Do Christians worship a suicide victim?

[Ignorant]

1) whats your point? [1]

2) not particularly interested, [2] they all wrote separate from the character that was supposed to be entrusted in delivering the "message" [3] ... When I send an important message I don't entrust it to those that may  change the message for their own ends ... [4]

3) I have a beef with the mode of transmission of the "message" because it leads me to believe it was made up [5] ... that doesn't mean I can't have a beef with the "message"  as promoted by you ... are you playing games? [6]

4) ... so you can't verify anything of consequence [7] so your "faith" makes do with a tenuous historical line of story-telling ( you describe as teaching) [8] .... Sorry but that's just not good enough for me ... [9]

I suppose faith is the Jack in the pack .... pull it out and it covers everything you can't back with proper evidence  : [10] 

1) When you talk to someone in person, do you expect everything they say to have a point? Does commentary exist where you come from? Do people every communicate in a non-argumentative form? My "point" is exactly what I said. Given your comment marked by my #3, I found your comments marked by my #1 to be interesting.

2) Not many people are interested in historical research. Fair enough.

3) And yet, there was one community which could claim something these other people couldn't: apostolic succession. Sure, different gnostic sects would write their own gospels. How could you tell who was gnostic and who was not? Well, who was their bishop? Who was bishop before him? Before him? If you eventually end up at an apostle or a bishop established by an apostle, then you have found the answer.

4) Of course you wouldn't. Can you demonstrate or identify in the historical texts a change in the message, much less a change made to suit individual ends?

5) Oh I see. Because the centuries have passed down different versions of the message, at times contradictory, you see no rational way to identify the authentic one if it exists at all. Practically, therefore, there is no authentic message. You conclude that it was all made up. Fair enough. How do you account for all of those aspects of the message that were consistently passed through the ages well enough that you could form the intelligible post which began this thread?

6) Well that is just the thing. You don't seem to have a beef with the message I proposed. You seem merely to challenge me on the point that the message I proposed is the one historically attributable to the first Christians. There is the message itself (which I offered as an interpretation of the events surrounding Christ's death which clearly do not coincide with suicide, but rather voluntary sacrifice for the good of others) and then there is the question as to whether or not that message was the same which the apostles taught. It is simple distinction.

7) I can't, in principle, verify the truth of the data of revelation by scientific means (e.g. I can't verify that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by scientific methods). I can, in principle, verify that the apostles taught that data as revelation by scientific means. I can, in principle, verify that the Catholic Church (hierarchy, religious, and lay faithful included) is historically continuous with the original community of the those same apostles and first Christians. I can, in principle, verify that the Catholic Church teaches the same data as revelation as the apostles taught as revelation. That has consequences for me. If it doesn't for you, fair enough.

8) No. My faith makes do with the God who effectively communicates through that tenuous line of story telling which (given the history of other human institutions) is strikingly efficient at preserving a simple message with complex implications through a course of highly voltatile 2000 years and countless idiots who didn't care about the message who somehow ended up in charge.

9) Fair enough.

10) Well sure, if you want to ignore the distinction I've made between the sorts of information I find true by faith (e.g. God is Father, Son and Spirit; Jesus is God and Man united in a single person; Jesus's passion and death and resurrection do bring about my reconciliation with God and do promise eternal life, etc.) and the sorts of information I find true due to historical science (e.g. the Apostles taught that God is Father, Son and Spirit; the Apostles taught that Jesus is God and Man united in a single person; the Apostles taught that Jesus's passion and death and resurrection do bring about my reconciliation etc.), then ya straw man my contribution as one that retreats and pulls the faith card.

Because Christ didn't write anything down, the only record of his message which has any hope of historical reliability would be found in the message of the Apostles. The message of the apostles can be historically identified (and for Catholics, that message is identifiable with Catholic teaching). If the Apostles' message authentically coincides and represents the message of Christ, then it IS the message of Christ. There is no way, in principle, to demonstrate this authenticity through historical science. You either believe the Apostles or you don't, and if you believe them, you either believe Christ or you don't. So either:

a) You find that the apostle's message can't be historically identified

b) If you find that it can, then you find that message can't be held to be that of Christ's

c) if you find that it can, then you find that message to be one of suicide by proxy, and unworthy of belief. <= This is what I thought the original post was about.