New christianity post (others are way too long)

[lostinidlewonder]

As for Q, it is not a discovery but a theory that has been around for one and a half centuries, which tries to account for the material that Luke and Matthew have in common. What is new is the highly questionable way that left-wing scholars are using their presuppositions to slice this hypothetical Q into various layers of legendary deveopment to back up their preconcieved theories.

Texts such as the Cross Gospel also do not really stand up. They fit better with later apocryphal writings. Some even place the gospel of Thomas in very high regard, albeit foolishly. Everyone concedes that this gospel has been significantly influenced by Gnosticism, which was  religious movement in the 2nd-4th century AD that supposedly had secret insights, knowledge, or revelations that would allow people to know the key to the universe. Salvation was by what you knew, gnosis is Greek for know.

Most scholars date Gospel of Thomas to the mid 2nd century, in which it fits well into the cultural milieu.  However the Jesus Seminar which a few of you will know about, has arbitrarily latched onto certain passages of the Gospel of Thomas and has argued that these passages represent an early strand of tradition about Jesus, even earlier than the canonical gospels. Because none of the passages include Jesus makng exalted claims for himself or doing supernatural feats, they argue that the earliest view of Jesus was that he was only a great teacher.  But the whole line of reasoning is circular. The only reason for thinking these passages in Thomas are early in the first place is because they contain a view of Jesus that these scholars already believed was the original Jesus. In truth theree is no good reason for preferring the 2nd century Gospel of Thomas over the 1st century gospel of the New Testament.


Combining history and faith is a complicated matter and only of interest to those with an investigative mind. To say that all Christians must do this would make access to God imperfect. My Jesus, the Jesus I relate to, is both a Jesus of history AND a Jesus of faith. It is like this: If you love a person, your love goes beyond the facts of that person, but it is rooted in the facts about that person. For example, you love your wife because she's gorgeous, she's nice, sweet, kind etc. All these things are facts about your wide and therefore you love her.

But your love goes beyond that. You can know all these things about your wife and not be in love with her and put your trust in her, but you do. So the decision goes beyond the evidence, yet it is there also on the basis of the evidence.

There is no real competition, the evidence for Jesus being who the disciples said he was, for having done the miracles tha the did, for rising from the dead, for making the claims that he did, it is just light years beyond my reasons for thinking that the left-wing scholarship of the Jesus Seminar is correct. All these scholars have is a brief allusion to a lost secret gospel in the late 2nd century latter that has unforunately been seen by one person and now has been lost (the quote from Clement of Alexandria). There is a 3rd century account of the Crucifixion and Resurrection that stars a talking cross and that less than a handful of scholars think predates the gospels. There is a 2nd century Gnostic document parts of which some scholars now want to date early to back up their preconceptions. And there is a hypothetical document built on shaky assumptions that is being sliced thinner and thinner by using circular reasoning.

It is far more reasonable to put your trust int he gospels, which pass the test of historical scrutiny with flying colors, then to put hope in what the Jesus Seminar is saying.

[pies]

a

[lostinidlewonder]

Catholic not Christian.  TLDR, is funny... the acronym highlights one is too lazy to type too In that case I understand that what I write is too long for you

[db05]

Catholic not Christian. 

Catholics are Christians, please be more specific what christian sect.

[timothy42b]

The apostle Paul never met Jesus prior to Jesus' death, but he said he did encounter the resurrected Christ and later consulted with some of the eyewitnesses to make sure he was preaching the same message they where.

Does that even pass the common sense test? 

When did he do that?

His persecution of Christians had to be long after crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.  The resurrected Jesus was not seen continuously for years and years!   Paul's persecution had to have waited for the movement to grow and spread.  He was on the way to Arabia when he had his conversion experience, and he stayed there several years. 

Consulted with the eyewitnesses?  Nah.  He said they were wrong, he publically chastised Peter, who HAD met Jesus, for getting the message wrong.  The message of Jesus and the message of Paul are quite different, in some cases opposite.  If you don't realize that you have not read the Bible yourself, I recommend it. 

By the way, about half Paul's letters are now accepted to be forgeries. 

[timothy42b]

Catholics are Christians, please be more specific what christian sect.

When in doubt, fundagelics ALWAYS bash Catholics!  The very people who preserved Christianity and the Bible through all those centuries. 

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm sorry Tim but I cannot argue what you hold as your own opinion. If you gave some facts which prompted you to think this way that would be welcome.

[timothy42b]

I'm sorry Tim but I cannot argue what you hold as your own opinion. If you gave some facts which prompted you to think this way that would be welcome.

Sure.

Any particular point, though?  I suspect we differ on many points and agree on a few, and I can't type as long as you (shoulder injury.) 

Specific to whether Paul met Jesus, I'd refer you to Acts Ch 9.  From that account it doesn't seem possible.  Yet people seem to assume Paul was one of Jesus's early followers.  I'll grant you that Acts 9 cannot truly be called a "fact," yet I think it answers the question. 

[lostinidlewonder]

I point out (1 Cor 15: 4-8)

Paul lists other appearances of the risen Christ that he knew of including his own personal testimony: "last of all, he appeared also to me" (1 Cor 15: 8 ).  That meeting with the risen Jesus transformed the way Paul thought about God and about himself

[thalbergmad]

When in doubt, fundagelics ALWAYS bash Catholics! 

Pianistimo used to do that a lot.

Why is this??

Thal

[timothy42b]

Pianistimo used to do that a lot.

Why is this??

Thal

It's historical, dates back to the early colonial days of the US.  The Protestant crowd that fled the UK deliberately built solidarity by creating and focusing on a common enemy.  They chose the Pope, of course, but at the same time created a new version of Satan that would have been unknown to the early church.  Same process, same reason. 

[ahinton]

It's historical, dates back to the early colonial days of the US.  The Protestant crowd that fled the UK deliberately built solidarity by creating and focusing on a common enemy.  They chose the Pope, of course, but at the same time created a new version of Satan that would have been unknown to the early church.  Same process, same reason. 

Good question from Thal and equally good response from timothy42b. I cannot comment helpfully on the "pianistimisation" of Christianity in certain specific areas of Collegeville, PA, USA. That said, the widespread factionalisation (if there is such a word) of Christianity has done it no favours, particularly to anyone who remains outside it as I am; we just have to try to understand how at least some of those factional persuasions came about and try not to be sidelined by them in terms of our attempts to understand what fundamental Christianity (as opposed to various forms of what one might feel inclined to term Christian fundamentalism) might be about. I wouldn't mind having had an opportunity to discuss it with Jesus Christ Himself during a fish supper over a glass or two of wine - and if that seems irreverent to some, I humbly apologise, for that is not at all what I intended to convey...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Why don't you all go to Google and type, The difference between Christianity and Catholicism? Obviously when I point out facts they are ignored even when they obviously undermine what people have been trying to prove themselves on here. One can argue that they are a branch of Christianity, so is Mormonism and so are the Jehova's Witness. But as a religious academic one can pick apart the differences and see human changes and/or additions that are made to the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not the only authority.  It places equal authority on church traditions, revelations and visions, the interpretations of the popes. These interpretations receive equal authority with the Word of God and in many instances above and contrary to the Word of God. When speaking from his throne as the 'Vicar of Christ', the Pope is said to be as much inspired as the writers of the Bible.

Go read it all for yourself if it interests you. The Catholics are certainly NOT OUR ENEMY, this is simplifying what we say to satisfy your own ideology. They certainly go against a lot of normal principles of the Bible that is not to say they are our enemy, but it does go to say that there is a big difference between Catholicism and Evangelical/Fundamental/Orthodox Christianity.

[ahinton]

Why don't you all go to Google and type, The difference between Christianity and Catholicism? Obviously when I point out facts they are ignored even when they obviously undermine what people have been trying to prove themselves on here. One can argue that they are a branch of Christianity, so is Mormonism and so are the Jehova's Witness. But as a religious academic one can pick apart the differences and see human changes and/or additions that are made to the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not the only authority.  It places equal authority on church traditions, revelations and visions, the interpretations of the popes. These interpretations receive equal authority with the Word of God and in many instances above and contrary to the Word of God. When speaking from his throne as the 'Vicar of Christ', the Pope is said to be as much inspired as the writers of the Bible.

Go read it all for yourself if it interests you. The Catholics are certainly NOT OUR ENEMY, this is simplifying what we say to satisfy your own ideology. They certainly go against a lot of normal principles of the Bible that is not to say they are our enemy, but it does go to say that there is a big difference between Catholicism and Evangelical/Fundamental/Orthodox Christianity.

I think that you are (perhaps deliberately) missing the point, which is strange, since you yourself recognise and admit that practical contemporary Christianity is composed of a number of widely differing factions; in such an environment, is it any wonder that there are divergences among Christians (let alone outside the Christian world) about particular Biblical texts and their correct interpretation? That is not to "debunk" either Christianity or the Bible, but it is a truth nevertheless.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't think I am missing MY point at all, perhaps what others are trying to talk about yes, but only because I am not putting words in my mouth or interested to talk about what others uninformed opinion are.

The fact is that I was talking about Christianity, nothing I was saying has anything to do with a particular denomination or offshoot of Christianity. The fact that someone posted a picture of the Catholic Pope to highlight what I was saying was missing the point. Everything I have been talking about has been in reference to the original Christian movement.

If one cannot understand this difference, I don't think it is my responsibility to point it out.

[ahinton]

I don't think I am missing MY point at all, perhaps what others are trying to talk about yes, but only because I am not putting words in my mouth or interested to talk about what others uninformed opinion are.

The fact is that I was talking about Christianity, nothing I was saying has anything to do with a particular denomination or offshoot of Christianity. The fact that someone posted a picture of the Catholic Pope to highlight what I was saying was missing the point. Everything I have been talking about has been in reference to the original Christian movement.

If one cannot understand this difference, I don't think it is my responsibility to point it out.

You seem to be going around in ever-decreasing circles of your own making here; I am not the only one to understand these differences and the very fact that you also agree that there are such differences illustrates the point; again, that is neither to seek to "debunk" Christianity or the Bible, merely to point out that those differences inevitably bring about differences in approach to the Bible from within the Christian diaspora (if I can use such a term) as well as from outside it.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

I am merely restating the reality of the issue. TLDR WAS used and WAS used with the pope as the device. Where everything i was talking is about historical facts and nothing to do with a denomination of Christianity. One might be confused why I picked up on it, merely because most people think that all Christian denominations represent the study of the early spread of Christianity which was the crux of what I have been talking about.

Where in my last couple of posts was I saying that you where trying to debunk my faith and religion? I would welcome it, I do not welcome peoples own made up opinions with little facts to back them up though (not to say that people shouldn't do it, its a free world!).

[ahinton]

Where in my last couple of posts was I saying that you where trying to debunk my faith and religion?

Again, you are either missing your own point or forgetting what you have previously written; specifically, you wrote 4 days ago in this thread that
Christianity is the most difficult form of worship to debunk.
This is the sole reason for my references to its "debunking"; I know that you have not suggested that I have tried to "debunk" your faith, nor have I claimed that you did so. That said, you have not subsequently proved the validity of your statement when it has been questioned.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

The Catholics are certainly NOT OUR ENEMY, this is simplifying what we say to satisfy your own ideology. They certainly go against a lot of normal principles of the Bible that is not to say they are our enemy, but it does go to say that there is a big difference between Catholicism and Evangelical/Fundamental/Orthodox Christianity.

Lots of deliberate error here.

Catholics are the original Christians and are as mainstream and orthodox as you can get.  Evangelical/Fundamentalists are a modern radical offshoot about as far from orthodox as you can get.  That doesn't necessarily mean either is right or wrong about any given theological point. 

It is clear you do not understand this 'beyond the Bible" concept at all.  What happened historically in the Christian church (remember, there only WAS Catholicism at the time) is that in the early days, fourth century, we tended to think divine revelation was the only way of obtaining information about the nature of God.  Augustine codified this.  (By the way, I'm not using we to mean I'm Catholic, I'm not.)  Some divine revelation is contained in the Bible (not the same thing as what you claim, that ALL the Bible is divinely revealed and ALL the bible is an inerrant science text).  But the Bible was not necessarily the only source of revelation, and we could not ignore practices and traditions of the early Christians, who after all did not have "a" Bible and were illiterate anyway.  About eight centuries later, theories had changed somewhat, and Acquinas advanced the theory that information could come from other sources beyond divine revelation.  Since God had created everything, there was evidence of his nature in everything around us. 

Then in the mid 1800s in the US a radical group of American fundamentalists evolved.  They adopted a new outlook on the Bible as not just inspired but divinely dictated word for word, something that was a shock to mainstream Christianity and would have been inconceivable to the early Christians.  In effect they now worship a book instead of the Lord, and claim not only is all contained in it, but nothing outside it has worth.  But most of them remain ignorant of the history of the Bible and violently eschew any scholarly approach to it.  In fact I have run into a number who do not know the Bible was not originally written in English. 

[timothy42b]

I point out (1 Cor 15: 4-8)

Paul lists other appearances of the risen Christ that he knew of including his own personal testimony: "last of all, he appeared also to me" (1 Cor 15: 8 ).  That meeting with the risen Jesus transformed the way Paul thought about God and about himself

So it does not bother you at all that by a plain reading of Acts, Paul could not possibly have met Jesus? 

[timothy42b]

The fact is that I was talking about Christianity, nothing I was saying has anything to do with a particular denomination or offshoot of Christianity.

Everything I have been talking about has been in reference to the original Christian movement.

I want to correct a false impression here.

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.  You believe you can speak for Christianity, but in fact you are a member of a minority denomination that is thought strange by most other denominations.  Of course you claim you are right and they are all wrong, and therefore most of them are not really True Christians at all, but that is opinion not fact.  Some of your claims are predicated on your personal interpretation of scripture, and if a denomination doesn't share that interpretation they will have different answers. 

Secondly, neither group relates completely back to the original Christian movement.  You are looking at them with 21st century eyes and 19th century theology.  The early Christians didn't have a lot of things you hold dear:  the Trinity (not a concept until 4th century), original sin, Satan as an evil power, the Holy Spirit as an entity, the Rapture, End Times, a Bible (though individual congregations had some portions), stuff like "washed in the Blood" theology, family values, democracy, patriotism, etc.  Early Christians did not agree on some basics like divinity, resurrection, second coming, whether the OT still applied, whether we needed salvation, etc. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Catholics are the original Christians and are as mainstream and orthodox as you can get. 

I would love to see some evidence that supports this idea. But shouldn't we stay on the topic we both where debating? What happened to that lack of cooroborative evidence for Christ?

....But the Bible was not necessarily the only source of revelation, and we could not ignore practices and traditions of the early Christians, who after all did not have "a" Bible and were illiterate anyway.

The Bible IS the only source for Christians, only branches of Christianity proclaim that there is extra material outside of the Bible. You are not appreciating how relgiious traditions where passed down in ancient Jewish times, and they did have a Book, just not everyone owned one. Go read up on that, your opinion of the illiterate is absolutely irrelevant. Everything I talk about is pre 200AD, I am not interested past this point because of distortion of information which makes the study of the movement of Christianity even more complicated (not something I want to address on a piano forum, even what I have written pre 200 AD is not appreciated and is easier to weigh by comparison.)

So it does not bother you at all that by a plain reading of Acts, Paul could not possibly have met Jesus? 

You are not offering evidence to support this fact one bit, and most probably is it a product of misreading and/or lack of appreciation as to what has been written. In any case you have not presented us with how you yourself read and interpret this passage, thus we have nothing we can discuss. You are merely stating when you read this passage Paul couldn't have possibly met Jesus but give us no clues as to why you think this way.

Paul states later on in his own words other appearances of the Resurrected Christ, including his own observation. It is not up to me to try to show the evidence highlighting your opinion that he is lying and decieving us all, it is up to you to show it, then we discuss.

I want to correct a false impression here.

This is your opinion.

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.  You believe you can speak for Christianity, but in fact you are a member of a minority denomination that is thought strange by most other denominations. 

You where the first one to say there is no Corroborative evidence which supports Christ. I gave you quite a few points which highlighted you where incorrect. Everything I said has NOTHING i repeat NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with the way early Chrisitans worshiped God (perhaps only that Jesus is God).  All I have given is evidence which highlights facts about the early movement of Christianity. Your opinion that there was no Corroborative evidence, and your attempt to highlight that there are many types of Jesus, where all addressed with evidence from the Bible and outside of it, of which you have had no response to and now have a fantasy attack on what you guess I am talking about and a fantasy of which group I belong to. It is completely irrelevant where i come from, I am giving facts and evidence which are non-denominational, they are historical facts with no emotion attached.

Unfortunately your opinions that are without facts make your arguments quite weak, and I have no response to them because there is no content in them. Like I said before, we cannot argue your opinion only facts. It is a fact that there are words in the Bible that are open to interpretation. However interpretation comes from pulling together bits of information from other sources of the Bible as well, as well as a context understanding etc. Interpretation that solely comes from a contemporary reading of text is just opinion with little thought, thus will not stand up to proper theological exploration when in debate. Your opinions on what I have said about the movement of Christianity are loud and noisy, but unfortunately it is all coming from an empty vessel (lack of historical evidence to back you up).

The early Christians didn't have a lot of things you hold dear:  the Trinity (not a concept until 4th century), original sin, Satan as an evil power, the Holy Spirit as an entity, the Rapture, End Times, a Bible (though individual congregations had some portions), stuff like "washed in the Blood" theology, family values, democracy, patriotism, etc.  Early Christians did not agree on some basics like divinity, resurrection, second coming, whether the OT still applied, whether we needed salvation, etc.

Where did I talk about these issues and how do you know I hold them "dear" to myself? And I am not going to discuss it if what I have already said in other discussion cannot be adressed properly. I think I have realized that critics on here cannot deal with the facts I have written, thus what ahinton said to me, probably talking in length presenting the evidence is not appropriate for this forum. Thus critique is also useless, because they cannot do it with evidence, just rambling opinion.

[ahinton]

Is it just my imagination or does this excellent forum now have a kind of expanded Pianistimo Mk.II with better spelling and grammar and a somewhat more developed understanding of how, when and where to use capital letters?

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Who would that be? I doubt anyone on here mimics anyone else, I like to think we are all individuals

[communist]

*wonders why this thread has not been deleted*

[timothy42b]

I would love to see some evidence that supports this idea. But shouldn't we stay on the topic we both where debating?

You need evidence Catholicism has been around since Peter?  <shakes head, puzzled.> I guess that's typical fundagelic lack of appreciation for church history.  The topic we were debating was your egregious bashing of Catholics, a very unChristian and embarrassing habit.  I'd be glad to drop it, wish it didn't arise so frequency in the first place.

The Bible IS the only source for Christians, only branches of Christianity proclaim that there is extra material outside of the Bible.

Then you are claiming God is dead, and we no longer have access to His inspiration.  I don't believe that. 

You are not offering evidence to support this fact one bit, and most probably is it a product of misreading and/or lack of appreciation as to what has been written. In any case you have not presented us with how you yourself read and interpret this passage, thus we have nothing we can discuss. You are merely stating when you read this passage Paul couldn't have possibly met Jesus but give us no clues as to why you think this way.

Acts implies it, but Galations makes it 100% clear.  Paul after his conversion experience continued to Damascus and stayed in Arabia three years.  Three years.  This was AFTER Jesus ascended.  At that time he says he went to Jerusalem but was careful not to talk to any disciples except Peter and James.  There is no mention of an actual meeting with Jesus.  I googled this topic and found noone who supported a meeting after the crucifixion, though there were a few that speculated possibly Paul could have encountered Jesus during one of the times he taught in the temple.

It is not up to me to try to show the evidence highlighting your opinion that he is lying and decieving us all, it is up to you to show it, then we discuss.

How, exactly, do we know that Paul DIDN'T lie?  Because he says so? 

You where the first one to say there is no Corroborative evidence which supports Christ.

No.  That's a convenient lie.  I said the rather meager corroborative evidence does not support your claim that it matches exactly your modern theology. 

Everything I said has NOTHING i repeat NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with the way early Chrisitans worshiped God (perhaps only that Jesus is God). 

This I have to agree with.  You don't appear to think it is important.  I grant you that our understanding may have progressed in the couple thousand years since, but you don't seem to have an appreciation for that, apparently believing it has been the same all along. 

All I have given is evidence which highlights facts about the early movement of Christianity. Your opinion that there was no Corroborative evidence, and your attempt to highlight that there are many types of Jesus, where all addressed with evidence from the Bible and outside of it, of which you have had no response to and now have a fantasy attack on what you guess I am talking about and a fantasy of which group I belong to.

Now you are channelling pure pianistimo.  That doesn't even parse.  It would be honest at this point to tell us what group you DO belong to, so it is no longer a fantasy. The rest of us have. 

It is completely irrelevant where i come from, I am giving facts and evidence which are non-denominational, they are historical facts with no emotion attached.

Everything you've said is purely denominational and other denominations disagree with it.  It is only your lack of knowledge of the whole of Christianity that causes you to remain ignorant of it.  I think (I don't know, because you won't tell us the source of your theology) that this is because you belong to one of those fundagelic sects that fears and distrusts education and scholarship. 

Where did I talk about these issues and how do you know I hold them "dear" to myself?

You have the distorted idea that the early Christians believed what you do.  I gave you some examples where they didn't.  That doesn't make those concepts true or false.  But it makes your worldview rather distorted.

And I am not going to discuss it if what I have already said in other discussion cannot be adressed properly.

Ooooookaaaayyyyyy.  Baby is going to take his ball and go home.  If we don't play by his rules we can't play at all.  Susan used to threaten that too but it never lasted. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Your very words where: There is essentially zero corroborative extraBiblical history. 

You also said: said the rather meager corroborative evidence does not support your claim that it matches exactly your modern theology. 

Both claims that have not been supported by any rebuttal of the corroborative evidence I gave.
 
Is meager is essentially zero? I can count more than a handful of points I gave you, certainly more than zero at least. None of this is MY THEOLOGY, this is theology built by academics of the field who devote their life to the topic. They think about it much more than you or I. You have not cast doubt on any of the points I have given that corroborate Jesus. You just say, oh it's meager but I don't know why.

Your style of debate is; this is how I understand a passage, I am not going to tell you how I see it that way. Because I see it that way I am correct, I will not show you why I believe what I believe, I just come to those conclusions without specific facts. Any facts that you give that contradict me are wrong and come from some other planet. This is an unfair self applied rule you are using when debating.

I have no emotions attached to what I say, perhaps I am a little annoyed that most critics of God on pianostreet, are pretty loud mouthed but essential empty vessels. Only annoyed because I have had and current have very interesting debates with atheists and agnostics (online and in person) who challenge me a great deal more than opinion driven crap. I am not totally negative over this issue, some members on here do make me think about things in a different way which is very useful (and it is not from us agreeing on points). But I do get a lot of opinion driven people trying to lay doubt on what I say, but have nothing to back up their assumptions but their own contemporary reading of texts.

Any negative opinion that you all have on me is like water on a ducks back. sorry

Try again to respond to this comment from me:
All I have given is evidence which highlights facts about the early movement of Christianity. Your opinion that there was no Corroborative evidence, and your attempt to highlight that there are many types of Jesus, where all addressed with evidence from the Bible and outside of it, of which you have had no response...

Why are you avoiding the evidence I have set out? Why do you want to know where I come from if you cannot even deal with the evidence I gave which are NON-DENOMINATIONAL, they are historical facts. I don't associate myself with any denomination, I don't even go to church to worship. So I cannot give you an answer. The Anglican Church looks after my grand piano and I have a key to that church I can go in any time to practice... I also went to an Anglican School. But when I was young I went to a Catholic Church with a friends parents a lot... Also I have attended the Baptist Church, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist and Mormon churches. I have also attended Muslim mosques, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist. etc.  I use to burn Hell money for my Chinese ancestors and leave out food for them next to glowing red electric candles with my grandparents. Does this make things any clearer?


Your idea that the Catholic Church is the earliest movement of Christianity is a great big joke. Just read through my evidence and you will see why what you said is ridiculous. The early Christians where tortured and ridiculed by the Romans and other Ancient Jews, so many historians point this out, the Roman government decided to get on board AFTER the original Christian movement which they could not contain.

By AD 100 Christianity had become institutionalized headed by a three-rank hierarchy who considered themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the Church of Rome, took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Unsatisfied with the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers pushed for a single church, and anything outside of that church he declared, "there is no salvation." He claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal.

The Catholic church was started by the Roman empire. So how can that predate or even run in line with the original movement that occurred from the witness of the Resurrected Christ?

Also if Paul (Saul) never witnessed the resurrected Christ tell me what caused him to become Christian after putting so many of them to death himself? Why did he lie about it in 1 Cor 15: 8?

In 1 Cor 15: 4-8 notice at the end of the mention of the Witnesses of the risen Christ Paul directly refers to his own experience, 1 Cor 15:8"and last of all, he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." As in 9:1 Paul referred to having seen the risen Lord on the Damascus road, which he did not consider a visionary experience but an actual resurrection appearance of the same kind that the others he mentioned in 1 Cor 15: 4-7 experienced. The sure evidence of this is the repetition of the verb "appeared" and the language he used to describe his own inclusion to the witness, that is "last of all" and "as to ane abnormally born"

P.R Jones argues that "last of all" refers to the order in which Christ appeared to the Apostles. Paul was the last to see the risen Christ of all the Apostles. But this is not necessarily what he implies but rather the simple expression that the last known appearance of the resurrected Christ at the time of writing was his own witness.

The definition of the Greek ektroma (abnormally born)  is not clear. You can read up on that discrepency I won't bore you by explaining it. But no reading of this takes away the fact that Paul actually witnessed the resurrected Christ on the Road to Damascus. It is what changed him through and through.

[thalbergmad]

Is it just my imagination

I would not have thought so.

[ahinton]

I would not have thought so.

In which case, it must be true that, as I wondered, this excellent forum now has a kind of expanded Pianistimo Mk.II with better spelling and grammar and a somewhat more developed understanding of how, when and where to use capital letters...

Thank you for clearing that up.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

If you are talking about me, well I don't think that anything you say is being new. I have been compared to Susan long before this thread. If you just have a read of past comments in Plague of the Mind, all your little imaginations would be confirmed I wonder what this comparison is trying to achieve? Of if it is even a sign of any intelligence to repeat it?

[thalbergmad]

Good God, she is completely demented but you put forward reasoned arguments.

There is no comparison.

Thal

[timothy42b]

Good God, she is completely demented but you put forward reasoned arguments.

There is no comparison.

Thal

The comparison in terms of sheer length is pretty close to one-to-one.

That results in an unintended consequence.  Each post is a scatter shot of multiple themes, all with a flaw but virtually impossible to deal with coherently in finite time.  It's like playing catch, but the other guy always throws ten balls at a time. 

[thalbergmad]

It has all got a bit too scholarly for me to make any more contributions to be honest.

The archeology side does fascinate me, but i don't have the kind of knowledge that is sometimes displayed here.

I am re reading a book at the moment that claims that Ramsees the Great was the Pharoah that sacked Jerusalem and not the Phaoroah of the Exodus.

Damned interesting stuff.

Thal

[ahinton]

Good God, she is completely demented but you put forward reasoned arguments.

There is no comparison.

Thal

I didn't name names, but it was indeed the length and profusion, rather than the specific content, to which I was referring...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

You didn't have to mention names, your passive aggressive approach did the trick well enough. Specific content is never useless, unless it is opinion driven AND being disguised in the form of a fact. Too bad too many people have too many opinions of other people here in pianostreet. Our negative opinions of others is essentially irrelevant, it is outright destructive if we where people who met each other in person. I highly doubt you all hold such vocal opinions of people you meet in person. If you do, I doubt there are many people who enjoy your company, unless they are submissive masochists.

[ahinton]

You didn't have to mention names, your passive aggressive approached did the trick well enough.
No passivity, no agression and no trick.

Specific content is never useless, unless it is opinion driven AND being disguised in the form of a fact.

I did not suggest otherwise, my remarks being confined purely to matters of quantity and prolixity.

Too bad too many people have too many opinions of other people here in pianostreet. Our negative opinions of others is essentially irrelevant, it is outright destructive if we where people who met each other in person. I highly doubt you all hold such vocal opinions of people you meet in person. If you do, I doubt there are many people who enjoy your company, unless they are submissive masochists.

I have expressed no opinion about you personally and would not do so as I do not know you; my remarks were, as I have already stated, confined to matters of the length of certain posts and it appears that I am not alone in those opinions here; you, on the other hand, are evidently not above expressing a strong opinion of certain members here, as you have shown above.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Profusion means lavish or unrestrained, characterized by or produced with extravagance. Are you just looking at the word count and just saying, wow that's long, lets comment on the length with zero thought concerning its content? Let us also compare length of writings with pianistimo, for no particular reason (or perhaps a reason that only certain few can appreciate on their own terms). Let's also say it two times and then also highlight in psome "innocent?" manner, that we are not mentioning any names (even though it is obvious who you are talking about). I just don't see the ultimatum with this train of thought.

I have expressed no opinion about you personally....

Why did you say:   ".... somewhat more developed understanding of how, when and where to use capital letters."
Why, someone as eloquent with the english language as you are, decide to compliment me on this simple device? How is one supposed to interpret this? If it is a good notion, then I wonder if you say "Listen to Sorabji, his music is long, he also writes music neatly and within the margins!"

Also, how can you notice my good use of spelling and grammar without having read the content? One certainly cannot come to this conclusion by merely observing the length or the amount of words used.


When people question the Bible how can I give a quick answer? A quick answer is open to too many attacks because the evidence has not been layed out. If someone says to me, Prove Christ really rose from the dead in one sentence and I say, Because of the rapid spread of Christianity of the like unseen in all our history, how valuable is that on its own? It is not. It needs explaining to be appreciated or its just not good enough.

[ahinton]

Profusion means lavish or unrestrained, characterized by or produced with extravagance. Are you just looking at the word count and just saying, wow that's long, lets comment on the length with zero thought concerning its content? Let us also compare length of writings with pianistimo, for no particular reason (or perhaps a reason that only certain few can appreciate on their own terms). Let's also say it two times and then also highlight in psome "innocent?" manner, that we are not mentioning any names (even though it is obvious who you are talking about).

What I have been talking about is the length and prolixity in the specific context of posts on a forum such as this one; of course the subject is a vast one requiring ample words for discussion, but batches of forum posts of such length are generally not thought appropriate within the forum medium.

I just don't see the ultimatum with this train of thought.

That's OK - because I have not issued one.

Why did you say:   ".... somewhat more developed understanding of how, when and where to use capital letters."

Why, someone as eloquent with the english language as you are, decide to compliment me on this simple device? How is one supposed to interpret this? If it is a good notion, then I wonder if you say "Listen to Sorabji, his music is long, he also writes music neatly and within the margins!"

It was intended neither as a compliment nor an insult; the purpose in mentioning it at all was to draw a comparison with the writings of another poster whose attitude to such matters appears to be rather more cavalier than yours.

Also, how can you notice my good use of spelling and grammar without having read the content? One certainly cannot come to this conclusion by merely observing the length or the amount of words used.

A skim read could reveal this, actually - but then when did I say that I had not read what you had written?

When people question the Bible how can I give a quick answer? A quick answer is open to too many attacks because the evidence has not been layed out. If someone says to me, Prove Christ really rose from the dead in one sentence and I say, Because of the rapid spread of Christianity of the like unseen in all our history, how valuable is that on its own? It is not. It needs explaining to be appreciated or its just not good enough.

Indeed - but, as you have yourself admitted, questions of the Resurrection of Christ are for the time being issues of faith. That is not a complex concept to grasp in itself.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

I'm one who's complained about post length, and I don't mean it to be a personal attack.

To make your point you have to consider your audience and the format.  A forum is essentially a conversation (while the old listservs were derived from correspondence) and the interchanges work better when they are short and focused.

I have trouble following long posts, particularly with multiple topics included.  The writer is often unaware they are not focused and coherent, particularly in the "heat of battle."  Limiting the topics and proofreading not only makes your point clearer to the audience, but helps you to think more critically yourself. 

[lostinidlewonder]

It was intended neither as a compliment nor an insult; the purpose in mentioning it at all was to draw a comparison with the writings of another poster whose attitude to such matters appears to be rather more cavalier than yours.

I find mentioning someones "developed understanding" to use capital letters is a very strange thing to do. Nor do I see how comparing how people use capital letters a measurement of anything relevant at all. in fact i will type now the rest of my response in this post without capital letters in protest

A skim read could reveal this, actually - but then when did I say that I had not read what you had written?

if you have read what i wrote then you would have juxtaposed my method of explaining theological issues to susans, instead of just comparing us on the use of capital letters, or length of posts. if you really did feel there was a need to make any comparison between us, that would be useful for us all, instead of something which only a few can enjoy between yourself.

Indeed - but, as you have yourself admitted, questions of the Resurrection of Christ are for the time being issues of faith. That is not a complex concept to grasp in itself.

it can be found 100% from faith, it also can be found through weighing the factual types of evidence.

To make your point you have to consider your audience and the format.  A forum is essentially a conversation (while the old listservs were derived from correspondence) and the interchanges work better when they are short and focused.

I have trouble following long posts, particularly with multiple topics included.  The writer is often unaware they are not focused and coherent, particularly in the "heat of battle."  Limiting the topics and proofreading not only makes your point clearer to the audience, but helps you to think more critically yourself. 

i will try to keep my posts shorter. however when someone challenges for an explaination or evidence, or something we can "sink our teeth into" i hope what i write has something there to satisfy them. maybe it wont be important to someone posting responses on the thread, but there are certainly people who quietly read without response, who get a lot of value looking at how different sides of the coin express themselves.

length of writing is not an issue, if it is too long just don't read it, but then one cannot effectively critique issues, because once a critique is debunked with facts, one must study what facts are laid down. the facts need to be partially introduced which requires a more lengthy response. if the response is not detailed enough, there will be too many questions which basically question for more infromation on the facts, so we simply stay as much as we can so the minor questions can be already answered and we are left with questions which test the integrity of the evidence.

[timothy42b]

length of writing is not an issue, if it is too long just don't read it, but then one cannot effectively critique issues,

It is not solely length of writing, it is also focus and coherence.  Do we proceed on a logical outline from major points to subcategories?  Or do we just kind of broadcast scattered thoughts, some at paragraph level, some at footnote, all mixed?

This is true of all lengths of writing.  However, the longer the missive, the more irrestible becomes the temptation to ramble.  Shortening your posts forces you to clean them up - and in some cases think through them more clearly.  I'd recommend it, because I observe (and I mean no offense) that you tend toward this problem.  Your long posts are not as clear as your short ones, and your long ones usually contain at least one paragraph that doesn't really make sense. 

Because I've done music in many churches, I've sat through a large number, yea, verily, a mindnumbing number (say AMEN!) of 45 minute sermons.  None of them contained more content than the ten minute sermon or homily typical of a liturgical service.  In the liturgical service the preacher is forced by time constraints to edit his work and present it a bit more polished and far shorter.  Yes, yes, I understand, your evangelical preacher isn't trying to teach a pedagogical point or present intellectual content, they are trying to provoke emotion, and they use rambling and repetition as their tools.  The emotion they provoke out of me is generally irritation.  (then my mind wanders.  Sometimes I fall asleep.  But the last hymn is right after the sermon, and that can be a problem after a nap.) 

[lostinidlewonder]

It is not solely length of writing, it is also focus and coherence.  Do we proceed on a logical outline from major points to subcategories?  Or do we just kind of broadcast scattered thoughts, some at paragraph level, some at footnote, all mixed?

What I wrote was categorized in particular types of evidence, that was; Archaeological evidence and also Cooroborative evidence. Since you challenged that there was no convincing cooroborative evidence, all of the evidence that I highlighted was of that type in one post. If I where scattergun I could have mixed in, eyewitness, rebuttal, documentary, identity, psychological, profile or medical evidence. Also I could introduce evidence pertaining to the missing body in Jesus tomb, circumstantial evidence and even the overall verdict of History.

But point taken, if I offer any of these types of evidence I will highlight one or two examples at a time and if asked for more I will offer more. The point of highlighting multiple examples at a time is to prove that there is not only one piece of evidence that we measure our result with, because we have multiple examples highlighting a similar point we can be more sure of the results.

It is also nice to give a lot of examples because people then can pick and choose which one to debate. Like you did with  me, questioning about Paul's witness of Christ, it is great to have a difference of opinion and talk about it! Great stuff