The foundations of Christianity

[Elijah John]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

[Zzyzx]

.

But ones thoughts maybe biased on how he believe on the belief or unbelief.

Yes, humans tend to be biased; therefore, those who seek truth and accuracy use learning systems that minimize individual bias – such as actually testing their ideas in the harsh light of reality and encouraging disconnected others to verify or refute their work and conclusions.

If we have belief we prove things that is in accordance to the belief.

Perhaps you understand the large defect in forming a conclusion FIRST and then looking for evidence. Once you (generic term) already know the answer you know what evidence to look for to "prove" you are right -- and what evidence to reject because it might (perhaps rightfully) cast doubt on your conclusion.

A more effective way to learn or search for truth is to examine the evidence FIRST and then follow the evidence wherever it leads – without pursuing an agenda.

We don't look for things that will disprove it but prove it.

Of course, when one only looks for things that prove their preconceived conclusion and does not look for things that disprove their idea – lo and behold – they find nothing but supporting information.

And we have unbelief that will put doubts in the belief and find things that will prove the unbelief.

Having doubts in one's conclusions is a GOOD thing IF one is interested in actually finding truth (and not just protecting their preconceived ideas).

Ideas that are shaky, questionable, incorrect NEED the protection of "no doubt" attitudes. Questioning them may well expose defects, inconsistencies, falsifications, errors (deliberate or inadvertent).

Ideas and conclusions that are well supported by verifiable evidence have no reason to fear or avoid doubts, questions, challenges – particularly if proponents are prepared to accept that new or more accurate information may modify or even replace their pet ideas.

[dianaiad]

It seems to me that the whole foundation of what we know as Trinitarian Christianity
is built on a literal reading of the "fall of man" as told in the Genesis tale of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve eating a "forbidden fruit".

And also on the supposed "vision" of self-appointed "apostle" Paul.

And the theological speculations of the poet and mystic evangelist "John", and folks who take John's speculations and poetry literally.

Seems the whole of what we know as "Christianity" today is derived mainly from these three things, and very little from (what little we know of) the actual teachings of Jesus ie the Golden Rule and the Lord's prayer.

Evidence of this assertion? The Creeds, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicean Creed. They have been called "hollow creeds" by some scholars, meaning they have no center. They begin with Jesus supposed miraculous birth, and end with the supposed meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection.

NOTHING in Creeds about Jesus life or teachings.

Is it any WONDER that literalists will make such statements as "Christianity is not about morality?"

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

Elijah, whether you approve of that foundation or not (or whether I do) is irrelevant. As the NT does say, 'by their fruits" they shall be known.

One can SAY that a foundation is poorly designed and badly made, but if the building on which it stands lasts a thousand years, one cannot call it 'shaky.' Shaky foundations do not support a building that long.

Now I am not a trinitarian, nor a biblical literalist, nor a 'creedal' Christian. In fact, my own faith rather depends upon believing that the church went off the rails, doctrinally, very early in the process.

So I don't think that the foundation that supports trinitarian, creedal Christianity is accurate, or appropriate, but nevertheless, it ain't shaky.

[dukekenha]

[Replying to post 20 by Zzyzx]

Thank you Zzyzx, learning on how people think is very fascinating. Realworldjack is an ideal person who thinks differently and incomparable to other Christian claimed people in this forum. This kind of people let you think for yourself and let you decide which side you are. They clearly put the facts in front for us readers to weigh.

I'm hoping the exchange will continue. My mind is incapable of thinking how they think. I need to read the post again and again for me to absorb it. (specially that english is not my native tongue) I'm not that of an intelligent person (just an average thinker), but I can understand.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack] The key word you use is, "probably." In reality, I believe "probably," is too strong a word. I believe the better word to use, is the one the article you cite uses, which was, "assumption." Or, you might say, "it is possible this is what Paul suffered from."

My point is, there is no way for any one to know, however, you would think, if Paul suffered from some sort of mental condition, that it would be extremely difficult for Paul to continue throughout the rest of his life, to remain so consistent. You would also think it difficult for Paul to become the biggest missionary, of a Faith he was so opposed to in the beginning. If you read the letters that Luke wrote, I believe you can determine, Luke was very intelligent, he is even referred to as a physician. Therefore, you would think that Luke, would be able to detect some sort of problem with Paul, and point these problems out to the people Paul was preaching to. However, not only does Luke not point to any problems in Paul that he sees, he seems to be in agreement with Paul. This means, not only would Paul have a mental problem, it would seem Luke did as well, along with all those who followed the teachings of Paul, including the other Apostles, who also seem to embrace him as a fellow Brother.

It is clear, Paul had some sort of problem, he referred to as a "thorn in the flesh," but we are never told what this, "thorn," was. Now, you can speculate all you like, but you will have to admit, it is all assumption

Dear jack,
Physicians until recently thought bleeding patients was sound therapy, or that an ice pick through the eye was appropriate treatment for some mental problems. As for the supposed writer of Luke and Acts, whose identity is unknown, it is a bit much to think aniyone at that time could diagnose epilepsy, other than note the blindness, visions, and pain. As for Paul being "consistent", that was one thing he was not. He was known for being "all things to all men". As for the apostles embracing Paul, you might want to quote a source other than unknown writers, who appeared to be associated with Paul. James, in particular, was not on board with the teachings of Paul. The other apostles, such as Matthew, simply quoted Yeshua, and the quotes were specifically detailed, and apparently referred to the likes of Paul as "false prophets" (Mt 7). As for the followers of Paul, they would be "manÿ", and their path would lead to destruction.

First of all, I do not think I have said a word about epilepsy, or that anyone at that time would be able to diagnose this illness. However, I would imagine, if Paul in fact had epilepsy, and continue to suffer from the symptoms, including the seizures, and mental conditions, then I would think those around Paul would have at least known, he had some serious problems, even if they could not in fact diagnose the illness. Allow me to give you an example.

I have a daughter who has a condition. Most people that are around her for any length of time, have no idea what her problem is, however, they do know there is some sort of problem. My point is, if Paul had epilepsy, that included some sort of mental problem, those around him may have no idea what the problem was, but they would surely know, he had a problem! If this was the case, you would think, that at least some of these people would point these things out, and object to Paul being part of the, Apostles. However, we do not see this. In fact what we see is the exact opposite, the Church at Jerusalem, actually send Paul, out and give their blessing to his ministry.

Now, it is certainly comical, how you question, the authorship of Luke, and Acts. On what evidence do you question this? I would say, the only reason you question these two letters, is because, Acts, puts Paul in a good light. There is no doubt that, whoever authored, Luke, also authored, "The Actions of the Apostles." So what problem do you have with the, "Gospel of Luke?" The "Gospel of Luke," seems to be consistent with the other Gospels, so, do you see any problem with what the author communicated, in what is referred to as the, "Gospel of Luke?" More than likely, you have no problem with the, "Gospel of Luke," your problem stems from the fact, that you cannot deny that whoever wrote Luke, also wrote, Acts, as well. So then, you have no choice but to question both, and the only reason you question either, is because you are apparently opposed to, Paul. But you have another problem as well. If you question the book of, Acts, how do you determine, what the original Apostles actually did, after the ascension of Jesus? You would have no record at all without the Acts! You also have another problem. Whoever authored the, Acts, clearly spent some time, traveling with, Paul, and witnessed his ministry, and actions, and Paul testifies, that Luke was with him till the end. Therefore, the author of Acts, and Paul, are consistent with each other.

Now, let us think about this. If you extract the, Acts, and Luke, along with all the letters of Paul from the Bible, what are you left with? This guy, Paul was really something else, wasn't he? I mean here is a guy, who was absolutely opposed to the Christian Faith, he then becomes gravely ill, and although he is gravely ill, he is somehow able to hijack this Christian Faith, and take over. The second part of the Acts, is almost solely about the ministry of Paul, and the majority of the New Testament is Pauline letters, and there was nothing the other Apostles could do about it. Even with the help of God, the other Apostles could do nothing to stop him. Now, that is quite a feat for someone who is gravely ill. Now you go on to say,

As for Paul being "consistent", that was one thing he was not. He was known for being "all things to all men"

Now, you want to talk about taking something completely out of context? First, you take one sentence out of the whole of Paul's writings, and think you can demonstrate his inconsistency. Next, Paul was not, "KNOWN," as you say, to be all things to all people, rather this was Paul himself speaking, and he was saying, he becomes all things to all people. In reality, he was speaking of those who were under the Law, as opposed to those who did not have the Law. In other words, he was not saying, if someone is a thief, I become a thief, etc. Rather, the context clearly reveals, Paul was speaking of those under the Law, (Jews), as opposed to those who are not under the Law, (Gentiles). Not only does the context clearly reveal this, it is actually what Paul says. He goes on to say, "to the weak, I become weak." In other words, Paul is simply saying, that he attempts to put himself in the situation that he finds others in, and uses these situations to bring them to Christ. This is a far, far, cry, from showing, Paul to be inconsistent, and it is sad that you would attempt to use this verse where, Paul is clearly saying he attempts to put himself in the place of others, and say, "Paul was known to be all things, to all people," and this somehow demonstrates his inconsistency. You go on to say,

As for the apostles embracing Paul, you might want to quote a source other than unknown writers, who appeared to be associated with Paul. James, in particular, was not on board with the teachings of Paul.

First of all, as I said it is comical, that you want to question the authorship of, Luke, and Acts, and the only reason more than likely is, that you are opposed to Paul. Since this is the case, then we have to question the authorship of a book that may in fact favor Paul. So it must have been one of those, false prophets, because the teaching of Paul does not line up with the way you would like to believe. OH, but James, well you agree with, James, so there is no question in the world that James, was the author of James. Why? Because, you agree with it. So, if you agree with what is written, there is no question about it, however, if you disagree with it, then we should question the authorship. You do realize, James has only one letter in the whole of the Bible right? And allow me to ask you this. Was, James, an Apostle?

At any rate lets look at this situation between, Paul, and James more closely. One thing I will have to give you credit for, is the fact, that you do understand, that Paul, and James contradict each other. Now, your solution seems to be, to throw Paul out of the Bible, as a false prophet. Not only Paul, but anyone who may agree with him, which would include, Luke, and Acts, and we also need to throw, 2 Peter out because whoever authored this, placed Paul's writings on par with Scripture, so we know this could not be Peter, because he was an Apostle, so throw it out.

Now as I said, I will agree that there is a contradiction, between Paul, and James. Your solution is to throw, Paul out, along with those that agree with him. The reason you do this, is because you tend to agree with James, as opposed to Paul. There are others, who see this contradiction, and their solution is to throw James out. Of course the reason is, they tend to agree with, Paul, as opposed to, James. Then, there are those, who attempt to gloss over this contradiction, and say, there really is no contradiction, and in reality, they are both saying the same things. I have heard, many attempt to do this, and it sounds good as they are speaking, however, when you read, both James, and Paul side, by side, their argument falls flat. I am convinced there is a contradiction between the two. So, who is right, and which one do we need to throw out.

First of all, James was one of the last letters allowed into the cannon, and it was hotly disputed. One of the main reasons, was this apparent contradiction. Martin Luther, actually called the book of James, "a book of straw."

So which one should we throw out of the Bible? Is it Paul, or is it James? Well, my first suggestion for you, is to take a look at a chronological Bible. What you will discover is, it has you read through Acts, chapter 14. At this point it has you read the letter of James. Now why is this? Well lets look at it.

It is clear, the original Apostles were under the impression that the Gospel was only intended for the house of Israel, (Jews). We know this because, Peter, had to be given a vision, for him to even consider going to the house of a Gentile. We also know that the original Apostles, were also under the impression the Law was still in effect, and they were to continue to keep the Laws of God, from obligation. We know this because, when, Peter arrived at the house of this Gentile he stated,

“You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile.

So then, form this statement, we can clearly see, Peter continues to hang on to the Jewish Law. In fact, on his return to Jerusalem, Peter has to give an explanation for his actions, which demonstrates, the rest of the Apostles, were under the impression the Gospel, was for the, Jews only. However, even though they now see, the Gospel is to go to the Gentiles as well, they still have the impression, that the Law is still in effect, and the Gentiles, are to adhere to all of this Law, including circumcision.

This is why, the chronological Bible has you read, through Acts 14, and then read the letter of James. You see, up until this point, James, and the Apostles, would still be under the impression, that the Gentiles were obligated to keep the Law. Paul was out from the Jerusalem Church preaching to the Gentiles. He was preaching, a salvation of, Faith, apart from the works of the Law. James, being at the Church in Jerusalem, was receiving reports about Paul's ministry, and sent those to investigate. When James learned of what was being taught by Paul, he then wrote his letter. After, you read through Acts chapter 14, and then James, you then read Acts chapter 15. Lets see what it says,

Acts 15
New International Version (NIV)
The Council at Jerusalem

15 Certain 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.� 2 This 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. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.�

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After 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. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now 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? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.�

First notice how, Paul was, "welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders." Also notice the question was, "should the Gentiles, be circumcised, and required to keep the law of Moses?" And the look at the response of the Apostle Peter. He says,

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?

WOW! Look at what Peter is saying here! He is in complete agreement with, Paul. He says, "why should we place on the neck of the Gentiles, a yoke, that we, ourselves, and even our ancestors were not able to bear." What is he speaking about? He is clearly speaking of the Law. In other words, no one is able to keep the Law! So then, we are no longer obligated to keep the Law of God, for salvation. Rather, we strive to keep the Law of God, knowing that we will continually fail. However, our salvation does not depend on our ability, to keep the Law, but rather our salvation is by Grace alone, just as Peter says here.

So, what we have here is, James writing his letter before the council at Jerusalem, while he is still under the impression, that the Law of Moses, is still in effect. After the council at Jerusalem, which is recorded in Acts, chapter 15, we see the whole of the Jerusalem Church coming to agreement which would include, James. Here is exactly what James said, at this council, according to Acts,

When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,� he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

So now, we have James in agreement as well. Okay, after reading Acts 15, the chronological Bible has you to read Galatians.

So, what do we have here? Well, we have those such as yourself, who see the contradiction, and tend to agree with, James, as opposed to, Paul, and your solution is to throw, Paul, out ot the Bible, along with anything that may agree with Paul. This would leave us with only 10, or possibly, 11 books in the New Testament. The reason for the 10, or 11, is because we are not sure who the author of Hebrews, might have been. If it was, Paul, then it has to be thrown out as well.

Then there are those, who see this contradiction, and agree with Paul as opposed to James, and their solution is to throw James out of the Bible.

Of course there are also those who claim there is no contradiction at all, and they attempt to cover up the apparent contradiction, by saying that Paul, and James are saying the same thing. which clearly is not the case.

Then there are those, who look at the whole of the Bible, and take all the evidence into account, and can see, it is clear that, James wrote his letter before the council at Jerusalem, and before he was fully aware that the Gentiles, were not obligated to keep the Law. We can also see how James is in complete agreement with the council and goes on, not only to agree with Paul, but also give his blessing to Paul and his teachings.

With this being the case, and it clearly is the case, and you cannot dispute it, then we now are in the situation, where all of the New Testament writers, are in agreement with Paul. Therefore, according to you, all of the New Testament is authored by those who are in agreement with Paul, and we should exclude all of it. So then we have those that want to tear the Bible apart, by including only those parts, they are in agreement with, and excluding those parts they happen to disagree with, thereby making themselves the judge of what should be allowed in the Bible. Then there are those, who allow the Bible to speak for itself, and do the hard work, of reading it the way it actually happened. In other words, they do not make themselves the judge over the Bible. rather they put themselves under the Bible, and labor to read it as it is written. Therefore, they do not exclude any of it at all, but rather, look at all the evidence involved and come to a resolution.

Now, this apparent contradiction between Paul, and James, has been a major issue for quite some time. It is an issue I have struggled with mightily myself, but I was not willing to look over this, and I also was not willing to make myself a judge over the Bible, and determine for myself, what should be included, or excluded. While I continued to struggle over this issue, I never attempted to force any meaning upon it, rather I simply acknowledged, it was beyond my understanding, and continued to struggle with the issue. I believe this is the solution to this contradiction. It acknowledges the contradiction, and allows the events to interpret this contradiction. It does not exclude any of the writings of the New Testament, but it does mean you must do the hard work of allowing the Bible to speak for itself.

Now, as I have always said, I am convinced this is the answer to this apparent contradiction. However, I am open to the possibility of may error, and, I am open to those who my disagree. I understand this is not the topic of this thread, but it sure sounds like a good topic of debate.

[dukekenha]

[Replying to post 23 by Realworldjack]

This throwing of stuffs will make the readers dizzy.

I remember the songs of Beegees.

Don't throw it all away our love, our love
Don't throw it all away our love



Christians should take this advise.

Realworldjack said:

I never attempted to force any meaning upon it, rather I simply acknowledged, it was beyond my understanding, and continued to struggle with the issue. I believe this is the solution to this contradiction. It acknowledges the contradiction, and allows the events to interpret this contradiction. It does not exclude any of the writings of the New Testament, but it does mean you must do the hard work of allowing the Bible to speak for itself.

This will get us to understand without struggle.

[ttruscott]

...

Anyway, the question for debate is this, do you think the myth of Eden, Paul's vision and John's theological speculations are a solid or a shaky foundation for one of the worlds major religions?

I cannot answer since I do not recognize these three things as you portray them. I do not recognize the story of the Garden as myth but as either a rendition of what really happened making much use of symbolic language or a parable with symbolic language, either one of which I find satisfying beyond the category of myth.

I grew up on the Roman, Greek and Norse myths with some Rubaiyat thrown and I am convinced that the Bible is waaaay past these for truth about reality.

As for Paul going to heaven, his story relates that he went to heaven, either in his body or just in his spirit he did not know but he did not (see the emphasis?) claim it was a vision, an interpretation created by a sectarian-ology.

As for John's writing the prophecy he was given by an angel from GOD, they were hardly speculative, neither in nature nor in content.

So, sorry I can't help you out at all. But the story of the Garden, Paul's trip to heaven and the prophecy given to John by an angel are indeed a solid foundation for faith when attested to in our spirits by the Holy Spirit.

Maranatha, Ted

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 17 by Tired of the Nonsense]

This sounds almost exactly like the discussion we had a couple of months back, and I am not willing to continue to rehash the same things, over, and over again. Therefore I will simply direct you to this conversation, we had back then, and simply allow my response then to stand, here as well, since there does not seem to be very much that is new, rather it seems to be pretty much the same argument you used back then.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 0&start=40

Now, as I have said, I doubt very seriously that we will settle our differences here. I can only give reasons for my belief, while you give the reasons for your unbelief. As I said, I am not willing to continue to beat a dead horse, by continuing to say the same things, over, and over again.

[dukekenha]

[Replying to post 26 by Realworldjack]

As I said, I am not willing to continue to beat a dead horse, by continuing to say the same things, over, and over again.

[Zzyzx]

.

I doubt very seriously that we will settle our differences here.

It seems unlikely that differences between Theists and Non-Theists will be settled here or elsewhere.

Perhaps the most important outcome of these debates is to air contrasting ideas for readers to consider.

I can only give reasons for my belief, while you give the reasons for your unbelief.

Haven't you just declined to do so?

As I said, I am not willing to continue to beat a dead horse, by continuing to say the same things, over, and over again.

The primary dead horses here appear to be bible stories presented as though they were literally true. There is always someone who thinks they can defend the biblical flood, for instance, as an actual event as described in Genesis (as is ongoing in a thread currently).

However, I often participate in such threads with the intention of demonstrating (yet again) the massive flaws in the story as anything more than legend, fable, folklore, etc. It is NOT to convince the "true believer", but instead to provide a reasoned counter to religious propaganda that may be meaningful to readers.

[dukekenha]

[Replying to post 28 by Zzyzx]

Realworldjack wrote:

I can only give reasons for my belief, while you give the reasons for your unbelief.

Zzyzx Wrote :
Haven't you just declined to do so?

In fairness to Realworldjack he didn't decline. That is why he gave the link where it was already discussed and was declined by Tired of the nonsense. And continued here (I've just read the conversation at the link)

Realworldjack wrote:

As I said, I am not willing to continue to beat a dead horse, by continuing to say the same things, over, and over again.

Zzyzx wrote

The primary dead horses here appear to be bible stories presented as though they were literally true.

Pretty much of dead horse here is discussing unbelief of the bible to have happened but a hoax as per unbeliever and was done by a bunch of fishermen, and a tax collector. (taking from the previous discussion)