Get that straw man! Get 'im good!

AstroAg17 said:

---

It's a religious camp. The director denied them permission based on their religious beliefs. He probably doesn't hate kids or gays, the camp just isn't for Lutheran kids.

---

It wasn't a Baptist Church Camp. It was a Church Camp. The problem was that the local Baptist Church grew to think it was theirs over the years.

k2aggie07 said:

---

For a so-called "expert" that know's more than 99% of Christians about the early church you sure do "know" some funny things.

---

Even Christian leaders acknowledge that self-identifying Christians no almost nothing about the Bible, much less the history of its development. One article among many:

Quote:

---

"Increasingly, America is biblically illiterate."

Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels.

Many Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples.

60 percent of Americans can't name even five of the Ten Commandments.

12 percent of adults believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.

(o)ver 50 percent thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife.

A considerable number of respondents to one poll indicated that the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham.

---

One need not be a practicing Christian to know FAR more about the Bible and the history of Christianity than most purported Christians.

Heck, the AVERAGE Agnostics and Atheists score higher than Christians, not just about "religion" in general, but ALSO about Christianity itself.
.

What's that got to do with your laughable claim of a Pauline faction vote on canonicity?

unimboti nkum said:

---

The Debt said:

---

unimboti nkum said:

---

According to the Bible gay sex is an unforgivable sin, punishable by death.

Slavery? Meh.

---

Who has said gay sex is unforgivable? Not a single person.

---

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

---

I don't think your concept of forgiveness is biblical

You were supposed to cite sources of scholars here regarding the "earliest schism" (?) instead you mocked Biblical literacy of Christians... could you show your sources instead of changing the subject?

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

You were supposed to cite sources of scholars here regarding the "earliest schism" (?) instead you mocked Biblical literacy of Christians... could you show your sources instead of changing the subject?

---

The other poster mocked my knowledge and seemed to imply that I could not possibly understand Christianity unless I were a devout Christian. I posted the statistics in response to that inference.

I do seem to have mis-remembered the voting issue, because I cannot find the info that I THOUGHT I remembered. I readily admit that. After the Diaspora, the Jewish Christians were scattered, and they gradually became the minority. Eventually, their beliefs were labeled as "heresies." Such is the nature of evolution of a movement. I am just glad that Christianity today is more tolerant of alternate interpretations, or every sect would consider 99 percent of fellow Christians to be heretics.

But the idea that there was no tension between Saul/Paul and the Jerusalem leadership is laughable. Entire books have been written on the issue, but this article provides a very concise summary.

No, I mocked you because you made yourself out to be an expert with decades of experience and then referred to the canon being established by a vote at a council, with the Paul faction shouting down the "Jerusalem" faction.

For starters, the first major council after Jerusalem wasn't until Nicaea, in 325 AD. This was well after the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora -- so there would have been no "Jerusalem" faction there.

Second, as anyone with any halfway exposure to the development of the canon knows, there is simply no council that established the canon. Use established the canon, use and tradition, particularly conforming to the rule that what is canonical is what is read in Church. For example, the Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD says:

Quote:

---

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these...(the list)...Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon, because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church.

---

Third, early canonical lists are almost completely in unison on the vast majority of books. Melito and the Muratorian fragment confirm the basic structure of the entire bible in the late second century, and Origen of course lists a canon in the middle part of the 200s.

No early list includes a fifth gospel as authentic. No early church group seems to hold a fifth gospel in esteem.

What I'm getting at is that as an student of the early church you display an astounding lack of basic knowledge of the canon, early church views on scripture and authenticity, etc. The amazing part is not that you don't know, but that you aggressively displayed your ignorance without realizing it.

This, of course, brings the entirety of your self-styled "expert opinion" into question.

The idea that St Paul's gospel is at tension with that of Jerusalem is a favorite scholarly debate, I'll grant you that. The NT itself gives insight into this. I think you're grossly misunderstanding the nature of this tension and the impact.

But, again, I find that the idea of a schism any major significance (i.e., Christologial, Soteriological) between St Paul and the Apostles doesn't pass basic tests of logic:

1. As I mentioned, the Apostles were also well traveled and not confined in any way to Jerusalem.
2. Apostolic succession is maintained from the Apostles as well as St Paul. Any tension in teaching would have been revealed between their various successors.
3. St Peter and St Paul co-founded and co-ministered in multiple Sees. St Mark was a disciple of St Peter and founded the Church in Alexandria; yet we see no variance in teaching.
4. There are no records of widespread adoption of other canons, other gospels, etc. There are widespread condemnations of numerous heresies (such as Marcion and other wild gnostic sects). We also have many early writings of astonishing clarity and orthodoxy that confirm the widespread adoption of orthodox views and common scriptural use.

It would literally require a conspiracy of epic proportions.

Quote:

---

No, I mocked you because you made yourself out to be an expert with decades of experience and then referred to the canon being established by a vote at a council, with the Paul faction shouting down the "Jerusalem" faction.

---

You are reading my posts to include things that simply are not there. I did not say there was a "James" faction at Nicea. And your misrepresentations go on from there.

For instance, you keep saying that I am claiming the existence of some "cover-up." I have never said that. I am simply saying that Paul's thoughts (and those of his followers) gained primacy over a period of time, and that only the writings consistent with their teachings were incorporated into "the Bible" when the canon was assembled by folks who were almost-uniformly Pauline by that point in time.

You are looking for a victory dance rather than a legitimate discussion. Frankly, this is not important enough for me to continue the process..

Honestly confused, did you mean to type Jerusalem?

Only mention of James was that post

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Honestly confused, did you mean to type Jerusalem?

Only mention of James was that post

---

As I understand the matter (though I am apparently too stupid to have an opinion), James was the appointed leader of the mother church in Jerusalem until his death sometime just before the Roman re-conquest of Jerusalem. I used his name merely as a a parallel to Saul/Paul. It would probably be more accurate to reference the Jerusalem church or the Jewish Christians as not being present at Nicea. Maybe even the Ebionites, though my very limited knowledge seems to be that descent of that sect from the Jerusalem church under James is subject to quite a bit of disagreement.

Clearly, the Ebionites and similar groups had branched-off from the largely-Gentile Christian church LONG before the Council of Nicea. As best I can tell, there did not EXIST a true "Jewish Christian" presence in the movement by that time, as the movement had become essentially Pauline in the interim centuries. By 325ce, there were clearly much-finer hairs to split amongst the members of a movement that was almost entirely Pauline by that time.

The Ebionites were not Jewish Christians. They denied the divinity of Christ, so whatever they were, they were not Christians.

It's kind of difficult to follow the Law when one, the Jews do things like throw you from the temple (in the fashion of St James) or without the temple period. Besides, follow the law vs not I don't believe is a good code word for "Paulism" or whatever. If keeping the law or whatever you mean by The Jerusalem faction is what Christ taught, again, those concerted by the Apostles all over the known world would have been taught this gospel.

Anyway I didn't say you were stupid, I said you made a silly claim. When I asked you about it you doubled down with that silly poll.

Back to the original purpose of the thread, HSFootballAg you might find this piece helpful, maybe not.

Evangelical voices persist: What about traditional believers who didn't choose to be gay?
By Richard Ostling - Get Religion

k2aggie07 said:

---

The Ebionites were not Jewish Christians. They denied the divinity of Christ, so whatever they were, they were not Christians.

---

That really gets into a "No True Scotsman" situation and rather depends upon how we define "Christianity." The Ebionites certainly would not be comparable to modern "Jewish Christians," but they clearly followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as they understood them. In very simplified form, they just believed he was a prophet rather than divine. Doubtless they would have loved the Jefferson Bible.

It seems likely that early Jewish Christians had beliefs and practices similar to those of the Ebionites, even if the Ebionites did not descend directly from the Jerusalem church led by James (a matter of some debate). But if we examine the Epistle of James, it makes no reference to divinity and actually sounds QUITE Jewish in many ways.

Well, the book of James is written by a Jew and addressed to the Jews, so I would be surprised it if wasn't jewish.

He refers to Jesus as Lord in the opening verse and in 1:5 and 7 uses God and the Lord interchangeably. He does the same in 4:10. In chapter he refers to faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ; this would be blasphemy if Jesus is not Lord (cf Psalm 62).

In chapter 4 he says there is one Lawgiver and one Judge, and in chapter 5 clearly identifies that that Judge is the Jesus who will come.

So does he give the Nicene trinitarian formula? No. But there is a harmony between St James and St Peter and St Paul.

AggieHank86 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

The Ebionites were not Jewish Christians. They denied the divinity of Christ, so whatever they were, they were not Christians.

---

That really gets into a "No True Scotsman" situation and rather depends upon how we define "Christianity." The Ebionites certainly would not be comparable to modern "Jewish Christians," but they clearly followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as they understood them. In very simplified form, they just believed he was a prophet rather than divine. Doubtless they would have loved the Jefferson Bible.

It seems likely that early Jewish Christians had beliefs and practices similar to those of the Ebionites, even if the Ebionites did not descend directly from the Jerusalem church led by James (a matter of some debate). But if we examine the Epistle of James, it makes no reference to divinity and actually sounds QUITE Jewish in many ways.

---

For all the differences within christianity today, one thing that all divisions are unified around is the divinity of Christ. So you if you can't answer yes to that simple starting question, than they aren't Christians.

This was also the first thing defined at the first Ecumenical Council. So it was certainly an issue where there was sufficient heresy for them to want to address it.

It's also odd you would reference the Jefferson Bible as one they would follow. Since that is also not a Bible any Christian group would use (for the very fact that Jefferson excluded all supernatural from it).

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Requiring belief in the divinity of Christ isn't exactly a narrow view of Christianity.

---

Yeah, pretty sure this is a definitional issue. The idea that Jesus was at least a prophet is accepted by pretty much every Abrahamian religion. I would not call Muslims a fringe Christian sect. That would be, in my opinion, a pretty fringe viewpoint.

I've heard Islam referred to as a Christian Heresy before, but to me... the difference between heresy/blasphemy/adiophora is that heresy separates you from Christianity.. and usually deals with the identity of God.

BusterAg said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Requiring belief in the divinity of Christ isn't exactly a narrow view of Christianity.

---

I would not call Muslims a fringe Christian sect. That would be, in my opinion, a pretty fringe viewpoint.

---

Today, absolutely. We were discussing its origins.