Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Setanta wrote:

You're making a diversionary side issue of Abraham. The question contains no assertions about Abraham at all, scriptural or otherwise. Abrahamic religions is an academic commonplace, used to describe all of the sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which religions claim to have a descent from Abraham.

So, how about an answer?

Sorry, Set.

I know what you mean; but I can't understand how you can expect me to defend Abrahamic religions as a group when their priesthoods present a cacophony of religious misinterpretations, perfect straw men, if you will.

Were I to try, I would be advancing an argument I knew from the start to be spurious.

neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You're making a diversionary side issue of Abraham. The question contains no assertions about Abraham at all, scriptural or otherwise. Abrahamic religions is an academic commonplace, used to describe all of the sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which religions claim to have a descent from Abraham.

So, how about an answer?

Sorry, Set.

I know what you mean; but I can't understand how you can expect me to defend Abrahamic religions as a group when their priesthoods present a cacophony of religious misinterpretations, perfect straw men, if you will.

Were I to try, I would be advancing an argument I knew from the start to be spurious.

And why would that stop you?????

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You're making a diversionary side issue of Abraham. The question contains no assertions about Abraham at all, scriptural or otherwise. Abrahamic religions is an academic commonplace, used to describe all of the sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which religions claim to have a descent from Abraham.

So, how about an answer?

Sorry, Set.

I know what you mean; but I can't understand how you can expect me to defend Abrahamic religions as a group when their priesthoods present a cacophony of religious misinterpretations, perfect straw men, if you will.

Were I to try, I would be advancing an argument I knew from the start to be spurious.

And why would that stop you?????

We don't all operate from the same playbook as you do, Frank.

Sorry, Set.

I know what you mean; but I can't understand how you can expect me to defend Abrahamic religions as a group when their priesthoods present a cacophony of religious misinterpretations, perfect straw men, if you will.

Were I to try, I would be advancing an argument I knew from the start to be spurious.

Fine then leave the word Protestant out of the question if you think it will make a better question.

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is, as I indicated, the central point of Christian teaching and distinguishes it from Islam and Judaism, . . .

and provides the authority for the teaching of the New Testament.

Since some New Testament writers were eyewitnesses of Christ alive after His resurrection, I can understand why you would be afraid to admit the writings as evidence.

But evidence they are. Independently written or dictated by various men who are telling what THEY themselves saw, it's evidence that makes your denial very difficult.

(Note that these two passages have been combined to facilitate mockery.) The fact that you may not want to consider the Bible as evidence only betrays your own bias. Denying Jesus ever existed only leaves you mouthing an argument from silence.

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You're making a diversionary side issue of Abraham. The question contains no assertions about Abraham at all, scriptural or otherwise. Abrahamic religions is an academic commonplace, used to describe all of the sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which religions claim to have a descent from Abraham.

So, how about an answer?

Sorry, Set.

I know what you mean; but I can't understand how you can expect me to defend Abrahamic religions as a group when their priesthoods present a cacophony of religious misinterpretations, perfect straw men, if you will.

Were I to try, I would be advancing an argument I knew from the start to be spurious.

And why would that stop you?????

We don't all operate from the same playbook as you do, Frank.

Sorry....but I'm not sure of what my "playbook" has to do with it.

You seem to do it so often, I was wondering what had happened to change your outlook on that issue.

It's because your playbook is the comic book called the bible.

With many fictional characers unlike Superman who can do things beyond human abilities.

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You're making a diversionary side issue of Abraham. The question contains no assertions about Abraham at all, scriptural or otherwise. Abrahamic religions is an academic commonplace, used to describe all of the sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which religions claim to have a descent from Abraham.

So, how about an answer?

Sorry, Set.

I know what you mean; but I can't understand how you can expect me to defend Abrahamic religions as a group when their priesthoods present a cacophony of religious misinterpretations, perfect straw men, if you will.

Were I to try, I would be advancing an argument I knew from the start to be spurious.

And why would that stop you?????

We don't all operate from the same playbook as you do, Frank.

Sorry....but I'm not sure of what my "playbook" has to do with it.

You seem to do it so often, I was wondering what had happened to change your outlook on that issue.

There you go again, Frank. You admit you have a playbook and insist that I must somehow operate from it.

real life wrote:

Fine then leave the word Protestant out of the question if you think it will make a better question.

Far from leaving the Protestant belief set out, it is at issue here. I was simply pointing out that any contention based upon a claim that the putative Christ was resurrected is not the exclusive province of the Protestants.

Quote:

The resurrection of Christ from the dead is, as I indicated, the central point of Christian teaching and distinguishes it from Islam and Judaism, . . .

So far, so good, but . . .

Quote:

and provides the authority for the teaching of the New Testament.

This is a statement from authority without substantiation. Even were one to accept a priori for the sake of argument that said resurrection actually occured (something which is nowhere established), it is a post hoc fallacy (because A, then B) to purport that this putative ressurection provides the authority for the teaching of the "new testament," because . . .

Quote:

Since some New Testament writers were eyewitnesses of Christ alive after His resurrection, I can understand why you would be afraid to admit the writings as evidence.

This statement is nowhere established, and ignores completely the assiduous work of Eusebius and Pamphilus to "correct" the testaments, to winnow the offerings to the four accepted testaments of the current cannon, and to obliterate to the extent that they were able, all evidence of "competing" testaments. Given that these alleged testaments were heavily edited, and others erased completely at such a late date (more than three centuries after the lifetime of the alleged Christ), you can be assured that fear does not motivate me in the least. However, hilarity does ensue when the religionists trot out their silly exegesis, and solemnly intone that they deal in the truth, the evidence for which is to be found in their exegesis (the fallacy of circular reasoning).

Quote:

But evidence they are. Independently written or dictated by various men who are telling what THEY themselves saw, it's evidence that makes your denial very difficult.

Were there any reasonable evidence which established that the putative testaments of eyewitnesses were in fact that, you might have a point. But there isn't, and you don't. Denial is as simple as pointing to Eusebius and Pamphilus.

Quote:

(Note that these two passages have been combined to facilitate mockery.) The fact that you may not want to consider the Bible as evidence only betrays your own bias. Denying Jesus ever existed only leaves you mouthing an argument from silence.

Having read history for longer than most of the respondants here have been alive (almost fifty years now), and having learned the solid bases of historiography more than thirty years ago, it is precisely because of the total lack of foundation for an allegation of the existence of the putative Christ that i don't consider a cobbled-together, heavily edited (centuries after the fact, if indeed fact is involved) set of writings to be worthwhile evidence. You are correct that i have a bias, but it's not betrayed, i've never denied it. I have the bias that all careful investigators of historical evidence have--i refuse to believe that which cannot be demonstrated. Far from having "an argument from silence," i find that when called upon to provide corroboration for their claims, independent of scripture, it is the religionists who fall silent. I have feared that we will wade into the mire of interpolation, but you draw nearer to the necessity all the time.

The notices in the Church History bearing on the New Testament Canon are so important that a word must be said about the rule followed by Eusebius in what he recorded and what he left unrecorded. Speaking generally, his principle seems to have been to quote testimonies for and against those books only whose claims to a place in the Canon had been disputed. In the case of undisputed books he gave any interesting information concerning their composition which he had come across in his reading. The subject was most carefully investigated by Lightfoot in an article in "The Contemporary" (January, 1875, reprinted in "Essays on Supernatural Religion"), entitled "The Silence of Eusebius". In regard to the Gospel of St. John, Lightfoot concludes: "The silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its favour."

Eusebius narrates, in his Life of Constantine (IV, 36, 37), how he was commissioned by the emperor to prepare fifty sumptuous copies of the Bible for use in the Churches of Constantinople. Some scholars have supposed that the Codex Sinaiticus was one of these copies. Lightfoot rejects this view chiefly on the ground that "the Text of the codex in many respects differs too widely from the readings found in Eusebius".

Sections and Canons. Eusebius drew up ten canons, the first containing a list of passages common to all four Evangelists; the second, those common to the first three and so on. He also divided the Gospels into sections numbered continuously. A number, against a section, referred the reader to the particular canon where he could find the parallel sections or passages.

...you state: "Eusebius listed some books as disputed which are in the New Testament anyway, and his effort (if one supposes he made one) to authorize a canon which only supported his own views completely failed." Nice try, but i did not state that he attempted to create a "new testament" which only supported his views. Straw men seem something else of which you are fond.

Boy...that was really lame!

If you cannot do better...you probably shouldn't bother to post.

"I'm impressed by your belief about Superman. Does his being unlike fictional characters make him non fictional? Can you explain your beliefs further?:"


"Boy...that was really lame!" amen.