Why does Christianity evolve?

[nobspeople]

Arguably, Christianity was as different, when it originally started amongst the various groups with different ideals, than today's view.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... rsity.html

Even among modern Christian societies, there are differences (Catholic, Protestant and (Eastern) Orthodox).

If Christianity is so right, so strong, so righteous, so...'God'... one would think it would change its environment and not be changed by its environment.
It seems, at least in America, American society is, in some ways, changing Christianity.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/arti ... he-gospel/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christia ... t_b_817102 *

So why does it change over time? Is it 'God's will'? Is it just made up mumbo jumbo? Or do people just not care, anymore?

EDIT: * Forgot to include originally

[We_Are_VENOM]

Arguably, Christianity was as different, when it originally started amongst the various groups with different ideals, than today's view.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... rsity.html

Even among modern Christian societies, there are differences (Catholic, Protestant and (Eastern) Orthodox).

If Christianity is so right, so strong, so righteous, so...'God'... one would think it would change its environment and not be changed by its environment.
It seems, at least in America, American society is, in some ways, changing Christianity.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/arti ... he-gospel/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christia ... t_b_817102 *

So why does it change over time? Is it 'God's will'? Is it just made up mumbo jumbo? Or do people just not care, anymore?

EDIT: * Forgot to include originally

I can think of at least 3 reasons why Christianity has seemingly "evolved" or "changed"..

1. Satan: Satan is still out here deceiving people, just as much now as he did during the beginning of time (Fall of Man).

2. The telephone game: It is a known fact that over time, the purity of any message will eventually become flawed....but the further you go back in time, the more virtuous the message becomes. A lot of that may have to do with Satan as well.

3. The Bible: I must admit, sometimes the Bible has the tendency to give seemingly mixed messages...and unless you have a very comprehensive Bible study, you may find yourself being led astray on the wrong side of what the author originally intended.

That is why I love historical methodology so much..it helps get to the bottom of things.

[JehovahsWitness]

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus dead or alive, for that matter.

Did I not just referr to one? I know for a fact that there are eyewitness accounts since I just referred to one.

Prove that anybody who wrote of Jesus was an eyewitness.

Prove the claim false.


The whole point of a WITNESS is that he or she testify and the truth of that testimony be supported or disproved by available evidence. The support is that the gospel accounts, including that of John were by all evidence produced within living memory of the events by those in a position to have witnessed said events. There are no valid reasons to disbelieve the claims since they were subsequently substantiated by multiple other witnesses whose testimony is recorded in writing.

JOHN
**The historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.) quotes Irenaeus as saying: John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius)

**Irenaeus (d. approx 200) testified in his letters to Florinus, that he studied under Polycarp , an overseer in the Smyrna congregation and a "a living link" to the apostles. He affirms that Polycarp was "his familiar [...] with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord". He also quotes the earlier works of Papias, who, lived in the period immediately following the death of Jesus Christ's apostles and was an associate of Polycarp both of whom would therefore would be reliable sources of gospel authoriship.

================>
MATTHEW Authorship:Eusebius quoted Papias of Hierapolis (2nd Century) saying Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language. (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16), Irenaeus of Gaul**, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea

Further Reading
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

RELATED POSTS

Are the gospels mere hearsay?
viewtopic.php?p=1043571#p1043571

Are the gospel claims substantiated ?
viewtopic.php?p=1041048#p1041048

Is the testimony from an anonymous witnesses admissible in a court of law?
viewtopic.php?p=1040994#p1040994

Does a witness have to prove he witnessed an event?
viewtopic.php?p=1041058#p1041058

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[Difflugia]

Prove that anybody who wrote of Jesus was an eyewitness.

Prove the claim false.

Now you're back to the Flintstones.

[Tcg]

JOHN
**The historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.) quotes Irenaeus as saying: John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius)

This is amusing. You've provided a bit of HEARSAY in your attempt to prove that the anonymous Gospel of John isn't HEARSAY.


Tcg

[Tcg]

The support is that the gospel accounts, including that of John were by all evidence produced within living memory of the events by those in a position to have witnessed said events.

This too includes a fascinating line of reasoning:

"Hey judge, we got this guy here who claims to have seen something."

'Who is this witness.'

"He didn't say."

'How then do you know that he saw this something he claims to have seen?'

"Because he would have been alive during the time this something he claims happened would have happened."

'How old is he?'

"We don't know because we don't know who he is."

'Case dismissed.'


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

You've provided a bit of HEARSAY in your attempt to prove that the anonymous Gospel of John isn't HEARSAY.

A WITNESS has nothing to prove ( he's not on trial) . In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written [be it anonomously or not], of what he or she knows or claims to know. It is for those that cross examine said witness to attempt to prove his or her testimony wrong.

As I said earlier ...prove them wrong If you can.



JW


Further Reading
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

RELATED POSTS

Are the gospels mere hearsay?
viewtopic.php?p=1043571#p1043571

Are the gospel claims substantiated ?
viewtopic.php?p=1041048#p1041048

Is the testimony from an anonymous witnesses admissible in a court of law?
viewtopic.php?p=1040994#p1040994

Does a witness have to prove he witnessed an event?
viewtopic.php?p=1041058#p1041058

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[Difflugia]

A WITNESS has nothing to prove ( he's not on trial) . In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written [be it anonomously or not], of what he or she knows or claims to know. It is for those that cross examine said witness to attempt to prove his or her testimony wrong.

Now you're equivocating on what "witness" means. Earlier a "witness" was someone that experienced an event directly, but now you're defining a witness as merely providing testimony.

[1213]

... we have no verifiable evidence at all for any spirits...

I think Bible is verifiable evidence, we can demonstrate Bible exists and it tells for example about spirit that is love.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

But, maybe you don’t know love. It is interesting that Bible has also spirit of truth:

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

I can believe that not all has that.

But, obviously that is different thing than human spirit. Before knowing do you have spirit, it should be defined what it means. But, I don’t think it is necessary to prove you have spirit.

[Paul of Tarsus]

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus dead or alive, for that matter.

Did I not just referr to one? I know for a fact that there are eyewitness accounts since I just referred to one.

Prove that anybody who wrote of Jesus was an eyewitness.

Prove the claim false.

I can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

The whole point of a WITNESS is that he or she testify and the truth of that testimony be supported or disproved by available evidence. The support is that the gospel accounts, including that of John were by all evidence produced within living memory of the events by those in a position to have witnessed said events. There are no valid reasons to disbelieve the claims since they were subsequently unsubstantiated by multiple other witnesses whose testimony is recorded in writing.

Actually, according to the Illustrated Bible Handbook, page 259, many scholars contend that "Irenaeus was confused and inaccurate" regarding the authorship of John and that we will never know who wrote the fourth Gospel. If John had written the fourth Gospel, then his version of the story would not be so different from the synoptics.

JOHN
**The historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.) quotes Irenaeus as saying: John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius)

**Irenaeus (d. approx 200) testified in his letters to Florinus, that he studied under Polycarp , an overseer in the Smyrna congregation and a "a living link" to the apostles. He affirms that Polycarp was "his familiar [...] with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord". He also quotes the earlier works of Papias, who, lived in the period immediately following the death of Jesus Christ's apostles and was an associate of Polycarp both of whom would therefore would be reliable sources of gospel authoriship.

================>
MATTHEW Authorship:Eusebius quoted Papias of Hierapolis (2nd Century) saying Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language. (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16), Irenaeus of Gaul**, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea

Well, that's what Eusebius said that Irenaeus said, hardly an eyewitness account. Papias mentions an Elder John who lived in Ephesus whom Irenaeus may have confused with the Apostle John.

In any case, we cannot know if John was authored by an eyewitness of Jesus.

[JehovahsWitness]

.. many scholars contend that "Irenaeus was confused and inaccurate" regarding the authorship of John and that we will never know who wrote the fourth Gospel.

The writer himself never claims to be John the point however is that whoever he was, the writer testifies To be an eyewitness of the events recorded and that such a claim is substantiated by outside sources.

Prove the claim false.

I can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

It is not an unfalsifiable claim; you have but to present evidence that the witness could not possibly have been where he claimed to be at the time he claimed to be there. Or prove that what he claimed to witness could not possibly have happened.

Otherwise, you got nothing and the witness stands,

JW