Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 0:31:38 GMT -5
God must have been in an irritable mood that day because he then backtracked and said okay you're going to die but you have the opportunity to seek salvation by repenting your sins and will be resurrected to everlasting life. In the Catholic church you can do this as often as you like by confessing your sins to a priest.  The Church teaches that there are two degrees of sin: mortal and venial. We receive this understanding from the First Letter of St. John, where he distinguishes between a deadly type of sin and a sin that is not deadly (1 John 5: 16-17). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 14, 2023 0:45:32 GMT -5
It's not some church father, that's what Paul wrote The doctrine of original sin, right, began with Paul? So the Christians were baptising babies in the 1st century? Like I said this is Paul's interpretation of a Genesis story and Augustine's interpretation of Paul's letter. It lead to the doctrine that infants inherit sin through their father's sperm. it's like mention of God the Father and the Holy spirit are proof the Holy Trinity is in the Bible. It's not. It might be a plausible interpretation of something stated in the Bible, but it's not explicitely stated in the Bible. You might argue the Bible supports such a notiion, but you're stretching the truth saying it's IN the Bible. Are you a Christian, btw? Most philosophers consider Ludwig Wittgenstein the greatest philosopher of the first half of the 20th century. He was claimed by the Vienna Circle as one of them, they were atheistic. I'm 99% sure Wittgenstein was a closet Christian. He may not have come out of the closet because of shame, because he was in the closet in THAT way too. That's not a secret. When WWI started he left Cambridge and joined the army of his country to fight. During the war he was in a certain city and went into a bookstore there. The only book they had was Tolstoy's Gospel In Brief. Tolstoy was a great authentic Christian. Wittgenstein was later captured and remained a prisoner of war the rest of the war. There, he read over and over The Gospel In Brief. Wittgenstein also completed his first great philosophical work while a prisoner of war. He was able to send it to his teacher at Cambridge, Bertrand Russell who gave it the name Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Almost nobody understood it. Why? Well, for one thing, in describing it Wittgenstein said the most important part was the part not written. Wittgenstein's family was rich, his Father had a made a lot of money. Wittgenstein gave all his money away, most of it to his sister. he didn't even keep enough to give himself a living the remainder of his life. he didn't say why he gave his money away. I'm about 97% sure he gave it away because: it is difficult for a rich man to enter heaven. It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. He quit philosophy because he felt he had solved all the problems of philosophy, he taught elementary school for a while, built a house, that is, was the contractor for building a house for his sister. Then after some years in talking to a friend, he decided he had found another way to do philosophy, so went back to Cambridge to teach. he had a few students and taught in his own room-housing-quarters, a small room. But he sometimes used the NT in his teaching examples. But it's surmising to say Wittgenstein was a Christian, I don't think he ever said or wrote explicitly. So, all that to say, Gopal should not be compelled or even feel compelled to say he is a Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 0:51:44 GMT -5
Do you take the first century literature to be telling the literal truth? To what extent to you take the old testament literature to be literally true? I explained above. I double checked, and I am confident that I'm not clear on your answers to those 2 questions. So....could you answer them please? (Now I'm curious if you are reticent about answering them for some reason). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 0:54:25 GMT -5
Christians externalize the mystery onto the trinity. But I think that some of them get it just as deeply as any non-dualist. The concept of Trinity is baseless, as there is no endorsement of this theory in the books from the first century. So it sounds like you consider the 'Trinity' to be untrue because it is not first century literature. And...logically then, you consider first century literature to be true? Again, I have zero interest in discussing the Bible, I just would like to know if there is something in the Bible that you read and say...'Okay that is true because it was written by this person at this time'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 1:03:17 GMT -5
The Church teaches that there are two degrees of sin: mortal and venial. We receive this understanding from the First Letter of St. John, where he distinguishes between a deadly type of sin and a sin that is not deadly (1 John 5: 16-17). Talking about 1 John is futile because it's a second-century writing, and second-century writings have drifted far from the original teachings of Jesus |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 1:06:54 GMT -5
The Church teaches that there are two degrees of sin: mortal and venial. We receive this understanding from the First Letter of St. John, where he distinguishes between a deadly type of sin and a sin that is not deadly (1 John 5: 16-17). Talking about 1 John is futile because it's a second-century writing, and second-century writings have drifted far from the original teachings of Jesus The original teachings.....as presented by the first century authors, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 1:07:49 GMT -5
The concept of Trinity is baseless, as there is no endorsement of this theory in the books from the first century. So it sounds like you consider the 'Trinity' to be untrue because it is not first century literature. And...logically then, you consider first century literature to be true? Again, I have zero interest in discussing the Bible, I just would like to know if there is something in the Bible that you read and say...'Okay that is true because it was written by this person at this time'. The writings from the first century adhere to Jesus's teachings, whereas those from the second century and beyond began to deviate from the original doctrine. For instance, they deified Jesus, even though Jesus himself never claimed to be God. Rather, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God, not God. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 1:11:28 GMT -5
So it sounds like you consider the 'Trinity' to be untrue because it is not first century literature. And...logically then, you consider first century literature to be true? Again, I have zero interest in discussing the Bible, I just would like to know if there is something in the Bible that you read and say...'Okay that is true because it was written by this person at this time'. whereas those from the second century and beyond began to deviate from the original doctrine. For instance, they deified Jesus, even though Jesus himself never claimed to be God. Rather, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God, not God. Stating the obvious, but you only know Jesus's teachings from the first century literature though, right? I mean...you weren't actually there. So you take that first century literature to be 'the truth' of Jesus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 1:13:18 GMT -5
Talking about 1 John is futile because it's a second-century writing, and second-century writings have drifted far from the original teachings of Jesus The original teachings.....as presented by the first century authors, right? Paul's writings, which were penned between 48 AD and 52 AD, are the earliest books in the New Testament. He unequivocally stated that Jesus is the Son of God and had no notion of Jesus being God or being born of a virgin. Mark wrote his gospel in 70 AD, and his account aligned with Paul's. Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels around 80 AD and introduced the idea of virgin birth. The gospel of John, written between 90 AD and 120 AD, popularized the notion that Jesus is God. Thus, the teachings gradually deviated from the original doctrine. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 1:14:42 GMT -5
The original teachings.....as presented by the first century authors, right? Paul's writings, which were penned between 48 AD and 52 AD, are the earliest books in the New Testament. He unequivocally stated that Jesus is the Son of God and had no notion of Jesus being God or being born of a virgin. Mark wrote his gospel in 70 AD, and his account aligned with Paul's. Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels around 80 AD and introduced the idea of virgin birth. The gospel of John, written between 90 AD and 120 AD, popularized the notion that Jesus is God. Thus, the teachings gradually deviated from the original doctrine. And so you take Paul (and Mark) to be the original doctrine? (Interesting to me because I had assumed the virgin birth was original doctrine) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 1:15:57 GMT -5
The writings from the first century adhere to Jesus's teachings, whereas those from the second century and beyond began to deviate from the original doctrine. For instance, they deified Jesus, even though Jesus himself never claimed to be God. Rather, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God, not God. Stating the obvious, but you only know Jesus's teachings from the first century literature though, right? I mean...you weren't actually there. So you take that first century literature to be 'the truth' of Jesus. My assertion is that the writings from the first century retained a semblance of the original doctrine, albeit with some minor discrepancies. However, from the second century onwards, the teachings veered significantly from the original doctrine. I cannot determine with certainty whether these changes are correct or not, as I cannot travel back in time to confirm the authenticity of the books. Nonetheless, my analysis of the texts indicates that the writings from the first century remained relatively unchanged(They all have the same idea as to Jesus as son of God not God). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 1:17:40 GMT -5
Paul's writings, which were penned between 48 AD and 52 AD, are the earliest books in the New Testament. He unequivocally stated that Jesus is the Son of God and had no notion of Jesus being God or being born of a virgin. Mark wrote his gospel in 70 AD, and his account aligned with Paul's. Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels around 80 AD and introduced the idea of virgin birth. The gospel of John, written between 90 AD and 120 AD, popularized the notion that Jesus is God. Thus, the teachings gradually deviated from the original doctrine. And so you take Paul (and Mark) to be the original doctrine? (Interesting to me because I had assumed the virgin birth was original doctrine) Indeed, these writings are closer to what Jesus likely believed. It's worth noting that both Paul and Mark were unaware of the concept of virgin birth. Paul wrote in Romans |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 1:29:19 GMT -5
Stating the obvious, but you only know Jesus's teachings from the first century literature though, right? I mean...you weren't actually there. So you take that first century literature to be 'the truth' of Jesus. My assertion is that the writings from the first century retained a semblance of the original doctrine, albeit with some minor discrepancies. However, from the second century onwards, the teachings veered significantly from the original doctrine. I cannot determine with certainty whether these changes are correct or not, as I cannot travel back in time to confirm the authenticity of the books. Nonetheless, my analysis of the texts indicates that the writings from the first century remained relatively unchanged(They all have the same idea as to Jesus as son of God not God). Struggling a bit to understand you here, and I think ChatBot is helping you, so I should understand. Okay, so what you call 'original doctrine' is what you consider to be Jesus actual words and what actually happened? And you take the first century literature to be an accurate representation of the 'original doctrine', yes? And do you believe it to be true? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 14, 2023 1:39:19 GMT -5
And so you take Paul (and Mark) to be the original doctrine? (Interesting to me because I had assumed the virgin birth was original doctrine) Indeed, these writings are closer to what Jesus likely believed. It's worth noting that both Paul and Mark were unaware of the concept of virgin birth. Paul wrote in Romans On what basis do you consider it more likely? Is it because Paul and Mark were there...or thereabouts...at the time, so you trust their representation of Jesus' words? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 1:39:28 GMT -5
My assertion is that the writings from the first century retained a semblance of the original doctrine, albeit with some minor discrepancies. However, from the second century onwards, the teachings veered significantly from the original doctrine. I cannot determine with certainty whether these changes are correct or not, as I cannot travel back in time to confirm the authenticity of the books. Nonetheless, my analysis of the texts indicates that the writings from the first century remained relatively unchanged(They all have the same idea as to Jesus as son of God not God). Struggling a bit to understand you here, and I think ChatBot is helping you, so I should understand. Okay, so what you call 'original doctrine' is what you consider to be Jesus actual words and what actually happened? And you take the first century literature to be an accurate representation of the 'original doctrine', yes? And do you believe it to be true? These are not the exact words of Jesus but rather what he might have taught. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an original doctrine. |
|
