblical assertions and specific events during his reign). In 1993 CE, Avraham Biran discovered the Tel Dan Inscription on a broken stele in northern Israel. The inscription commemorates the victory of an Aramean king over its southern neighbors, and specifically references both the “king of Israel,” and the “king of the House of David.” This is perhaps the earliest, direct, historical evidence for the Davidic Dynasty in Israel although the Mesha Stele, discovered by Bedouins in the 1800s CE who lived by the Jordan and Arnon rivers, also mentions "the House of David," written in Moabite around a century after the supposed reign of King David.

As for indirect evidence, under excavations directed by Yosef Garfinkel in 2012 CE, a Canaanite inscription of "Eshba'al Ben Beda," King David's enemy (and King Saul's son who reigned for two years) also known as "Ish-Bosheth" in many biblical translations (2 Samuel 3, 4) was found inside pottery shards from an ancient jug dated to the 10th century BCE. Additionally, survey data compiled by Avi Ofer in 1994 CE that suggest a doubling of 11th-Century BCE Judean population (particularly in Northern Israel), and potential Jebusite fortresses that were discovered in excavations directed by Yigal Shiloh (1978-1985 CE) - both of which are discussed in the Old Testament - lend credence to the notion that David and the Kingdom of Israel were part of the region's historical and cultural existence.

 

[Milton Platt]

I have been a student of Christian history and the Bible for over 45 years. My goal here is to offer a simple summary and historical consensus of the Christian faith. I will try to avoid denominational issues or cultural influences, and concentrate on the central elements of historical, biblical Christianity. Many of the terms will be of classical usage, and might carry ambiguity for some. I will try to clarify if there is confusion.

Christianity has been the caretaker of a worldview, concerning the nature of God, man, and the universe.
God
God is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He created all things with a word. He is everywhere, and has no constraints of time and space. He is perfect, without flaw, gender, or limitations common to the creation.

Man
Man was created as a perfect being, and enjoyed open communion with God. God created man in His image, and shares traits with the creature. Man was created as an eternal soul, that transcends his material being.

The Universe
The universe was created in purity and perfection, and will be restored to that state when the fallen era ends. The order and majesty of God is reflected in the material universe.

The Fall
Evil and discord entered the universe when an angelic being rebelled against God, and corrupted the perfection of God's creation. Death and suffering became part of the experience of all living creatures. Man joined in that rebellion, where lies, murder, and human corruption ran rampant. Both the material and spiritual realms are in discord, in this cosmos of rebellion and enmity toward God.

Redemption
God made provision for the rebellion of man. Even though man's sins and corruption were contrary to the standard and nature of God, He provided a Way of escape from the coming reckoning. He became a man, Himself, and took the penalty for all of man's sins, if they will receive it. God appeared in the person of Jesus, and revealed the nature of God. He outlined the process of redemption, for those who would accept it. It is a spiritual transaction that has been likened to rebirth, or going from darkness to light. It is a quickening of the soul, where the lost human is awakened to the perception of spiritual reality. It usually involves acknowledging God and the atonement of Jesus, repentance for past wrongs, and the reception of God's Spirit into the redeemed soul. It is a very personal transaction, and transforms the life of the recipient.

Citizenship
The redeemed souls are now God's people. They have been likened to the children of God, His beloved bride, and a home for His dwelling. They are no longer of this fallen world, even though they still live in it. Their primary loyalties are to God and His government, not to any earthly institution of man.

Deception
This world is under the influence of a great deceiver. His goal is to kill and destroy, and to bring confusion to man so he cannot understand the redemption process, and be reconciled to God.

Restoration
The evils, suffering, and deceptions of this world are temporary, and will end when Jesus returns to make all things right. The universe will change, and God's kingdom and rule will be absolute and complete. Sin, death, and evil will no longer define the cosmos, but a restoration will take place, and make all things new.

My goal here is to present a concise summary of the basic, historical Christian faith. I feel that footnotes and proof texts would detract from this goal, but i would be happy to elaborate on any point. My perspective here is one of a 20th century American, but i have tried to avoid temporal or regional biases in this summary. This is, however, my perspective of the basic consensus of Christian belief and teaching, over the last 2000 years.

There are many more nuances and expanded points of science, empiricism, miracles, eternity, destiny, and origins that can be examined in greater detail, if there is interest. But i hope this provides a basic framework for better understanding of the Christian faith.

There are as many versions of gods and religions as there are religious people. Yours in just one more.......

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL. You slide from "very little" to as reliable as the stories about King Arthur". Once again you prove you have a religious agenda to push, not a factual or truthful one.

Admittedly the evidence from almost 4000 years ago is weak, but it exists: King David
however, recently discovered direct and indirect evidence provides greater substantiation for David's life and kingship (although little to back up the Biblical assertions and specific events during his reign). In 1993 CE, Avraham Biran discovered the Tel Dan Inscription on a broken stele in northern Israel. The inscription commemorates the victory of an Aramean king over its southern neighbors, and specifically references both the “king of Israel,” and the “king of the House of David.” This is perhaps the earliest, direct, historical evidence for the Davidic Dynasty in Israel although the Mesha Stele, discovered by Bedouins in the 1800s CE who lived by the Jordan and Arnon rivers, also mentions "the House of David," written in Moabite around a century after the supposed reign of King David.

As for indirect evidence, under excavations directed by Yosef Garfinkel in 2012 CE, a Canaanite inscription of "Eshba'al Ben Beda," King David's enemy (and King Saul's son who reigned for two years) also known as "Ish-Bosheth" in many biblical translations (2 Samuel 3, 4) was found inside pottery shards from an ancient jug dated to the 10th century BCE. Additionally, survey data compiled by Avi Ofer in 1994 CE that suggest a doubling of 11th-Century BCE Judean population (particularly in Northern Israel), and potential Jebusite fortresses that were discovered in excavations directed by Yigal Shiloh (1978-1985 CE) - both of which are discussed in the Old Testament - lend credence to the notion that David and the Kingdom of Israel were part of the region's historical and cultural existence.

Perhaps. When dealing with zealots sometimes it is hard not to respond in kind. My claim about the same sort of evidence as there is for King Arthur is fairly accurate since the stories of him go further back than most realize. Or to put it in a more modern perspective Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is an excellent analogy. It shows how a historical figure can become mythical.

 

[Road Warrior]

Perhaps. When dealing with zealots sometimes it is hard not to respond in kind. My claim about the same sort of evidence as there is for King Arthur is fairly accurate since the stories of him go further back than most realize. Or to put it in a more modern perspective Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is an excellent analogy. It shows how a historical figure can become mythical.

I completely understand and agree.

 

[usfan]

There are as many versions of gods and religions as there are religious people. Yours in just one more.......

Exactly. Everybody gotta believe something..

Was this just an existential side point?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I disagree. Just because there are lies, distortions, or heresies floating around, it does not negate the OBJECTIVE, HISTORICAL TRUTH, based on evidence.

The early church fathers, gospel writers, and commentators CLEARLY believed in a literal, factual, historical Jesus, and described His life, message, and mission in specific detail.

Yes, there are, and have been, many 'inspired by' copies and offshoots from historical Christianity.
so you believe. But the biblical writers, apologists, and defenders of orthodoxy do not agree.

..so you believe, yet historical xtianity has continued, in spite of your prediction.

People give up and change their beliefs and opinions for many reasons. I doubt that many xtians have abandoned the faith because Jesus did not return in their lifetime.

As is your unevidenced rebuttal.. pot, kettle, black?

It is in there, just not emphasized. I did emphasize it later.. it is part of the Nature of God, from the xtian perspective.

..someone with historical facts, and the original caretakers of the Message.

The teachings of Jesus, then the apostles, the earliest church fathers and apologists ALL AFFIRM the core teachings.. the essential basics, that defines xtianity. They clearly expose and refute heresies and departures from orthodoxy.
..by the definition given by the Founder, His earliest followers and apologists, there is. Departures are 'not Christianity'.

Yes, that is what historical evidence is for. It removes the subjective, feeling based opinions, or revisionism that typifies religio/philosophical beliefs.

Contemporary? Like from now? How could there be? But if you mean there is no corroborating evidence from contemporaries THEN, you are quite mistaken. The historical evidence for Jesus, and His life and words are overwhelming. Denial and bias are the only reasons to reject them.

Well sure..

I have much more credibility for the earliest writers, apologists, and eyewitnesses, than some johnny-come-lately, 2000 years removed, pretending to 'know what really happened!'
expectations are often disappointing. Reality is the best we have. Historical evidence is not like mathematics.

Right. Historical evidence is not mathematics.

expectations are often disappointing. Reality is the best we have. Historical evidence is not like mathematics.

EXACTLY! Historical 'truth' is NOT reliable.

'New Testament scholars!', can say, believe, or mean many things, anything, or nothing. A wise person ferrets out the facts, and does not rely on the pontifications of self proclaimed experts.

Anytime you have 'wise people ferreting out the FACTS' you do NOT have an objective TRUTH. All you have are people's subjective 'truths' all based on their own biased opinions. Reality IS the best we have and unless you can back up reality with verifiable objective EVIDENCE, whatever subjective 'evidence' you have is worthless. That's the reality... so sorry if you find it disappointing.

 

[Milton Platt]

Exactly. Everybody gotta believe something..

Was this just an existential side point?

In a way. It is to point out that what you listed is merely personal opinion. It appeared you were trying to give it more weight than that.

 

[usfan]

Jerome was an interesting character, in the early church.

Not long after the Council of Nicaea, where the crafting of the term,
Homoousion ( Greek: ὁμοούσιον)
was used, to clarify the Deity of Christ, Arianism found a rebirth, in the son of Constantine. Athanasius was banished, and the proclamations of Nicaea were retracted.

Jerome described the event with these words:

At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation.

The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.

Some, therefore, remained in their own communion, others began to send letters to those Confessors, who as adherents of Athanasius were in exile; several despairingly bewailed the better relations into which they had entered. But a few, true to human nature, defended their mistake as an exhibition of wisdom. The ship of the Apostles was in peril, she was driven by the wind, her sides beaten with the waves: no hope was now left. But the Lord awoke and bade the tempest cease; the beast died, and there was a calm once again.

To speak more plainly, all the bishops who had been banished from their sees, by the clemency of the new emperor returned to their Churches. Then Egypt welcomed the triumphant Athanasius; then Hilary returned from the battle to the embrace of
the Church of Gaul; then Eusebius returned and Italy laid aside her mourning weeds. The bishops who had been caught in the snare at Ariminum and had unwittingly come to be reported of as heretics, began to assemble, while they called the Body of our Lord and all that is holy in the Church to witness that they had not a suspicion of anything faulty in their own faith. We thought, said they, the words were to be taken in their natural meaning, and we had no suspicion that in the Church of God, the very home of simplicity and sincerity in the confession of truth, one thing could be kept secret in the heart, another uttered by the lips. We thought too well of bad men and were deceived. We did not suppose that the bishops of Christ were fighting against Christ.

The 'spiritual warfare' was well underway, and would not abate into 2 millennia.

edit: source for Jerome quote:
CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue Against the Luciferians (Jerome)

 

[usfan]

In a way. It is to point out that what you listed is merely personal opinion. It appeared you were trying to give it more weight than that.

I think the evidence is weighty enough to consider this a valid historical view.. it's not just some arbitrary theory pulled out of thin air. There are volumes of manuscripts, journals, commentaries, and apologias that corroborate these basic principles as credible.

..unlike some of the 'theories' that smear xtianity, or promote some caricature, with no evidence..

 

[usfan]

EXACTLY! Historical 'truth' is NOT reliable.

It may not be repeatable, or subject to scientific methodology, but there are historical Standards, for validating events and persons in the past.

Everyone you've read about or studied in history is not a 'made up!', fictional character..

The civil war didn't happen? Charlemagne was a myth? Queen Victoria was a cultural manipulation?

History has different processes, than the empirical sciences, but it does not make it all 'Fabricated Myth!'

I daresay you likely believe a lot of historical events and persons, that have far less evidence than the biblical narratives..

 

[QuestioningMind]

It may not be repeatable, or subject to scientific methodology, but there are historical Standards, for validating events and persons in the past.

Everyone you've read about or studied in history is not a 'made up!', fictional character..

The civil war didn't happen? Charlemagne was a myth? Queen Victoria was a cultural manipulation?

History has different processes, than the empirical sciences, but it does not make it all 'Fabricated Myth!'

I daresay you likely believe a lot of historical events and persons, that have far less evidence than the biblical narratives..

Does the bible refer to real places that existed in History? SURE it does! Does the bible refer to real people who existed in history? SURE it does! Does the bible provide any verifiable evidence whatsoever for any of the fantastical claims that it makes? Absolutely NOT!

For instance, the Civil War DID happen and a man named Abraham Lincoln DID exist. However, the fact that the book, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer references this war that DID happen and references this man that DID exist, does not in any way shape or form provide any verifiable evidence that Lincoln slayed vampires. Just like how the fact that your bible references places that DID exist and people who DID exist does not in any way shape or form provide verifiable evidence that Jesus walked on water, turned water in wine, or rose from the dead.

 

[usfan]

I could say, 'Atheism means whatever anybody wants,' or 'Buddhism is an ideology of domination and oppression!'

Stalin was an Atheist.
Stalin killed millions of people for his social engineering ideology.
Therefore, atheism is a murderous, genocidal ideology!

I'm sure the atheists would howl in protest over this, as would any rational human being.

The point is, each worldview or ideology, especially one based around a specific Person or event, is tethered to the person or event that bears the name.

Mohammedanism, as Islam was called earlier, is about Muhammad's revelations, passed to his followers. You could start another 'Islam inspired!' denomination, and contradict many of the clear teachings of Muhammad.

This is what the Arianists did, the Mormons, and many offshoots and sects that abandon the essential core elements of Christianity. The philosophical basis, basic tenets, and beliefs are different. They are not 'all the same!', just because they copy some elements, or the name.