🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> On Jul 3, 6:01 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 9:12 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> 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?
>>> Robert B. Winn
>> Well, we're generally happy about Harry Potter.  I haven't read it
>> myself, but I think in general people appreciate it.
>> Neither Jesus nor Paul are going to be able to change this as they are
>> only fictional characters in a book.
>>
>> Al- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Well, Al, the best people to tell your idea would be Jesus and Paul.
> Why are you telling me?

And Harry, Ron and Hermione!