Indoctrination & Mental Gymnastics

[Lek]

I've already asked a few. Troll-time is over. If you want to talk about christology and how yours could possibly be a reliable indicator of True Christianity™then put your big boy pants on and stop wasting both my time and your own. I'll extend to your responses precisely the same amount of respect you've afforded the subject, and an equal amount of effort as you've put into the same.

You're actually going to extend some respect!

[Lek]

The moment that you answer any of those question differently than the "christian" to your left or right, I'm going to remind you that said "christian" does not hold to your christology. That they aren't, in your estimation, True Christians™. So if you can imagine any situation in which we might find ourselves in this situation, right off the bat, you can save me trouble, and yourself embarrassment (and it's coming...if you have any shame at all).

You haven't asked me a question yet, so I'll comment on your statement above. Here's my understanding on the nature of Christ. He is God and man - fully God and fully man. Together with the Holy Spirit, he is one with the father. Each person of the Trinity is a distinct being, but they are in essence one God. In his role as a man, he gave up certain privileges of his divinity and became subject to the Father. If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine. I said in an earlier post that this is my opinion. I'm not God and I don't know their hearts. I leave that up to God. In the context of my earlier statements, I was relating my opinions to those who didn't believe that Jesus was one with and equal to the Father. I'll admit that, within the context of the thread, I was being narrow, but I'm open to any questions you want to ask.

[The Grand Nudger]

You haven't asked me a question yet,

I did...a quick slew actually......

Do you know your own mind? How can you state that most agree with your christology if you have to research your own christology? How can your christology be the measure of a True Christian™ if you don't even know what it is? How can you know that you are a True Christian™ if you don't know your own christology, by which you judge the True Christianyness™ of others?

It's one thing to decline to answer, for whatever reason, another to claim that nothings been asked. I can already see that you have some sliver of an idea as to what you did, with the comments towards the end of your post...but we'll get there in a moment.

so I'll comment on your statement above. Here's my understanding on the nature of Christ. He is God and man - fully God and fully man. Together with the Holy Spirit, he is one with the father. Each person of the Trinity is a distinct being, but they are in essence one God. In his role as a man, he gave up certain privileges of his divinity and became subject to the Father.

That's not exactly an exhaustive representation of all of the potential choices just within existing and popular christian sects christologies (laying aside the defunct and the fringe) and you've already excluded, just as a few notable examples; Episcopalians, Unitarians, LDS, Witnesses, Swedenborgians(there's actually one of those here for you to hammer out your christological differences with), and some subsets of both Pentecostals and Quakers. None of these groups are, according to you, True Christians™.

Your comment also puts to the lie the statement you made -in this thread- when you said that faith in christ was all that matters. All of the groups above affirm faith in christ.

If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine.

With the -possible- exception of the LDS above, none of those folks hold that Jesus was not god, or was a lesser god. If you had even the slightest understanding of nuance you'd realize that this statement doesn't even apply to the LDS.

I said in an earlier post that this is my opinion. I'm not God and I don't know their hearts. I leave that up to God. In the context of my earlier statements, I was relating my opinions to those who didn't believe that Jesus was one with and equal to the Father. I'll admit that, within the context of the thread, I was being narrow, but I'm open to any questions you want to ask.

There's your shame, I knew you had some. Are there any other groups of christians you'd like to exclude through doublespeak...or have we reached the limit of your knowledge of christology with the statement above? I can supplement for you, if you'd like to see how small your community of christ might be, if you're still enjoying this exploration of christology and True Christianity™.

[goodwithoutgod]

The moment that you answer any of those question differently than the "christian" to your left or right, I'm going to remind you that said "christian" does not hold to your christology. That they aren't, in your estimation, True Christians™. So if you can imagine any situation in which we might find ourselves in this situation, right off the bat, you can save me trouble, and yourself embarrassment (and it's coming...if you have any shame at all).

You haven't asked me a question yet, so I'll comment on your statement above. Here's my understanding on the nature of Christ. He is God and man - fully God and fully man. Together with the Holy Spirit, he is one with the father. Each person of the Trinity is a distinct being, but they are in essence one God. In his role as a man, he gave up certain privileges of his divinity and became subject to the Father. If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine. I said in an earlier post that this is my opinion. I'm not God and I don't know their hearts. I leave that up to God. In the context of my earlier statements, I was relating my opinions to those who didn't believe that Jesus was one with and equal to the Father. I'll admit that, within the context of the thread, I was being narrow, but I'm open to any questions you want to ask.

"If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine."

Traditionally accepted does not mean, valid, true, or relevant.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

[dyresand]

You haven't asked me a question yet, so I'll comment on your statement above. Here's my understanding on the nature of Christ. He is God and man - fully God and fully man. Together with the Holy Spirit, he is one with the father. Each person of the Trinity is a distinct being, but they are in essence one God. In his role as a man, he gave up certain privileges of his divinity and became subject to the Father. If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine. I said in an earlier post that this is my opinion. I'm not God and I don't know their hearts. I leave that up to God. In the context of my earlier statements, I was relating my opinions to those who didn't believe that Jesus was one with and equal to the Father. I'll admit that, within the context of the thread, I was being narrow, but I'm open to any questions you want to ask.

"If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine."

Traditionally accepted does not mean, valid, true, or relevant.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

In reality jesus never existed so he should be removed from the bible. Anything magic also should be removed from the bible. Also adam and eve they never existed.

[goodwithoutgod]

"If a person has a doctrine that states that Jesus was not God or was a lesser god, then they don't agree with traditionally accepted christian doctrine."

Traditionally accepted does not mean, valid, true, or relevant.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

In reality jesus never existed so he should be removed from the bible. Anything magic also should be removed from the bible. Also adam and eve they never existed.

If they removed all of the fiction, fantasy, forgery, pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings there wouldn't be anything left...

[Lek]

That's not exactly an exhaustive representation of all of the potential choices just within existing and popular christian sects christologies (laying aside the defunct and the fringe) and you've already excluded, just as a few notable examples; Episcopalians, Unitarians, LDS, Witnesses, Swedenborgians(there's actually one of those here for you to hammer out your christological differences with), and some subsets of both Pentecostals and Quakers. None of these groups are, according to you, True Christians™.

Except for the episcopalians, who officially espouse the doctrine of the Trinity as far as I can tell, I definitely feel that these denominations embrace an incorrect understanding of the nature of Christ. But you are right that I should not make my own determination that they are not christians. I was making a judgement that I was not qualified to make. Although I must follow what I receive from revelation from God and the scriptures, I don't know the hearts of others or their relationship with God. That doesn't mean that everyone who calls themselves christians are actually christians, but that I'm not qualified to make that judgement. Thanks for bringing that to light Rhythm. Sorry if I offended anybody here. I will add that, even though I disagree, I still care about them as much as those with whom I share common doctrinal beliefs.

---

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

You tickle me with these type of statements as if they are undeniable truths. There's tons of writings such as the many gospels and the writings of the church fathers. Oh. I'm sorry according to you and your experts, they are all illegitimate. My historians and scholars don't agree with your historians and scholars, such as the teams that have written commentary for various study bibles. Why would the Romans pay attention to a poor travelling preacher from Nazareth? The were many so-called healers and miracle workers in the region at the time of Christ. Will modern historians mention Benny Hinn? He's claiming miraculous healings all the time. Is anybody paying attention to him? As far as testimony about Jesus goes, other than the multitude of writings, what about oral tradition? Since most people didn't read at that time, it seems logical that the apostles would be concerned with getting the word out orally. That's the way Jesus taught.

[dyresand]

In reality jesus never existed so he should be removed from the bible. Anything magic also should be removed from the bible. Also adam and eve they never existed.

If they removed all of the fiction, fantasy, forgery, pseudepigrapha, interpolations, parables and allegorical writings there wouldn't be anything left...

only the 20% that is original

[goodwithoutgod]

[Roxy904]

As someone who recently deconverted, DON'T give up on your cousin. The first I encountered athiesm (in a book), I tried ignore the doubts I was having, because I was raised to believe in God, and my brain just went, "Nooooope, God is reaaaaaall, and yours is the right one. Everyone around you says so; it must be true."
But I did more research, which only led to me becoming athiest. So keep pushing her, force her to come with more arguments, and she will run out of arguments. You made some good arguments, but one idea is to have crazy bible passages to show her if she tries to cite the bible.