🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2:31 pm, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 9:36 am, The Loan Arranger <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 3, 9:00�am, The Loan Arranger <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>> (HUGE amount of unnecessary quoting snipped)
>>>>>>> The Gnostiocs wrote a bunch of garbage about their theory that Jesus
>>>>>>> Christ did not suffer or die on the cross because he was a God. �They
>>>>>>> were trying to combine Christianity with Greek mythology.
>>>>>> The Catholic Church, on the other hand, tried to merge it with as many
>>>>>> different contemporary religions as possible, in order to make
>>>>>> Christianity an easier pill to swallow for "pagan" worshippers. At least
>>>>>> the Gnostics had the style to call on classical influences!
>>>>> That is correct about the Catholic Church.  Fortunately, they were
>>>>> able to keep the Bible pretty much intact.
>>>> That's "intact" in the sense of "as close as possible what Athanasius
>>>> chose in order to further his own agendas and those of some factions of
>>>> the early Christian church," of course.
>>>> There was a lot of good but politically inconvenient stuff thrown out,
>>>> and replaced with the scrawlings of a tax collector with a barbequed
>>>> ass, who had never been near The Man Himself but seemed to think he had
>>>> a hotline to Jesus.
>>>> Take a look at the Pseudepigrapha at some point. A good source iswww.pseudepigrapha.com. They're a bit eye-opening, and fill in a deal of
>>>> detail that's simply missing from the Bible but carried through in
>>>> Christian lore regardless. It's entertaining to work out quite how
>>>> different the Christian Church would be today if different (better IMHO)
>>>> choices had been made at Hippo.
>>>> "Intact" is relative.
>>> What difference would it make to an atheist?  Weren't you claiming
>>> that this was all myth?
>>> Church leaders from the beginning had to contend with uninspired
>>> people writing things seeking to gain position and authority in the
>>> church.  Once the Apostles were gone, there was no further control
>>> over it.  However, there were still people who could decide, this is
>>> legitimate, this is garbage.  So today we have what we have as the
>>> Bible.  There is still garbage in the Bible.  The Song of Solomon is
>>> garbage.
>> I think you should understand the history of how your holy texts were
>> assembled. It might explain some of why it is the way it is.
>>
>> The Song of Solomon is one of the few parts I actually like!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> A lot of Jews liked it also.  That is why they kept it in the Old
> Testament.  I know how the holy texts were aassembled.  Matthew and
> John wrote their gospels to testify to the Jews.  Mark and Luke wrote
> theirs to testify to the Gentiles.  Paul wrote his epistles to direct
> the affairs of the church and give instruction to branches of the
> church he had established throughout Asia Minor and Rome.  Peter wrote
> his two epistles to the entire church as the presiding authority of
> the church.   James wrote his epistle as an apostle.  Jude wrote his
> epistle testifying as the brother of Jesus Christ, which was also true
> of James.  John wrote Revelation as the account of a vision he had
> seen regarding the events of the last days.  These people were all
> acting in the capacity of church leadership.  What they said was
> preserved by faithful members of the church.
> As the apostles were killed one by one, the church began to fall into
> apostasy, resulting in a lot of uninspired writings that you want
> included in the Bible.  However, what is contained in the New
> Testament are inspired writings, coming from apostles and disciples
> who were writing for the correct purposes.  Efforts of modern atheists
> do discredit the New Testament will always fall short because
> Matthew , Mark , Luke , and John really did make records of the life
> of Jesus Christ, and Paul, Peter, and James really did write epistles
> to the church, just the same as there is a tunnel between Gihon spring
> and the Pool of Siloam and an earthen ramp over the wall at Lachish.
> Harry Potter is not going to be able to change these things because
> Harry Potter is only a fictional character in a book written by a
> modern atheist.
>        There were other inspired writings that could have been
> included.  There were other uninspired writings which were excluded
> for good reasons.  Most Christians are happy with the Bible as it
> exists.  So why don't atheists have anything that they are happy
> about?

How about it's more recent history?