The papacy

[clmowry]

I disagree. I think anyone is seriously misinformed who thinks the Bible predates the Church. The writings of the New Testament were written anywhere from 20 to approximately 90 years after Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection.

Are we to believe that the “Church” (e.g. people of God, Christian community) did not exist until the final authoritative version of the New Testament was decided?

Really?

For folks that think Christianity is the religion defined by a book rather than a religion that was taught by the Church founded by Christ and spread by his disciples, this is at least an intellectually consistent position to take.

If “Sola Scriptura” is a tenet of your faith, how can that faith exist before the scripture that is supposed to spell out all of the doctrines of the faith?

I think it is a silly position, but at least it is one that is consistent.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Thanks for the confirmation.
Yes, I was what you would consider a “good” Catholic. Not only did I attend Mass regularly, I was a reader and on the parish council.
However, when I starting reading works by critical scholars I gradually and slowly came to realize that it wasn’t true. I have been exposed to both sides of the discussion, so I can’t be accused of ignoring arguments for Christianity. At the end of the day the argument against Christianity won out by a lot. It really isn’t even close. Sorry.

So have you given up on answering any of the “big questions?”

Things like “where did everything come from” and “why am I here.”

Do you think you’ve found the answers?

Or do you just not care about those kinds of questions?

Chuck

 

[paul_c]

Acts was written by the same author as Luke. Nothing in that book can be trusted. It just doesn’t’ add up. Too many errors and contradictions. Acts is a clear example of religious advertisement. Written for a clear purpose.
Yes, Paul invented Christianity. He was likely the only real person we know from the entire NT. The later gospels built on top of Paul by adding stories that were familiar to the pagans such as the virgin birth of a son of God, virgin births etc. The pagans bought into Christianity for one good reason. It was a story they were familiar with. The Jews recognized the sorry and rejected it. Why do you think Christianity had little success with the Jews?

The whole story of Jesus was a synthesis of pagan son of God hero figures with a Jewish twist thanks to Paul it’s author.

Frankly, this argument is not credible. Why is Paul a real person while Luke is not. How is Paul attested to differently than the other New Testament authors? And how do you definitively know that Paul’s letters were written prior to the Gospel of Matthew? Where is the documentation for that? And how do you say that the pagan’s bought into Christianity. They used torture in an attempt to suppress it for 300 years but they were fighting against God. And how do you claim that Jesus’s gospel has anything in common with the paganism of the time? It bears no resemblance at all to Greek or Roman mythology / theology, which were the stated religion of the empire.

This is all too self serving of the athiest agenda. And have no misconceptions. The Jesus Seminar is populated by athiests.

 

[paul_c]

Thanks for the confirmation.
Yes, I was what you would consider a “good” Catholic. Not only did I attend Mass regularly, I was a reader and on the parish council.
However, when I starting reading works by critical scholars I gradually and slowly came to realize that it wasn’t true. I have been exposed to both sides of the discussion, so I can’t be accused of ignoring arguments for Christianity. At the end of the day the argument against Christianity won out by a lot. It really isn’t even close. Sorry.

I’ve encountered other disciples of the Jesus Seminar in the past. They all seem so eager to convince people of faith that they are in error. The disciple of the Jesus Seminar is absolutely convinced of their efficacy of a method that starts with the view that there is no God and simply discards anything that would point to the divine as myth or misunderstanding. They are so convinced of their own wisdom that they discard 2000 years of tradition and scholarship for the musings of a few people that make their livelihood by selling books and giving lectures to anyone that will listen. In their circular way of thinking, if they can get someone to agree with them, it validates their views.

Sante, ask yourself why you came on CAF? Be honest with yourself. Is it to convince others that you are right, giving you self validation for your views?

And what was the argument of the Jesus Seminar that you found so compelling, anyway?

 

[Sante]

You are misinformed about these topics. My advice to you is to stop reading church apologetics material only. You need to look at other points of view and compare arguments. Most hardcore religionists have not or will not do this. I think many are afraid of what they will find. Think for yourself.
The big questions?
How did we get here? By natural processes that we are still learning to understand.
Why are we here? No particular reason. However, it is up to the individual to give purpose to your life. There are many ways to do this.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You are contradicting your own church. The gospels are indeed anonymous works. Your ignorance on such a basic fact is very revealing of your bias. Yet, you accuse critical scholars of the same. Read my post again. There is no contemporary secular documentation on Jesus. None. Look up the word contemporary if need be. I’m not talking about hearsay accounts written generations after his death. Also, some of the more famous passages are clear forgeries by known lying Christians such as Eusebius.
I should also point out that indeed I am a lapsed Catholic. One other poster accused me of deceit in my profile. In retrospect I should have put the word lapsed in front of catholic. However, the poster should know that once pabtized and confirmed the church considers you a catholic always. All I would have to do is call up a priest for confession and my “membership” is once again in good standing. Funny how I seem to know more about the church than your average poster on here. That’s probably why I’m at where I’m at.

I suggest that you try reading Pope Benedict XVI’s scholarly work *Jesus of Nazareth. *

Oh, yes, it’s true that by confessing and being absolved you would once again be in ‘good standing’. . .but you’ve left out a little something. You’d have to be **sincere in confessing and repenting your sins. **

Otherwise, you might fool the priest but you can’t fool God. Even if the priest thought you sincere (when you were not) and absolved you, you would not be absolved in truth, and you would then if you went on to communion etc. be pouring mortal sin on top of mortal sin (of an invalid confession).

You really need to pay more attention to the details and to have a little more respect for other people.

 

[clmowry]

You are misinformed about these topics. My advice to you is to stop reading church apologetics material only. You need to look at other points of view and compare arguments. Most hardcore religionists have not or will not do this. I think many are afraid of what they will find. Think for yourself.
The big questions?
How did we get here? By natural processes that we are still learning to understand.
Why are we here? No particular reason. However, it is up to the individual to give purpose to your life. There are many ways to do this.

Got it. You have no answers, don’t care and think we should join you.

Not a very compelling arguement.

I’ll pass.

Thanks,

Chuck

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In C. S. Lewis’ *The Silver Chair, *3 characters are out to find and free a kidnapped king. The witch who has imprisoned the king has made him believe that there is nothing other than the underground cavern where he has been imprisoned. One of the rescuers, even when they are all in danger of being drugged and hypnotized into believing the witch, is able to bring them all ‘back to reality’ when he lists all the beauties of the ‘other world’ --the realities of sun, moon, and stars-- and asks the witch why it could be that their ‘imagined’ world is so much richer, deeper, more beautiful and more varied than the supposed ‘real’ underground world.

I suggest, Sante, that you ponder this.

Why is the ‘real world’ you embrace so much poorer, so much less diverse, so much narrower than the ‘Christian world’ that you reject? Wouldn’t you expect the real world to be MORE than the fantasy one??

 

[paul_c]

You are misinformed about these topics. My advice to you is to stop reading church apologetics material only. You need to look at other points of view and compare arguments. Most hardcore religionists have not or will not do this. I think many are afraid of what they will find. Think for yourself.
The big questions?
How did we get here? By natural processes that we are still learning to understand.
Why are we here? No particular reason. However, it is up to the individual to give purpose to your life. There are many ways to do this.

Why are you so sure that we are the ones that are misinformed? What is the basis for the confidence you have in the Jesus Seminar? Why are they so credible. What arguments would you like us to consider?. Like them, you haven’t given us anything in the way of proof that your arguments have any validity.

All you’ve done is say that we are wrong. Well it takes a lot more than that to convince most people.

and as for your answers to the big questions? It just shows you haven’t given them any real consideration. For someone who professes to be right while 2000 years of Christian thinkers have been wrong, this is a pretty lazy approach…You won’t get very far in your goal of coverting the catholics to athiesm with an approach like that.

 

[ChristianSurfer]

youtube.com/watch?v=lIlnEGxFCGc

Sante for you sake this is not that long of a video in retrospect, please watch.

 

[Sante]

Paul, you and the other posters on here on their own worst enemies. Your arguments actually back me up.

First of all, I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything. Religious people try to convert…for a very good reason. If an individual Catholic was alone in their beliefs, the rest of society would consider that person mad. It is up to the individual to come to their own conclusions of whether or not religious claims are true or false. Examine the evidence for and against on BOTH sides. The vast majority of religious people have never, ever done this. All I may do here is to get you to think for yourself. IMO, the claims of all religions are clearly without basis.

Secondly, just because Christianity has existed for 1,950 years doesn’t make it true. Christianity exists today for 2 major reasons. The special status granted by Constantine in the early 4th century and the indoctrination of young children. That’s it. What will your argument mean in about 20 years when Catholicism is virtually a dead religion in Europe and the Americas?

Thirdly, my answers to your questions were to the point. To assert that belief in a “God” is the answer to all of life’s questions is nonsense. An answer that answers everything, actually answers nothing.

 

[Des]

Well “technically” unless having ever been Catholic is a complete lie, then Sante isn’t exactly lying. Sante would still be “Catholic”, a heretical Catholic, but Catholic none the less.

I have to disagree. A true heretic cannot remain to be a Catholic.

But I noticed he’s changed his profile to a more precise definition anyways which is good.

 

[paul_c]

Paul, you and the other posters on here on their own worst enemies. Your arguments actually back me up.

First of all, I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything. Religious people try to convert…for a very good reason. If an individual Catholic was alone in their beliefs, the rest of society would consider that person mad. It is up to the individual to come to their own conclusions of whether or not religious claims are true or false. Examine the evidence for and against on BOTH sides. The vast majority of religious people have never, ever done this. All I may do here is to get you to think for yourself. IMO, the claims of all religions are clearly without basis.

Secondly, just because Christianity has existed for 1,950 years doesn’t make it true. Christianity exists today for 2 major reasons. The special status granted by Constantine in the early 4th century and the indoctrination of young children. That’s it. What will your argument mean in about 20 years when Catholicism is virtually a dead religion in Europe and the Americas? You clearly are not a student of history or you would know that men have been incorrectly predicting the demise of Catholicism for 2000 years. While you might be aware of the fact that some Catholics are falling away, you fail to see the increased devotion of others. Have you watched EWTN? or heard Catholic radio.? And by the way, how did Catholicism survive 300 years of persecution and prosper to the point where Constantine had no choice but to issue the Edict of Milan?

Thirdly, my answers to your questions were to the point. To assert that belief in a “God” is the answer to all of life’s questions is nonsense. An answer that answers everything, actually answers nothing.

No one said that a belief in God answers all of life’s question. this is a strawman

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Paul, you and the other posters on here on their own worst enemies. Your arguments actually back me up.

First of all, I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything. Religious people try to convert…for a very good reason. If an individual Catholic was alone in their beliefs, the rest of society would consider that person mad. It is up to the individual to come to their own conclusions of whether or not religious claims are true or false. Examine the evidence for and against on BOTH sides. The vast majority of religious people have never, ever done this. All I may do here is to get you to think for yourself. IMO, the claims of all religions are clearly without basis.

The vast majority have not examined the evidence for and against both sides? Really?

You **do **realize that you have pretty much called ‘religious’ people stupid, right? Quite a sweeping generalization. I suppose you think that anybody who has ‘examined the evidence on both sides’ and (using his/her God-given reason) come to the conclusion that the religious belief was **true **(as opposed to those like you who find it false) is either brainwashed, hasn’t looked ‘clearly’ or ‘enough’ at the evidence, etc. . .

It could not possibly be that YOU were the one who made the error, right, Sante?

Secondly, just because Christianity has existed for 1,950 years doesn’t make it true.
Strawman. Nobody said that Christianity was true because it has existed for 1950 plus years, Sante. However the converse --it has existed for that time (and will exist until the end of time) because it is true --is quite a different argument. Please address arguments we actually make, not your strawmen.

Christianity exists today for 2 major reasons. The special status granted by Constantine in the early 4th century and the indoctrination of young children. That’s it. What will your argument mean in about 20 years when Catholicism is virtually a dead religion in Europe and the Americas?

Somebody knows remarkably little of Christianity. Christianity existed for 300 years before Constantine (and for the years thereafter even in the face of Julian the Apostate, the invasions of the Huns, the invasions of the Moors, the invasions of the Vikings. . .all of these before the end of the first millennium. . .not to mention heresies from Gnosticism to Arianism, the Monophysites, the Nestorians, and the Iconoclasts (likewise before the end of the first millennium). In the second, Christianity managed to not just survive but flourish despite the Mongols, the Tatars, the Muslims, the Black Death, the Reformation, the opening of the New World, the Industrial Revolution, Communism, Marxism, world wars and materialism.

There have been more times that people gloated that “Christianity was done for” than you can possibly imagine in those 2000 years. . .and in every case. . .the gloaters were wrong.

---

Indoctrination of children, eh? Really? So all the little children (Christian, Jew, Muslim, ‘spiritual but not religious’, etc. --were all INDOCTRINATED, right? In that case, how can you state that Christianity will be ‘dead’ in 20 years --as you just did?

---

Because there are still (look it up) over a billion Christians. All ‘indoctrinated’.

---

And YOU YOURSELF claim that ‘most religious people’ are so stupid and don’t examine the evidence and that’s why they stay religious.

---

So how are you going to get all those ‘indoctrinated children’ to change?

---

People have been literate in this country (and Europe) for centuries. Hasn’t really been THAT much of a change, you know? People still seem to be religious even when they have the Internet and people like YOU to bray about ‘brainwashing’ and ‘use your MIND’. . .

---

**Even in Europe. Sure, there might be a temporary decline (these declines have existed before in many other time periods. Ever hear of cyclicism?) **but that doesn’t mean that 20 years from now that the decline will be the same, or worse. It will probably be better. Sorry if that upsets you!

Thirdly, my answers to your questions were to the point. To assert that belief in a “God” is the answer to all of life’s questions is nonsense. An answer that answers everything, actually answers nothing.

 

[diggerdomer]

You are contradicting your own church. The gospels are indeed anonymous works. Your ignorance on such a basic fact is very revealing of your bias. Yet, you accuse critical scholars of the same. Read my post again. There is no contemporary secular documentation on Jesus. None. Look up the word contemporary if need be. I’m not talking about hearsay accounts written generations after his death. Also, some of the more famous passages are clear forgeries by known lying Christians such as Eusebius.
I should also point out that indeed I am a lapsed Catholic. One other poster accused me of deceit in my profile. In retrospect I should have put the word lapsed in front of catholic. However, the poster should know that once pabtized and confirmed the church considers you a catholic always. All I would have to do is call up a priest for confession and my “membership” is once again in good standing. Funny how I seem to know more about the church than your average poster on here. That’s probably why I’m at where I’m at.

I have no idea to whom you are responding, but if you think the Gospels are completely “anonymous” then you don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches regarding this.

Josephus (a contemporary Jewish author) refers to Jesus…so, yes, there is contemporary secular reference to Jesus Christ (or, Jesus of Nazareth). There are of course many other contemporary references to those who follow Christ from pagan/Roman authors.

What does “pabtized” mean? Sorry…thanks for any clarification.

 

[diggerdomer]

Acts was written by the same author as Luke. Nothing in that book can be trusted. It just doesn’t’ add up. Too many errors and contradictions. Acts is a clear example of religious advertisement. Written for a clear purpose.
Yes, Paul invented Christianity. He was likely the only real person we know from the entire NT. The later gospels built on top of Paul by adding stories that were familiar to the pagans such as the virgin birth of a son of God, virgin births etc. The pagans bought into Christianity for one good reason. It was a story they were familiar with. The Jews recognized the sorry and rejected it. Why do you think Christianity had little success with the Jews?

The whole story of Jesus was a synthesis of pagan son of God hero figures with a Jewish twist thanks to Paul it’s author.

If you think it can’t be trusted, you misunderstand it.

If you think it can’t be trusted, why would you trust anything written in the first century A.D.?

 

[diggerdomer]

You are misinformed about these topics. My advice to you is to stop reading church apologetics material only. You need to look at other points of view and compare arguments. Most hardcore religionists have not or will not do this. I think many are afraid of what they will find. Think for yourself.
The big questions?
How did we get here? By natural processes that we are still learning to understand.
Why are we here? No particular reason. However, it is up to the individual to give purpose to your life. There are many ways to do this.

That sounds like a typical, culturally common, post-Enlightenment response.

It has merits.

But it does not deny or disprove the Christian faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

Paul, you and the other posters on here on their own worst enemies. Your arguments actually back me up.

First of all, I’m not trying to convert anyone to anything. Religious people try to convert…for a very good reason. If an individual Catholic was alone in their beliefs, the rest of society would consider that person mad. It is up to the individual to come to their own conclusions of whether or not religious claims are true or false. Examine the evidence for and against on BOTH sides. The vast majority of religious people have never, ever done this. All I may do here is to get you to think for yourself. IMO, the claims of all religions are clearly without basis.

Secondly, just because Christianity has existed for 1,950 years doesn’t make it true. Christianity exists today for 2 major reasons. The special status granted by Constantine in the early 4th century and the indoctrination of young children. That’s it. What will your argument mean in about 20 years when Catholicism is virtually a dead religion in Europe and the Americas?

Thirdly, my answers to your questions were to the point. To assert that belief in a “God” is the answer to all of life’s questions is nonsense. An answer that answers everything, actually answers nothing.

I asked this before, I will only ask once more. You seem to have a really bad experience with the Christian Catholic faith. I am so sorry.

We can continue these posts and argue, philosophically or rationally or whatever, about what we believe or think or whatever.

It seems to me, though, that you have some personal issue with the Catholic Church and/or faith that is at the root of your thoughts.

You are welcome to share such, or not. Of course.

If not, though, this thread will likely continue in a mostly academic exercise without real substantial result.

Care to share a bit more about why, exactly, you reject God and/or the Church? Nothing personal or judgmental, just trying to get to the heart of this thread.

 

[po18guy]

Totally agree with you. The Bible is the highest authority on God’s word.

Welcome! Are you then a Jehovah’s Witness? They use the bible as the highest authority.