Why Christianity?

[Randy Carson]

And when I see things like the image Brakeman posted, I have to wonder if that has something to do with the various contradictions and change of tone between the two.

Tori-

What Brakeman posted is pure crap. I demolished that nonsense in another thread.

If I can convince you of nothing else, take a few moments and read the OP:

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
http://atheistforums.org/thread-33349-po...#pid941520

If you have any questions, let me know.

[Randy Carson]

Though this brings me to another question, if I'm understanding you right you're basically saying the Catholic Church is the one God intended us to follow, so that means the other churches under the Christianity sect are false? I see some people on the flip-side feel the same about Catholics and even spread misinformation. Why is there so much of a divide between people who claim to be God's children?

Two reasons: 1) Satan is very smart, and 2) people are human and have made mistakes.

As for the establishment of the Catholic Church, take a look at what Jesus said:

    Matthew 16:18-19
    18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of     heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

How many churches did Jesus promise to build?
Who did Jesus give the keys to?

Now, here is the full explanation...it's a bit long, but stick with me to the end, okay?

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity -- despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter to the office of Royal Steward granting him the authority to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter could not teach error. God’s protection of His own flock by preventing the formal teaching of error in His name is referred to as “infallibility”.

Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then don't Peter's successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today?

As for there being no comparisons to Jesus, I've seen comparisons made between him and Horus, as well as Mithras, but I couldn't tell you how well the comparisons hold up. I've seen the Jesus/Horus comparison before when I was still a Christian and can honestly say it was the first time I seriously questioned my faith. I'm curious what everyone's here views on those comparisons are.

There are some similarities, but not enough to prove causation. We can talk more about Horus and Mithras tomorrow.

'Nite.

[Ravenshire]

Except when someone asks a question you can't quote mine an answer for.

Like post #232?

Grow up.

You're the one on an atheist site attempting to sell your snake oil and I'm the one who needs to grow up.

How 'bout you present some actual, testable, verifiable (not already debunked) evidence for your childish beliefs before telling someone else to grow up?

[Shuffle]

1. Yes. That is what I am claiming. To the best of my knowledge, there was no God who was a prototype of Jesus who:

• died and then came back to life in his original body on this earth a few days later
  
• died one time
  
• died as a sacrifice for others
  
• died in a manner that is considered a victory and not mourned by his family and followers
  

There are other significant differences, but we can discuss them specifically as needed. If you believe that the disciples got all these ideas from pagan gods that were in existence before Jesus, what god(s) do you have in mind?
Taking them one at a time would be best. Who is your first candidate?

3. Your sense doesn't make something true. It either is or isn't apart from your opinion. But when something makes sense, you understand and grasp the truth of it.


4. Thank you for the list you provided earlier. Perhaps we can return to it at some point.

I hope this satisfies your request for a response to your post. Please advise.

1. First, I want to say that I do not "believe that the disciples got all these ideas from pagan that were in existence before Jesus." I was only trying to say that there were "gods that died and resurrected before Jesus." Also, what stops me from making up some god that meets all of your prerequisites and say it happened before Jesus?

3. But just imagine if scientists worked that way. "Um, yeah. This makes sense to me. Uh huh. Ok, lets put it in the textbooks!"

4. I was sort of joking... we don't need to take that any further.

[Kaninchen]

If you've been paying attention, you will have noticed that at no time during her membership in this forum (prompted by her truly unfortunate suspension at CAF for the same empty snarkiness we're witnessing here) has kaninchen ever bothered to take one of my posts apart by quoting scholars, scripture, popular articles or any other source she could possibly use to demonstrate the validity of her own position. This is because she has no position. That's not why she's here.

Heaven's Randy, stop being petulent, I'm here to share the benefits of having enjoyed watching CAF's answer to Glengarry, Glen Ross for so long.


You see, Randy, it's not that you're the worst apologist I've come across in 20 years of discussing religion on the Internet or, even, that you're the most useless or most pretentious.  It's your complete lack of self-awareness, together with the interpersonal responsiveness of an old-fashioned 'speak-your-weight' machine, that makes you so entertaining.


Above all, though, it's the contradictions - the man who sells religion as a product with the devotion and effortless charm of an Apple/Android fanboi on a smartphone review site reveals more about himself than he imagines.


Randy, you're not a believer, you're a man who bought a product and desperately tries to re-convince himself every day by copying and pasting the product specifications.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Ref. Post #242: David was a despicable person who had no morals or redeeming qualities. He ranks right up there in the top five worse characters in the biblical fairy tale. He might have been OK as a boy but when he became a man he turned into garbage. To claim him as an ancestor just shows that you came from a rotten tree. And bad trees don't bear good fruit, according to the fairy tale.

[Randy Carson]

If you've been paying attention, you will have noticed that at no time during her membership in this forum (prompted by her truly unfortunate suspension at CAF for the same empty snarkiness we're witnessing here) has kaninchen ever bothered to take one of my posts apart by quoting scholars, scripture, popular articles or any other source she could possibly use to demonstrate the validity of her own position. This is because she has no position. That's not why she's here.

Heaven's Randy, stop being petulent, I'm here to share the benefits of having enjoyed watching CAF's answer to Glengarry, Glen Ross for so long.


You see, Randy, it's not that you're the worst apologist I've come across in 20 years of discussing religion on the Internet or, even, that you're the most useless or most pretentious.  It's your complete lack of self-awareness, together with the interpersonal responsiveness of an old-fashioned 'speak-your-weight' machine, that makes you so entertaining.


Above all, though, it's the contradictions - the man who sells religion as a product with the devotion and effortless charm of an Apple/Android fanboi on a smartphone review site reveals more about himself than he imagines.


Randy, you're not a believer, you're a man who bought a product and desperately tries to re-convince himself every day by copying and pasting the product specifications.

I appreciate the back-handed compliments. I try to add to my knowledge and ability to assist others every day.

It's interesting that you presume that I'm not a believer. Kinda makes me wonder what I've been doing for the past 40 years. If we sat down for a coffee to chat live civilized people rather than snarking at each other anonymously on the Internet, you might come to a different conclusion. Maybe not.

But I'm curious...you're familiar with some of the more famous contemporary apologists - people like:

• Karl Keating
  
• Jimmy Akin
  
• Tim Staples
  
• Patrick Madrid
  
• Trent Horn
  

and many others. Are all of these men "car salesmen", also? Or is this a designation you reserve for me alone?

If the latter, then what is the difference? Because I'm pretty steeped in the Catholic Answers school, my arguments were learned primarily (though not exclusively) from them, and my methodologies are not really any different than those found in articles and books that are quite common.

[Kaninchen]

and many others. Are all of these men "car salesmen", also? Or is this a designation you reserve for me alone?

If the latter, then what is the difference? Because I'm pretty steeped in the Catholic Answers school, my arguments were learned primarily (though not exclusively) from them, and my methodologies are not really any different than those found in articles and books that are quite common.

We’ve just come back from the first of our Italian holidays this year and, last week, we were sitting outside a typical Roman bar, drinking coffee, watching the world go by.  At an adjacent table a group were talking about their visit to the Vatican and its museums and one woman was talking about the emotional effect it had on her, as a lapsed Catholic.  The others hadn’t had that kind of experience but she was very clear, when she got back home, she was off to church.  All rather touching really, her crossing of the Tevere (Tiber to you) had been personally shattering.  Rather tangentially, that example of the Christian argument that conversion is a product of God’s drawing of the individual to him, made me wonder about my experience of religious people online over the years.
 
As an outside observer, I think something has happened to some Catholic online apologists as the Internet years have gone by, a product of interaction with Protestant Fundamentalism - battling away with acres of proof texts and supposed ‘evidence’- and, quite possibly, the conversion of some of its adherents.  The Church may not have changed but, cutting a long story short, Josh McDowell is a long, long way from ‘Evangelii Gaudium’ and since when has Liberty University been seen as a key centre of Catholic faith development?
 
Randy, all this charging around waving Protestant sales materials about doesn’t speak of any kind of intellectual or spiritual discipline, neither does the ready copy and pasting of yet another ‘here’s one I baked earlier’ answer speak of engaging with the person you’re failing to talk to.
 
So, the only car salesman?  Perhaps not but probably the most deaf one.

[Randy Carson]

and many others. Are all of these men "car salesmen", also? Or is this a designation you reserve for me alone?

If the latter, then what is the difference? Because I'm pretty steeped in the Catholic Answers school, my arguments were learned primarily (though not exclusively) from them, and my methodologies are not really any different than those found in articles and books that are quite common.

We’ve just come back from the first of our Italian holidays this year and, last week, we were sitting outside a typical Roman bar, drinking coffee, watching the world go by.  At an adjacent table a group were talking about their visit to the Vatican and its museums and one woman was talking about the emotional effect it had on her, as a lapsed Catholic.  The others hadn’t had that kind of experience but she was very clear, when she got back home, she was off to church.  All rather touching really, her crossing of the Tevere (Tiber to you) had been personally shattering.  Rather tangentially, that example of the Christian argument that conversion is a product of God’s drawing of the individual to him, made me wonder about my experience of religious people online over the years.
 
As an outside observer, I think something has happened to some Catholic online apologists as the Internet years have gone by, a product of interaction with Protestant Fundamentalism - battling away with acres of proof texts and supposed ‘evidence’- and, quite possibly, the conversion of some of its adherents.  The Church may not have changed but, cutting a long story short, Josh McDowell is a long, long way from ‘Evangelii Gaudium’ and since when has Liberty University been seen as a key centre of Catholic faith development?
 
Randy, all this charging around waving Protestant sales materials about doesn’t speak of any kind of intellectual or spiritual discipline, neither does the ready copy and pasting of yet another ‘here’s one I baked earlier’ answer speak of engaging with the person you’re failing to talk to.
 
So, the only car salesman?  Perhaps not but probably the most deaf one.

Interesting.

When you reflected on the woman's desire to return to the practice of her faith, Kaninchen, were you moved in any way to reflect upon the practice of your own?

[Shuffle]

Randy, are you going to reply to post #244, or should I just chalk it up to another dodging of my points by yet another theist?