🚀 go-pugleaf

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