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?

[1213]

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 think Paul’s teachings are based on the teachings that Jesus told. But they have to be understood spiritually.

Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.
1 Cor. 2:13

I think the foundation should be the words that Jesus allegedly said. If Paul is in contradiction with them, then disciples of Jesus should rather remain in words that Jesus told.

[Realworldjack]

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?

You say,

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

This is an incorrect statement. The Apostle Paul was not self appointed. Lets look at what the Apostle Peter had to say of Paul and his writings.

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

So, here is Peter, the leader of the Apostles, saying Paul had wisdom from God. HE also equates Paul's writings, with Scripture. The point is, if Paul was self appointed, then it would seem as if, the other Apostles would have rejected him, and his teachings! They certainly would not place his teachings on par with the rest of Scripture. Also the Jerusalem council gave Paul, and Barnabas, their blessing, and sent them off with to preach to the Gentiles. How can you say, he was SELF appointed. We can really get into talking about this, and I look forward to it. You also say,

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

I have made this statement. Allow me to clarify just a bit. What I mean, and what I have also said is that, "Christianity, is not interested in making me, or any of us moral people. Rather, Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news. It goes on to tell us the Good News, of how God has made a plan to save the immoral. This Good News, is then allowed to have an effect on us, so that we can now go out and serve God, as we serve our neighbor. I have also said, "none of these good works that I may perform in any way, make me a moral person, I am still immoral, and no better off than the worst of sinners, as far as morality."

At any rate, I assume you are a Christian. By your comment, I would also assume you believe Christianity is about making moral people. If this is the case, I would ask. Is it working? Are you a moral person? If so, can you give us some examples of your morality?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 3 by Realworldjack]

The point is, if Paul was self appointed, then it would seem as if, the other Apostles would have rejected him, and his teachings! They certainly would not place his teachings on par with the rest of Scripture. Also the Jerusalem council gave Paul, and Barnabas, their blessing, and sent them off with to preach to the Gentiles. How can you say, he was SELF appointed. We can really get into talking about this, and I look forward to it.

Peter in fact does challenge Paul's authority, as noted in Galations 2:11-14.

***
Incident at Antioch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to the Epistle to the Galatians chapter 2, Peter had traveled to Antioch and there was a dispute between him and Paul. The Epistle does not exactly say if this happened after the Council of Jerusalem or before it, but the incident is mentioned in Paul's letter as his next subject after describing a meeting in Jerusalem which scholars often consider to be the council. Galatians 2:11-13 says:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
To Paul's dismay, the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch sided with Peter, including Paul's long-time associate Barnabas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch

***

But Paul is eventually accepted as one of them. Why? BECAUSE HE BROUGHT THEM MONEY ATTAINED FROM HIS PREACHING AND MINISTERING TO THE GENTILES!

Rom.15
[25] But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
[26] For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
[27] It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

[Zzyzx]

.

You say,

In honorable debate if one disagrees with a statement they present sound opposing argument. When / if they cannot, the original position is undisputed.

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

This is an incorrect statement. The Apostle Paul was not self appointed. Lets look at what the Apostle Peter had to say of Paul and his writings.

According to unverifiable tales, Paul/Saul had a "vision" (or delusion or hallucination or whatever it was) that "appointed" him spokesman (or whatever). Writings attributed to Paul/Saul say almost nothing about the supposed incident but it is detailed by the anonymous author of Acts.

A number of people have "visions" and consider themselves to be "appointed by god" – many are institutionalized.

So, here is Peter, the leader of the Apostles, saying Paul had wisdom from God. HE also equates Paul's writings, with Scripture.

Writings from decades, generations or centuries later say whatever religion promoters of the era wished to have said on behalf of their chosen dogma.

The point is, if Paul was self appointed, then it would seem as if, the other Apostles would have rejected him, and his teachings! They certainly would not place his teachings on par with the rest of Scripture. Also the Jerusalem council gave Paul, and Barnabas, their blessing, and sent them off with to preach to the Gentiles.

So goes the tale.

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

I have made this statement. Allow me to clarify just a bit. What I mean, and what I have also said is that, "Christianity, is not interested in making me, or any of us moral people.

What, then is the objective of Christianity? Is it nothing more than to promote worship of one of the "gods" in order to achieve rewards in a supposed "afterlife?"

Rather, Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news. It goes on to tell us the Good News, of how God has made a plan to save the immoral.

Let's go over how this works. A "god" (with supposedly unlimited knowledge and ability) is said to have made people who are immoral – then offers some of them a chance to become moral and thereby qualify for rewards in a proposed "afterlife."

Is that about how the story goes?

This Good News, is then allowed to have an effect on us, so that we can now go out and serve God, as we serve our neighbor.

The actual good news is that none of the above can be shown to be anything more than imagination.

People adopt a personal moral code based upon a number of factors including genetics, environment, society, earlier decisions, etc. Some choose to include religion among their influences – others choose to be religion-free. It doesn't seem to make any difference whether religion is a factor in morality – although religionists claim that it is (but show no evidence).

I have also said, "none of these good works that I may perform in any way, make me a moral person, I am still immoral, and no better off than the worst of sinners, as far as morality."

One is free to consider themselves as immoral as they wish.

Many of us prefer to think and act as a moral, ethical, honorable people and to consider ourselves as such.

[dukekenha]

[Replying to post 6 by Zzyzx]

Zzyzx wrote :

Realworldjack wrote:

Rather, Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news. It goes on to tell us the Good News, of how God has made a plan to save the immoral.

Let's go over how this works. A "god" (with supposedly unlimited knowledge and ability) is said to have made people who are immoral

I saw "made a plan to save the immoral", but didn't see made people who are immoral.

Realworldjack wrote:

What I mean, and what I have also said is that, "Christianity, is not interested in making me, or any of us moral people.

This Good News, is then allowed to have an effect on us, so that we can now go out and serve God, as we serve our neighbor.

then Zzyzx wrote :

then offers some of them a chance to become moral and thereby qualify for rewards in a proposed "afterlife."

I think your story is different from what is being told.

then Realworldjack wrote:

I have also said, "none of these good works that I may perform in any way, make me a moral person, I am still immoral, and no better off than the worst of sinners, as far as morality."

so you say

Is that about how the story goes?

I think not.

[Zzyzx]

.

Let's go over how this works. A "god" (with supposedly unlimited knowledge and ability) is said to have made people who are immoral

I saw "made a plan to save immoral", but didn't see made people who are immoral.

1) Did a god make humans (according to the bible)?

2) Is the statement by RWJ correct? "Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news"

If the answer to both questions is "yes", the god MUST be credited with making people who are immoral.

If statement #2 is incorrect, RWJ has misrepresented Christianity.

then offers some of them a chance to become moral and thereby qualify for rewards in a proposed "afterlife."

I think your story is different from what is being told.

Perhaps you can clarify the story?

[dukekenha]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

1) Did a god make humans (according to the bible)?

If it will be according to the bible your question is wrong. But I know you know that in the scripture it is written that God is our Creator.

2) Is the statement by RWJ correct? "Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news"

As far as I can see it is in line with the scripture

If the answer to both questions is "yes", the god MUST be credited with making people who are immoral.

There you go again. You conclude something that is not anywhere in the statement. None in the statement shows man was made immoral. But if you will base it in the scripture. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." I hope it answer your question.

If statement #2 is incorrect, RWJ has misrepresented Christianity.

As far as the scripture is concern you misrepresented Christianity.

And so you go on

Perhaps you can clarify the story?

Ok let me quote it again.

RWJ wrote :

I have made this statement. Allow me to clarify just a bit. What I mean, and what I have also said is that, "Christianity, is not interested in making me, or any of us moral people. Rather, Christianity tells us we are immoral, which is the bad news. It goes on to tell us the Good News, of how God has made a plan to save the immoral. This Good News, is then allowed to have an effect on us, so that we can now go out and serve God, as we serve our neighbor. I have also said, "none of these good works that I may perform in any way, make me a moral person, I am still immoral, and no better off than the worst of sinners, as far as morality."

What was said was clear and I can no longer clarify what is clear.

[Realworldjack]