' Defining Christianity ' How?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

' Houston, we have a problem! '

On the surface of things, Christianity is easy to define. It comes from Christ and Christ comes from the 1st century personage of Jesus.

With the proliferation of interpretation and disagreement around the circumstances of the Jesus happening...the whole thing becomes like a competitive game of stick- stacking. Invariably ,all ends down in a heap.

Define - late Middle English: from Latin definitio(n- ), from the verb definire ‘set bounds to’ (see define).

How do you set bounds to this metropolis of a religious sprawl?

I would start here and probably end very close by.

Matthew 5:16
' Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.'

Start at the table of hard graft.

Question:How would you begin to define Christianity?

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20]

Hello TRANSPONDER

That response was just terrible, I asked you to evaluate a short link from a quasi-secular source and it appears to have induced an exorcism from within you.( lots of forgettable mutterings).I am going to hold you to your own self-declared standards. Just stick to what we are talking about. Was Jesus a general builder? Did he work with stone? ( What part of the link is inaccurate?)

Explain this to me ,please.

Matthew 21:44
"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."

---------
You say - 'If we can't understand the historical mindset well enough to know what they are talking about, what is the point of trying to use their writings to influence our thinking today?'

You say - 'I hope the idea is not that the understanding comes through divine communication rather than reading the Bible (what it says)'

You say - 'It is odd or curious that at times I have seen atheists accused of 'Bible literalism'. We do of course take the Bible at face value (give or take poetic similes or metaphor) and do not 'interpret' it to mean in some mysterious way, something other than what it says.'

Get your act together, T.
Give us something worthwhile.
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Sory you don'tlike my response. I'll try not to let that keep me awake at night.

As to your Bible -passage, I explained that, twice now. But what good is it explaining anything when you dismiss it as 'terrible' and 'mutterings'?

Of course, just to bring it up, the theist apologetic scam of pretending not to understand until the Bible critic gives up and they can tell themselves (and anyone who reads their stuff) that no atheist can beat them.

You would be better than that of course and it wouldn't work anyway.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You talk a good game, you outline proper procedure and all that,...

You say - 'If we can't understand the historical mindset well enough to know what they are talking about, what is the point of trying to use their writings to influence our thinking today?'

You say - 'I hope the idea is not that the understanding comes through divine communication rather than reading the Bible (what it says)'

You say - 'It is odd or curious that at times I have seen atheists accused of 'Bible literalism'. We do of course take the Bible at face value (give or take poetic similes or metaphor) and do not 'interpret' it to mean in some mysterious way, something other than what it says.'
--------
.and then you give us diddly squat. This is not a mensa standard question?

Just stick to what we are talking about. Was Jesus a general builder? Did he work with stone? ( What part of the link is inaccurate?)

https://jamestabor.com/was-jesus-a-carpenter/

Explain this to me ,please.

Matthew 21:44
"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."

What is 'this stone',T?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

https://jamestabor.com/was-jesus-a-carpenter/

TRANSPONDER, can disengage with this discussion at any time. I would not blame him if he did.

I assume from previous posts of his that he has generally accepted the concept of a historical Jesus. He attests to reading the Bible as is. There is a quote about Jesus being the carpenter's son. He could be anything.
The attributed words of this historical Jesus are littered with references to stones and general building analogies. The strong suggestion is that Jesus was a hired labourer ( at least) during his life. This would be important to us for our understanding of NT quotes like Matthew 21:44.

The fact that TRANSPONDER shows a real reluctance to engage his brain with such issues while still prognosticating about properly scholarly process is bewildering to me.

Where did Jesus live?
What did he work at?
How did he become so scripturally learned?
Was he attending lessons with John the Babtist

If TRANSPONDER does not do the leg-work on all this, or at least confront it when it is dished up to him ,he plays the role of the theological charlatan. He is extrapolating long range hypotheses out of the words. That is the very thing that he stated should not be done.

Look at this, you rub a few stones together and all T can see is Temples falling and a consensus conspiracy in the Gospel writings. This whole thing is now (allegedly) a push to steal a Jewish God for scrappage....daylight robbery of a deity!

That may indeed be a nuance of these words but it is not essentially what they are. Matthew is a moral lesson dictated by a Jesus who knows what he is talking about. What is he talking about,T?

Matthew 21:44
"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You talk a good game, you outline proper procedure and all that,...

You say - 'If we can't understand the historical mindset well enough to know what they are talking about, what is the point of trying to use their writings to influence our thinking today?'

You say - 'I hope the idea is not that the understanding comes through divine communication rather than reading the Bible (what it says)'

You say - 'It is odd or curious that at times I have seen atheists accused of 'Bible literalism'. We do of course take the Bible at face value (give or take poetic similes or metaphor) and do not 'interpret' it to mean in some mysterious way, something other than what it says.'
--------
.and then you give us diddly squat. This is not a mensa standard question?

Just stick to what we are talking about. Was Jesus a general builder? Did he work with stone? ( What part of the link is inaccurate?)

https://jamestabor.com/was-jesus-a-carpenter/

Explain this to me ,please.

Matthew 21:44
"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."

What is 'this stone',T?

Didn't I already explain that? Twice? It is an invented narrative (we don't find it in John of course) repeating the idea of a Church with Jesus as the head or foundation of that and how it is going to replace the Jewish religion, Law and nation. We see this repeated through the gospels as retrospective prophecy.

Why do you keep repeating that passage (quotemined out of context, too) as though it was somehow of significance other than how little Bible -believers understand it?

Possibly rhetorical question; I suspect the final ploy of the Bible apologist is to keep repeating one Thing,dismiss any response, and pretend it is an atheist -stumper they can't answer and therefore their apologetic wins.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

Hello
Would anyone care to evaluate this Post(or mine). I personally have lost the will to live.
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #24]

Infantile. Look, this is the stuff of Sci -fi fandom. Affictionadoes treat the world of Startrek (not Star wars which is simply fantasy) as though it was real.How does a transporter work? How does a replicator work? Can you bunk in with a crewmate off duty or is against regulations.

That is all fine so long as the adherents do not take it seriously.

Of course at one time, people seriously discussed the details of Jesus' life as based on Bible comments which are as likely to be metaphorical as not, while they try to excuse wrong things as 'we can't understand what they meant' they take as serious clues to the minutiae of Jesus' daily doings as though it mattered, never mind whether it's true.

I suggest you confine your posts to proper apologetics and hot Biblical fanfic speculations.

Hello
Would anyone care to evaluate this Post(or mine). I personally have lost the will to live.
Thanks

More grubby Bible - apologist tricks. Rather than listen they 'give up' while dismissing the counter case without even considering it and grandstanding to everyone with an appeal to agree.

I also invite anyone else to discuss what 'tekton' actually means and whether it told us how Jesus worked until he left home and started a cult, if there is anyone who finds such a discussion useful or relevant let alone true.

In the meantime the OP is done. Nobody (least of all atheists) denied that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus (whether they follow his words or not - they may not be a great Christian but they are still a Christian) and Jesusgod if he was real would judge harshly those who denounced other Christians as 'Not Real Christians' on the basis of dogma, denomination of devotional practises.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20]

Hello TRANSPONDER

That response was just terrible, I asked you to evaluate a short link from a quasi-secular source and it appears to have induced an exorcism from within you.( lots of forgettable mutterings).I am going to hold you to your own self-declared standards. Just stick to what we are talking about. Was Jesus a general builder? Did he work with stone? ( What part of the link is inaccurate?)

Explain this to me ,please.

Explanation:
Jesus was a stonemason! Yes!
It springs from a cultural mistranslation and false understanding of ecunomic possibilitys in biblical times to turn Christ into a carpenter who worked with wood, which he never was.

Wood was so precious back then, that it was used only for doors and ships. Jesus could only have worked with stone to build houses. And that makes him a stonemason.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20]

Hello TRANSPONDER

That response was just terrible, I asked you to evaluate a short link from a quasi-secular source and it appears to have induced an exorcism from within you.( lots of forgettable mutterings).I am going to hold you to your own self-declared standards. Just stick to what we are talking about. Was Jesus a general builder? Did he work with stone? ( What part of the link is inaccurate?)

Explain this to me ,please.

Explanation:
Jesus was a stonemason! Yes!
It springs from a cultural mistranslation and false understanding of ecunomic possibilitys in biblical times to turn Christ into a carpenter who worked with wood, which he never was.

Wood was so precious back then, that it was used only for doors and ships. Jesus could only have worked with stone to build houses. And that makes him a stonemason.

"I'm never so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)

Yes. This 'carpenter' traditional translation of tekton (builder could as well mean that Jesus was familiar enough with building to be able to use the simile of a capstone. I had got so far past taking symbolism of that kind literally that explaining that didn't even seem worth doing.

Jesus as a tekton is symbolic of the one who builds the church (which he doesn't - not even Paul does that, nor the evangelists, but Paul lays down the theology, the evangelists paganize it so the messiah becomes a demigod, but the church fathers establish the doctrine and the sect that won (Roman church) is the real 'Tekton' of Christianity.

Asking about Jesus is like asking me what Robin Hood used to do for a living before he took to the Greenwood.

p.s, wood in fact though not plentiful, was available, because Herod built Caesarea port for import and export and the Romans carried on importing scarce stuff like wood. Not that the locals gave them any thanks for it but roiled because the religious fanatics were not running the country. Another bit of evidence that devout religion hurts a country and people rather than helps it. Though I might be wrong. Siam's strong Buddhism helped it resit Islam which devastated the Hindo - Buddlhism of Malaya and Java.

So Judaism has kept Jewish identity to survive, whereas otherwise it might have been absorbed.

Whether that's a good or bad thing, I leave to others.