Christianity: Conservative or Socialist?

[Lowaicue]

???....and you think it impossible to find a primary source for what happened in a small town in Wisconsin in 1960?.....because I could tell you for a fact I could be a primary source for what happened in a small town in Iowa only a hundred miles from there, myself.....by that definition all four gospels were primary sources.....

Now consider how you might get that if there was no transport, no communications, no written record and, just as significant, no proven reason why you should even want to bother.
Your spinning is abysmal, dear boy.

 

[hotdog]

Now consider how you might get that if there was no transport, no communications, no written record and, just as significant, no proven reason why you should even want to bother.
Your spinning is abysmal, dear boy.

Maybe your lifes work should be to destroy every last primary source.

 

[Lowaicue]

Maybe your lifes work should be to destroy every last primary source.

What a strange thing to say.
Let me try to summarise.

Belief that what is written in a book we call the bible is factual cannot be supported. There are just too many variables, time, language, motivation, superstition, power seeking, politics. And, of course, which bible do you mean?
Believing the stories, most of which are allegorical, may give succour to some and may well offer ethical guidance but they cannot be verified by any means at all.
So I suggested there was no primary source, that is to say there is nothing written during the lifetime of Jesus, that has survived. The closest is about 50AD.
The value of primary sources is that, unfortunately, they all too often do get detroyed leaving us to flounder in a state of partial knowledge and opening the door for those with an agenda of their own to make up what they call 'facts' to manipulate the masses and thus gain power and influence.
There are two kinds of people who profess religious faith. The manipulators and the manipulated.
Which are you?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So information from Mark was a secondary source. Nowadays something similar might come from that bloke in the pub!

no, he wasn't one of the 12 disciples, but he was a contemporary and did have first hand experience with Jesus....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Now consider how you might get that if there was no transport, no communications, no written record and, just as significant, no proven reason why you should even want to bother.
Your spinning is abysmal, dear boy.

lol....you totally missed the point....the fact that I stand before you able to give primary information about Iowa is adequate proof that primary sources about Wisconsin are not only possible, but obviously undeniable......he doesn't need transport, doesn't need communication and created the written record.....obviously the primary sources for the Bible DID have significant reason......pointing out your objections to be meaningless isn't spinning, it's simply stating the obvious.....

 

[Lowaicue]

no, he wasn't one of the 12 disciples, but he was a contemporary and did have first hand experience with Jesus....

and what did HE write down that is still in existence today? Have you got or can you show me actual EVIDENCE of something from Mark that would be classified as a primary source?
I dont think you really understand yet. You are allowing your imposed beliefs to cloud your judgement.
There is NO direct evidence to prove that any of the biblical protagonists actually existed at the time stated in the bible. There is belief. There is faith. There is teaching. There are second hand 'bloke-in-a-pub' accounts, BUT there is no evidence. And there is certainly no evidence, nor can there ever be, that the bible, in ANY of its forms is the word of any deity even supposing that one exists.

 

[Lowaicue]

.....obviously the primary sources for the Bible DID have significant reason.....

Once again WHICH primary sources are you referring to?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

and what did HE write down that is still in existence today? Have you got or can you show me actual EVIDENCE of something from Mark that would be classified as a primary source?
I dont think you really understand yet. You are allowing your imposed beliefs to cloud your judgement.
There is NO direct evidence to prove that any of the biblical protagonists actually existed at the time stated in the bible. There is belief. There is faith. There is teaching. There are second hand 'bloke-in-a-pub' accounts, BUT there is no evidence. And there is certainly no evidence, nor can there ever be, that the bible, in ANY of its forms is the word of any deity even supposing that one exists.

actually there is more evidence Mark wrote the book of Mark than there is that Homer wrote the Iliad....you act as if the books of the Bible appeared the day before the Canon of Trent and were turned into a written document....

an original document was produced by a first hand observer, copies were made and distributed around the Christian community from Rome to Alexandria and Jerusalem to Asia Minor....at Trent the leaders of the Church identified those documents which 1) were unanimously agreed to be accurate copies of the original first hand account, and 2) were essential documents for understanding the religion of Christianity....

did the writings of Plutarch or Plato ever have to submit to equal inquiry?.......

as to acceptance of the Bible to be the word of God, obviously that is a matter of faith choice.....as is accepting the nature of the Koran or the writings of Buddha.....

but do not pretend there is no evidence that Mark wrote Mark or John wrote John....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Once again WHICH primary sources are you referring to?

all of them....Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for the gospels.....obviously Paul would have been the primary source of the letters he wrote....which are you claiming were NOT primary sources and what evidence do you have to support your claim.....

 

[hotdog]

The greatest religon of them all at least has primary sources. Communism. Communism demans more human sacrifice then all other religions in the history of the world combined.

 

[Phantasmal]

and what did HE write down that is still in existence today? Have you got or can you show me actual EVIDENCE of something from Mark that would be classified as a primary source?
I dont think you really understand yet. You are allowing your imposed beliefs to cloud your judgement.
There is NO direct evidence to prove that any of the biblical protagonists actually existed at the time stated in the bible. There is belief. There is faith. There is teaching. There are second hand 'bloke-in-a-pub' accounts, BUT there is no evidence. And there is certainly no evidence, nor can there ever be, that the bible, in ANY of its forms is the word of any deity even supposing that one exists.

They don't have the originals and we don't know how many times the copies that were placed into the New Testament has been redacted. There are new discoveries being made all the time, new gospels and new light shone one how the current form of Christianity came into being.

In the beginning there were the Arians, the Athanasians, the Docestists and the Gnostics and guess which one won...

All sects teach that theirs is the direct line from God and that they have it right and the rest are just wrong.

History shows us that is not the case. Might makes right, it has always been that way, even with the subject of god.

 

[/MSG/]

The greatest religon of them all at least has primary sources. Communism. Communism demans more human sacrifice then all other religions in the history of the world combined.

Not more than Lovecraftian religions. Those demand the sacrifice of the entire human population.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

They don't have the originals and we don't know how many times the copies that were placed into the New Testament has been redacted. There are new discoveries being made all the time, new gospels and new light shone one how the current form of Christianity came into being.

yet the new discoveries being made have demonstrated nothing more than the fact that the current copies are amazingly unchanged from early copies.....

 

[hotdog]

With religion comes faith. If you don't believe in Jesus christ why would you accept the bible as being authentic.

 

[Lowaicue]

actually there is more evidence Mark wrote the book of Mark than there is that Homer wrote the Iliad....you act as if the books of the Bible appeared the day before the Canon of Trent and were turned into a written document....

an original document was produced by a first hand observer, copies were made and distributed around the Christian community from Rome to Alexandria and Jerusalem to Asia Minor....at Trent the leaders of the Church identified those documents which 1) were unanimously agreed to be accurate copies of the original first hand account, and 2) were essential documents for understanding the religion of Christianity....

did the writings of Plutarch or Plato ever have to submit to equal inquiry?.......

as to acceptance of the Bible to be the word of God, obviously that is a matter of faith choice.....as is accepting the nature of the Koran or the writings of Buddha.....

but do not pretend there is no evidence that Mark wrote Mark or John wrote John....

There is no mass mind manipulation based on the writings of Homer or Plutarch. There is no such thing as Homeranity.
I am not saying that Mark did not write Mark nor that John did not write John, that is not the point, although again there is no proof that would stand up in a court of law.
The council of trent was held 1600 years after the date believed by some to have marked the death of Jesus. There was NO verifiable or verified primary evidence presented at Trent.
You may follow Christian teachings and believe that you are neither manipulator nor manipulated. You clearly need that in your life.
I do not.
You follow A FAITH. And that is OK, but it is still a FAITH and NOT the proven truth.

 

[hotdog]

There is no mass mind manipulation based on the writings of Homer or Plutarch. There is no such thing as Homeranity.
I am not saying that Mark did not write Mark nor that John did not write John, that is not the point, although again there is no proof that would stand up in a court of law.
The council of trent was held 1600 years after the date believed by some to have marked the death of Jesus. There was NO verifiable or verified primary evidence presented at Trent.
You may follow Christian teachings and believe that you are neither manipulator nor manipulated. You clearly need that in your life.
I do not.
You follow A FAITH. And that is OK, but it is still a FAITH and NOT the proven truth.

Their are few proven truths in this world. Nothing has been proven about economics or politics. Only a few scientific facts have been proven to be true.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

There is no mass mind manipulation based on the writings of Homer or Plutarch. There is no such thing as Homeranity.
I am not saying that Mark did not write Mark nor that John did not write John, that is not the point, although again there is no proof that would stand up in a court of law.
The council of trent was held 1600 years after the date believed by some to have marked the death of Jesus. There was NO verifiable or verified primary evidence presented at Trent.
You may follow Christian teachings and believe that you are neither manipulator nor manipulated. You clearly need that in your life.
I do not.
You follow A FAITH. And that is OK, but it is still a FAITH and NOT the proven truth.

I don't care if you need it or not, though I do consider it idiocy to claim anything about "mind manipulation".......I'm simply pointing out it isn't honest to pretend the Bible sprung forth out of the void in the 1600s......and there is a vast difference between saying one cannot prove the truth of what is in the Bible and saying that one cannot prove the Bible of today is virtually the same as the Bible of the 1st Century.....there is in fact a tremendous amount of evidence for that latter which WOULD stand up in a court of law....

 

[Lowaicue]

all of them....Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for the gospels.....obviously Paul would have been the primary source of the letters he wrote....which are you claiming were NOT primary sources and what evidence do you have to support your claim.....

This has to be the silliest question of the week [weak? ]. What evidence do you suppose is available to show that something does not exist?

Dear John,
Just a quick note to show you that this is not a real note and neither it nor I really exist.
Love Μᾶρκος


Now let's just consider one further point. Let's suppose for one minute that Mark actually lived at the time you believe and that he sat down one day to write what became known as his gospel. OK?
So one guy writes some stuff 2000 years ago and you believe it! If Hillary Clinton was pictured on TV actually writing something with a pen in her dainty mitt, you would not believe it!
Do you think that logic really forms any part of your belief mechanism?

 

[hotdog]

I don't care if you need it or not, though I do consider it idiocy to claim anything about "mind manipulation".......I'm simply pointing out it isn't honest to pretend the Bible sprung forth out of the void in the 1600s......and there is a vast difference between saying one cannot prove the truth of what is in the Bible and saying that one cannot prove the Bible of today is virtually the same as the Bible of the 1st Century.....there is in fact a tremendous amount of evidence for that latter which WOULD stand up in a court of law....

I though their was a seperation of church and state how could the bible ever end up in a court room. The 10 commandments can no longer make an appearance.

 

[Phantasmal]

There is no mass mind manipulation based on the writings of Homer or Plutarch. There is no such thing as Homeranity.
I am not saying that Mark did not write Mark nor that John did not write John, that is not the point, although again there is no proof that would stand up in a court of law.
The council of trent was held 1600 years after the date believed by some to have marked the death of Jesus. There was NO verifiable or verified primary evidence presented at Trent.
You may follow Christian teachings and believe that you are neither manipulator nor manipulated. You clearly need that in your life.
I do not.
You follow A FAITH. And that is OK, but it is still a FAITH and NOT the proven truth.

Actually in the Bronze Age, people would use the names of their mentors as their pen names in order to give their writings validity. There are still many unanswered questions as to who wrote the gospels.