Christianity Refutes Itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMP-5jD_oaQ

John 17 (KJV)

Jesus' followers aren't one (unless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations">38,000 different denominations count as just one), so by the criteria in John, Jesus wasn't sent by God, Christianity refutes itself.

Oh, to be a teenager again . . .

:eyes:

You read the Bible with the same flawed (and also non-historical) methodology and ideology as the fundamentalists.

Perhaps you'd care to offer a more 'sophisticated' reading of John that means exactly what you want it to mean?

literally, "reading into the text".

Exogesis is the process of examining the text by using textual criticism, redaction criticism, literary criticism.


Who is the author writing to? What are the conditions at the time (are they being persecuted?


What is the general point of the chapter? Why is it in that particular order? Is there any significance to the order of things that are being discussed?


The discipline is aimed at trying to understand the passage from the point of the view of the writer and not 'pick' a passage that proves the point that you had before you looked at it.

For example if this passage had actually been logical and consistent would you have then been moved to convert? No. You went to find something that was an internal contradiction.


The reality is that there are much more profound and well known problems in the NT that form internal contradictions in the Christian faith without imposing an outside view.


The synoptic gospels varying accounts of the Virgin birth undermine the principle significantly. The whole 'Messianic' secret of Mark. The fact that post resurrection appearences were not present in the original texts of Mark, are just the begining.


If you are curious what the passage meant in context you can search various peer review level commentaries to get an idea.

There isn't much commonality between them when you get into the nitty-gritty details, so reading a dozen different commentaries may not shed any light on the situation.

The entire higher criticism discipline was started by conservative scholars but the conclusions led scholars to highly common views about how the Bible is a very human document with contradictions and errors.

There isn't any real differences between the highest level of Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic Seminaries. They aren't debating any major disagreements.

If you live in an area that has a mainline Seminary drop by and see what is in the bookstore.

The more essential problems is that it appears that you aren't really interested in it as a historical document but prefer to try and use it as a means to affirm your predetermined opinion.

If you are really interested in learning about the context of the Bible I suggest the standard text Understanding the Old Testament by Bernhard Anderson.

If you are interested in seeing how the basic scholarship of the Bible is ignored by the Church you can read the books by Bart Ehrman. He followed me at Princeton and we had mirror experiences. We both came from very conservative backgrounds (his was even more conservative than mine). He was absolutely determined to prove the 'liberal scholars wrong' and persevered all the way to the PH'd program. He finally came to the conclusion that the people who he thought were 'liberals' were in fact just honest conservative scholars who were being truthful but that the conclusions eroded his faith. He is now an agnostic and debates Evangelicals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Ehrman

It is clear that the New Testament represents very specific efforts by authors to respond to very specific needs that they saw. They were not trying to be accurate historians. For example during Jesus life he certainly addressed most of his spoken words at the Saducees. When it came to write about them the temple was destroyed, the Saducees were eliminated and no one bothered to write down much of what Jesus said about them. For example no politician gives speaches about the Nazi's or Stalin because those forces no longer exist.

You would be surprised how little controversy there actually is. For example all reputable bible scholars agree that the Sermon on the Mount never happened as it was written. It doesn't make any sense that such an august event would not be reported by any of the other writers of the New Testatment. I had a friend who spent 10 years on the Book of Matthew proving his thesis that the book of Matthew was written to mirror the structure of the Old Testament.

If your really interested in learning more Anderson's book and Ehrman's Jesus Interupted;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus,_Interrupted

is pretty big. Pope vs no pope is pretty big.

Now on the question of authorship of the book of Genesis there is widespread agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Julius Wellhausen's contribution was to order these sources chronologically as JEDP, giving them a coherent setting in the evolving religious history of Israel, which he saw as one of ever-increasing priestly power. Wellhausen's formulation was:

the Yahwist source ( J ) : written c. 950 BCE in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
the Elohist source ( E ) : written c. 850 BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
the Deuteronomist ( D ) : written c. 600 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
the Priestly source ( P ) : written c. 500 BCE by Aaronic priests in exile in Babylon.
The Torah redactors: first JE, then JED, and finally JEDP, producing the final form of the Torah c. 450 BCE.
The hypothesis dominated biblical scholarship for much of the 20th century, and, although increasingly challenged by other models in the last part of the 20th century, its terminology and insights continue to provide the framework for modern theories on the origins of the Torah.<3>



Now while that consensus is being challenged by scholars on revising post manuscript editing the foundation is universally accepted. No serious Biblical scholar really believes that Genesis was written by Moses.

No major disagreements between Catholicism and Protestantism?

Do the Jewish seminaries affirm Jesus' divinity or do the Christian ones deny it?
Do the Catholic seminaries deny the Papacy's importance or do the Protestant ones endorse it?

There is little major disagreement between biblical scholars on who wrote what book, was it meant to be literal or not, what historical forces shaped the context and so on.


There is a world of difference between agreeing what the text was meant to mean by the author and what systematic theology you put it into.


I don't think that Jewish Seminaries would have any problems with Anderson's book cited above, although there understanding of what the text means for their theology would be another issue.

I am not a Christian but I support an honest view of learning what is actually in the Bible.


Your effort to pick a verse out of the Bible to prove something is as sophomoric as the fundamentalist who does the same thing to try to prove that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.


In both cases the only thing that is proved is that neither has understood the serious peer review scholarship of the Bible that has progressed over the last 100 years, largely in consensus.


In any case after you have done the Biblical study to decipher who wrote it, what was the context and what was the actual point of the passage then you can argue to your hearts content about how the contradiction in a verse 'disproves' Christianity, however as I have mentioned above actual biblical scholarship has unearthed much more damning contradictions that have and continue to rock erstwhile and even very conservative Christians like Barnhard.

I didn't make the video I linked to. I thought it was cute, so I linked it with a summary. Your line about picking a verse out of the Bible is inconsequential, since it has nothing to do with what I've done.

The argument that it's incorrect to evaluate a passage without first studying the origins and history of it, as well as the reason why it's in the Bible is complete garbage. You don't need to know that the Gospel of John was written by an anonymous author in the late 1st/early 2nd century who largely drew on a different source than the authors of the synoptic Gospels, the reasons why it was chosen for inclusion in the Bible, or the political context in which it was originally authored and used to read and understand an excerpted passage. This is similar to the old argument it's wrong for people to know what's written without a priest interpreting it for them.

It does help to know the internal context, which is summarized in the first verse--Jesus is praying for his followers. Usually before I post a passage, I re-read it in context to see if it would be more effective to post the verses prior or following, to state the context as a preface, or simply to present as-is. This verse fell under the last category, so I posted it as it appeared in the video (though I did use a different translation).

Both 'sides' as you put it have little use modern Biblical scholarship, but for different reasons:
-To fundamentalists, the history of the Bible is practically blasphemous to even suggest the Bible is anything but the inerrant Word of God, as dictated to King James, in English.
-To non-believers, it is recognized as analogous to studying the history of The Lord of the Rings along with the life of Tolkien. Such study may reveal interesting insight into aspects of the work, but is ultimately superfluous in a discussion of its text and messages. (You don't need to know why it's structured the way it is to understand what it says and what it means.)

Modern Biblical scholarship is fetishism. The book is a poorly edited collection of historical fiction and propaganda on which far too many people base their lives. To pretend that this "serious" scholarship on it has any extrinsic value is deluded.

"You don't need to know that the Gospel of John was written by an anonymous author in the late 1st/early 2nd century who largely drew on a different source than the authors of the synoptic Gospels, the reasons why it was chosen for inclusion in the Bible..." - that statement is clearly a load. So often bible commentators like to use such reasoning and refer to the mythical "Q". Tell me, where is this Q, or the writings of this "different source" you speak of? Atheistic propagandists rely heavily on unsubstantiated bunk.

Document who this "John" fellow was, and then prove that he actually wrote the book of your bible bearing his name.

When a claim is made that there was a common manuscript, then the burden becomes yours. The statement, "The burden of proof is on you" is a common atheist retort and simply a method of avoidance, in most cases. Christians do not rely on on totally objective, empirical proof as positivism does. We rely on subjective analysis, and yes, that dreaded word "faith". So, when I have 4 different books that are written in 4 distinctly different styles - I choose to conclude that they were written by 4 different individuals. Examination of the text and the circumstances surrounding the gospels has resulted in the subjective assumption that they were written by those named. So, I told you why I believe what I do, based on subjective evidence. Whether you accept that or not is of no consequence to me. The fact is that Q is unproven, unsubstatiated bunk and a MAJOR strawman.

But I can certainly understand why you are desperate to deny it.

There isn't. There, that's settled.

Congratulations, you refuted your own strawman!

to counter religious arguments and it was not in response to one of your posts.

Way to go!

:rofl:

MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl:

well it saves a lot of time lol

Perhaps the problem lies there.

Here's one, for instance. Let's assume there is a Jesus and that this Jesus, supernatural, actually has followers and that it is to these followers that he refers. Now, let's assume that there are people called "Christians," who claim to be followers of this Jesus.

The next thing you need to assume is that everybody who calls himself a follower of Jesus is also claimed by Jesus as one of his followers.

Matt. 7:19-23 (Holman)
Every tree that doesn't produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So you'll recognize them by their fruit. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?' Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers."

Proof-texting, the picking one one or two verses to demonstrate the utter veracity of what you want to say, is the bane of many Xian sects. And not only of Xian sects.

I didn't make the video, I just relayed it and its contents.

I like the way Bob Marley puts it: "The power of philosophy / floats through my head / light like a feather / heavy as lead."

Light like a feather, its the simplest concept... "Love thy neighbor as thyself." The ramifications, the effort to see it through, they are heavy as lead.

the world would be a better place.

first, the question of duality vs. nonduality. The Buddhists are great explorers of this paradox but it is relevant to Christianity as well. One example is the mystery of the trinity, Gods three-yet-one nature. The father, son and holy spirit are separate yet one. Of one being, yet unique. Christians must by default be able to handle the acceptance of paradoxes.

second, the passage you quote doesnt seem to refute anything. Just because there are different denominations does not mean Christians aren't "one." We ARE one, in that we are all members of the body of Christ. A liver cell and a skin cell are quite different, but does that make either one inferior to the other? Less necessary than the other? No! Each performs its own unique function to serve the whole. Presbyterians and Pentecostals differ on many theological points but does that make either one less a part of the body of Christ? No!

third, this is a prayer, not a statement of fact. "That they may be one, even as we are one."

edit - speling

Not being able to agree on the basic aspects of your god signal a lack of unity within your religion. I defy you to clearly delineate the "unique function" of the tens of thousands of different sects within Christianity.

My role as a Christian is not to perfectly understand theology, but to seek to understand God's will in my life, to merge my life with His, and ultimately, give up "my" life and follow the life that God has planned for me. "Those who seek to save their life will lose it, but those who give up their life will find it." I take that mean I shouldnt seek to make a better AlecBGreen, but to see how I am nothing but a part of something larger, the Body of Christ. It is He living in me, and if I can get my own selfish self out of the way, I will find life. Thats how I take it. I will mature in my spiritual understanding as I get older, have conversations with people far more godly than I, pray, read Scripture, etc but that is how I see it now at 29 years old. So according to my understanding, I dont need to understand the function that different sects perform. They are there, I am here, and thats that.

What Christians dont believe that God is the three-in-one? Im sure there are some very small sects that might think Jesus was fully human or other things like that, but as far as mainline branches of Christianity go, I think they all agree on the point that the father, son and holy spirit are one.

Not being able to agree means we are human. Try finding two Democrats that agree on everything!

As to nontrinitarian sects, all one has to do is look it up.

Living Church of God, Jehovah's Witness, Unitarian, and Oneness Pentacostal are all nontrinitarian sects.

not to be snarky, but WHY must I back up the claim that different branches perform different functions? What purpose would it serve? To convince you of something that you dont believe in? Its times like this that I dont like talking over the internet b/c it might seem that I am being rude or hostile, but that definitely isnt my reaction or intent. I just feel like sometimes we are more interested in scoring intellectual points to soothe our ego rather than trying to find the truth. I feel that way about people in general, and I think the R/T forum in particular. I definitely put myself into this category. It feels like this subthread is heading that way.

I didnt even know the word "nontrinitarian" existed til you mentioned it. I looked it up (yay Wikipedia) and browsed it quickly before I left for work. Ill check it out some more, thanks for pointing it out.

I would like to understand your POV. Just because I don't believe in gods doesn't mean I have zero interest in understanding the perspectives of the those who do.

thank you for your sincerity. I deal with teenagers all day so Im on sarcasm overload :)

So the questions is... "I defy you to clearly delineate the "unique function" of the tens of thousands of different sects within Christianity."

Each sect or branch of Christianity can be compared to each individual Democrat that makes up our party. Each has various opinions they bring to the table, and the more people who voice those opinions, and the more strength with which they assert it, the more the party as a whole shifts to reflect those views. I think Christianity is the same way. Therefore, the unique function of each branch is to assert its own views so as to influence the whole.

Does that make any sense? Its not something I think about too often.

The problem, I think, is the analogy. The differences between sects can be minor, but many are significant. The division between Catholic and Protestant is a good example, as is the difference between Unitarian and Pentacostal. To call these just differences of opinion distorts the spectrum of beliefs.

has divisions or denominations or sects as far as I know. Christianity is no exception and in fact Scripture allows for differences in denominations,ceremonies, and observances. Romans 14:1-8 -
Rom 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

Rom 14:2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

Rom 14:3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.

Rom 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Rom 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Rom 14:6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Rom 14:7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.

Rom 14:8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

I didn't realize you were a Biblical literalist.

the semantics game.

By your post i would definitely say you are a literalist though

You came in here, promoting your literalist view, and now you're on about me not defending some argument I allegedly made?

biblical references are much more suseptible to a literal interpretation or misinterpretation than mine.

I think Jesus trumps Paul when it comes to what Jesus said.

You're really out of your element here. You may want to just give up, accuse me of worshipping Stalin, and go your merry way.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Oh yeah,

MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl: MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:MILITANT ATHEIST :rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl: MILITANT ATHEISTS :rofl:

Epic fail in this thread, man, epic fail.

Christianity is a complete and total mess, if you want consistency. Mostly it's consistently cruel and vengeful and irrational and hateful.

Go here and have fun:

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

:toast: :bounce: HAVE FUN!

It's all a big clusterfuck anyway. So confusing.