NOTE: You might want to read part 1 and part 2 as well.
From a comment by micah:
Why couldn’t belief in God come from something other than the bible? One doesn’t have to believe the biographies of George Washington are completely true to think that George Washington did indeed exist.
Expanding a little on my reply over there…
For a general belief in “a” god, no. But for Christianity, well, you can’t redefine terms. Much like you can’t say “I’m a vegan, but I eat meat,” you can’t say “I’m a Christian, but I think Jesus, if he existed, was just a man.” Both of those contradict the main point of the definitions!
Now, if you DON’T contradict the definitions, and believe in the divinity, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus, and accept him as your savior, but refuse the Bible… well, there’s a problem, since there’s nothing else about Jesus from even NEAR his time. The 4 gospels were written decades after his death (and contradict one another, but that’s another story), but non-Christian literature only started to mention Jesus centuries after his death, and at a time when there were already many, many Christians; in other words, it was second-hand (or third-hand, because the only thing those Christians had was the gospels, and oral tradition) information at best.
So, how do you know whatever Jesus was, did, or say, without the Bible? How do you know he even existed?
Unless you’ve had a “vision” or dream of Jesus (and we know how reliable those are…), either you use the Bible, or you make up your own “Jesus”. I really don’t see any other possibilities here.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
[quote post="241"](or third-hand, because the only thing those Christians had was the gospels, and oral tradition)[/quote]
Also, don’t forget that the Romans held book burnings of books that said Jesus was mortal, etc.
[quote post="241"]So, how do you know whatever Jesus was, did, or say, without the Bible? How do you know he even existed?
Unless you’ve had a “vision” or dream of Jesus (and we know how reliable those are…), either you use the Bible, or you make up your own “Jesus”. I really don’t see any other possibilities here.[/quote]
For the existence of Jesus without the bible Christians can point to the writings of Flavius Josephus (ca. 90AD) who directly mentions Jesus, Pontius Pilate, Herrod and other such biblical figures. There’s even a disputed reference to Jesus as the Christ. Of course without the bible, knowing what Christ or Messiah means would probably require even more extensive ancient research.
As to making up your own Jesus, I don’t really see why Christians would have a problem with it. There is no biblical source to large portions of Catholic dogma. And with so many different Protestant denominations, logically at the very least all but one of them must be making up or omitting something. It would seem to me Christians came to terms with going with their particular faith demoniation over the Bible a long time ago.
I can’t really find fault with them seeing as how the Bible wasn’t even compiled until the 4th century. And the Gospels of Luke and Matthew also disputedly point to another older source from which they both borrowed heavily. I don’t even know if there is any surviving documentation to show the reasoning of why some books were included while others were excluded.
Can you blame the non-crazy Christians for not following the Bible religiously?
Anything else one “believes” in (or argues a point of) requires more than one source. If A Christian can prove something in the Bible by seeing it in another source that was not based on the Bible, then I may listen for a half a second.
Additionally, for someone (of any religion) to claim that they pick and choose the parts that work for them, it just doesn’t make sense. Many Catholic masturbate and use condoms. Sane choices, that’s true…but against the one thing they supposedly hold the closest. Perhaps, one day they will say to themselves, “it just doesn’t work for me” instead of “I’ll make it work no matter what I have to rearrange.”
[quote comment="15384"]
Additionally, for someone (of any religion) to claim that they pick and choose the parts that work for them, it just doesn’t make sense. Many Catholic masturbate and use condoms. Sane choices, that’s true…but against the one thing they supposedly hold the closest. Perhaps, one day they will say to themselves, “it just doesn’t work for me” instead of “I’ll make it work no matter what I have to rearrange.”[/quote]
I honestly don’t get this logic. If someone believes something is fine morally, what does it matter what some white-robed guy running his own little country in Italy thinks of it. It might not fit his definition of a good Christian, but that doesn’t really matter since it’s merely a matter of faith. If someone believes they are a good Christian, then by their own faith they pretty much are regardless of what somebody else thinks.
Joe: so, you believe anyone can redefine in his mind what “Christian” means, then do anything he or she wants, and be satisfied with that, because “in his/her mind”, he/she’s a Christian?
I don’t think so. If someone wants to develop his or her own system of beliefs, it’s OK… but he or she should not call it by a name that already means something else, such as “Christianity”.
Refusing the teachings of the Pope, or of modern preachers, because you have sources (such as ancient manuscripts) which show that the first Christians meant something completely different, is one thing: in that case, it may mean that they are the ones who are mistaken (or lying) about what “Christianity” really is.
But coming up with something on your own, and calling it “Christianity”… sorry, but I think that makes no sense at all.
[quote comment="15611"]Joe: so, you believe anyone can redefine in his mind what “Christian” means, then do anything he or she wants, and be satisfied with that, because “in his/her mind”, he/she’s a Christian?
I don’t think so. If someone wants to develop his or her own system of beliefs, it’s OK… but he or she should not call it by a name that already means something else, such as “Christianity”.
Refusing the teachings of the Pope, or of modern preachers, because you have sources (such as ancient manuscripts) which show that the first Christians meant something completely different, is one thing: in that case, it may mean that they are the ones who are mistaken (or lying) about what “Christianity” really is.
But coming up with something on your own, and calling it “Christianity”… sorry, but I think that makes no sense at all.[/quote]Here’s my central question. Why?
Christians have been doing it for millennia. Whether it was Gnostics (my personal fave Christian sect), the Great Schism Catholics, or the Anglicans. Why all of a sudden has the definition of Christianity somehow become set in stone? When did it occur? Why, and who is now excluded from Christianity? Are the Lutherans out? Or is it later denominations like the Amish? Or even more recent ones like the snake dancers? Who made the determination?
I think the real problem here is you are trying to apply rules and structure to a matter of faith, and that, to me, is simply illogical.
Sorry, but I simply can’t agree with you on this. What you’re saying is OK to do doesn’t even have anything to do with religion, but simply with redefining common terms. That’s like pointing at a brown dog and calling it a “green penguin”, because you refuse to accept the dictatorship of the dictionary…
[quote post="241"]Here’s my central question. Why?
Christians have been doing it for millennia. Whether it was Gnostics (my personal fave Christian sect), the Great Schism Catholics, or the Anglicans. Why all of a sudden has the definition of Christianity somehow become set in stone? When did it occur? Why, and who is now excluded from Christianity? Are the Lutherans out? Or is it later denominations like the Amish? Or even more recent ones like the snake dancers? Who made the determination?[/quote]
Hey Joe.
If you ask yourself why you wish Christianity NOT to have a definition, you may realize why it doesn’t to you.
Something undefined can never have a weakness.
Don’t get me wrong here. Christianity defines itself, as does the notion of a God.
This is why omnipotence is an impossibility.
It’s not just Christians. It’s people… of ANY religion… all over the world. They redefine the faith they choose, to cope with their own beliefs.
No one person made the determination against this.
It’s logic that did so.
[quote comment="16765"]
Hey Joe.
If you ask yourself why you wish Christianity NOT to have a definition, you may realize why it doesn’t to you.
Something undefined can never have a weakness.
Don’t get me wrong here. Christianity defines itself, as does the notion of a God.
This is why omnipotence is an impossibility.
It’s not just Christians. It’s people… of ANY religion… all over the world. They redefine the faith they choose, to cope with their own beliefs.
No one person made the determination against this.
It’s logic that did so.[/quote]The definition of Christianity means very little to me. I was just pointing out that there is no basis for assigning a fixed definition to it. Most Catholics today would be considered blasphemous by their Middle Ages counterparts, as they would be considered unholy by the earliest Christians. Religion is a constantly evolving field. What’s an accepted definition today will be considered to restrictive in the future. That’s just the way it’s always been when it comes to matters of faith.
And I really don’t see what the problem with it is. Logic and faith don’t have much in common.
[quote] The definition of Christianity means very little to me. I was just pointing out that there is no basis for assigning a fixed definition to it.[/quote]
What a fine example of circular reasoning as well as putting the cart before the horse.
Christianity, in the form of the xn bible, defines xnty. This is necessarily true. When you cast this aside, either by putting your own ideas first else by dismissing the nature of xnty entirely, then you are necessarily NOT following xnty any more. In putting your own ideas prior to the nature of xnty, you are practicing “Joeism” rather than xnty.
The problem is not between logic and faith, but between logic and language. The words and those things to which they point have meaning. In disregarding that causal chain between the word and reality, you have in essence removed any hint of meaning as well as any possibility of any meaning, from the word. So now “christianity” (the word) cannot point to christianity (the religion) so when you are making claims about “christianity” they fail to refer to christianity, but rather to “Joeism.”
Imagine that you were talking about basketball. You can claim that baseketball is a game where guys ride horses and try to hit a ball with a mallet, but then your use of the word “basketball” necessarily no longer refers to the game of basketball, but rather to polo.
[quote comment="18297"]
Christianity, in the form of the xn bible, defines xnty. This is necessarily true.[/quote]If this is true please tell me which Christian denomination are the real Christians. A number of them believe they are the sole true Christian faith and the rest of the fake Christians are going to Hell. Obviously if it’s in the Bible, no good Christian is going to go to Hell. So please tell me which one is the real Christian faith?
Also I can’t take credit for being the first to change the definition of Christianity and having that religion name after me. Martin Luther beat me to that by nearly 500 years. And I don’t think I like the name Joeism either as I’m afraid I might be confused with another guy who created his own Christian religion, Joseph Smith. And God knows(I’m guessing Atheist don’t have a problem with me using the Lord’s name in vain) I don’t want to be associated with the Mormons.
Whatever name you choose, it necessarily is not xnty. This is the nature of language. Do with that what you want.
[quote comment="18540"]Whatever name you choose, it necessarily is not xnty. This is the nature of language. Do with that what you want.[/quote]I like how you avoided the simple question I asked in the first paragraph.
Actually the answer is self-evident and given PRIOR to the question asked. That you so misunderstand the very meaning of identity as to in essence try to assert that a square can be any shape at all in no way demonstrates any avoidance of any question.
Either you follow xnty from the xn bible IN ITS ENTIRETY, else you are necessarily NOT xn.
Do you really hold the position that simply calling something by a different name, such as calling gravel gold, will make it turn into that thing? Will the gravel suddenly become gold simply because you in your words “change the definition?”
You seem to be very confusded about the difference between the name and the thing that is named.
[quote comment="18643"]Do you really hold the position that simply calling something by a different name, such as calling gravel gold, will make it turn into that thing? Will the gravel suddenly become gold simply because you in your words “change the definition?”[/quote]No, I merely believe languages can evolve. For instance the word “cool” has an extra meaning it didn’t have 50 years ago. The word “gay” means something completely different than it did in 1900. Word meanings can change over time. Christianity is an ever evolving concept just like “hot”, “bad”, and many others.
As the bible wasn’t even compiled until the 3rd or 4th century, any definition of Christianity that would make Jesus Christ, himself, and his apostles non-Christians is simply a “bad” definition. Even Joeism isn’t that restrictive.
You are mistaking adjectives for not merely nouns, but going even further to mistake additional “meanings” tacked onto adjectives (without losing the original meaning) for the things to which the nouns themselves point.
This is akin to mistaking “glossy” for the actual rock itself which is referred to by the term “gravel.” It is two degrees removed from any hint of any connection whatsoever, making your argument invalid as it relies upon zero degrees of separation, meaning absolute identity.
Uh.. necessarily if there were a guy “jebus” as depicted by the religion, he could not be a chistian. This works in much the same way the father is not his own son.
Finally if “christianity” is an “ever evolving” conccept, then necessarily the term refers to NOTHING whatsoever, and as you employ it to mean anything at all, it has no meaning and cannot have any meaning. Meaning is connected to reality, not mere wishful thinking. Your argument eliminates the possibility of anything at all which is captured by the term “christianity.” In essence you are making the argument against the possible existence of christianity itself. Surely this false conclusion which is necessitated by your argument is sufficient to demonstrate that the argument is itself necessarily invalid.
Oh and I should have added that your initial negative reply is belied by the argument following it which argues for EXACTLY what I pointed out you seem to believe, that being that simply arbitrarily changing a word changes the object to which the word points.
[quote comment="18678"]
Uh.. necessarily if there were a guy “jebus” as depicted by the religion, he could not be a chistian. This works in much the same way the father is not his own son.[/quote]This is faulty reasoning. This is like claiming Hippocrates can’t be a doctor because he was the founder of modern medicine. Or Louis Pasteur can’t be a microbioligist simply because he was the first person to invent a vaccine. If “jebus” (btw, that’s one of my favorite Simpsons episodes) was a real person. I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian if he’s following his own teachings. Whereas your father-son example is only true because it’s an actual physical impossibility. EDIT: Technically a father could be his own son if he married his mother.
But even if your point was valid, in my previous post I included the part about “and his apostles”. Your definition of Christianity excludes anyone from about 33 AD to around 300 AD simply because the bible hadn’t been compiled yet. What I am saying is that is clearly poor definition of the word.
[quote comment="18678"]Finally if “christianity” is an “ever evolving” conccept, then necessarily the term refers to NOTHING whatsoever, and as you employ it to mean anything at all, it has no meaning and cannot have any meaning. Meaning is connected to reality, not mere wishful thinking. Your argument eliminates the possibility of anything at all which is captured by the term “christianity.” In essence you are making the argument against the possible existence of christianity itself. Surely this false conclusion which is necessitated by your argument is sufficient to demonstrate that the argument is itself necessarily invalid.[/quote]This isn’t true at all. The word “planet” is an ever evolving concept. Which is how Pluto was recently determined to not be a planet anymore. “Life” has had to be refined several times. Most notably when bacteria were first discovered, and then once again when the first virus was observed. But even today there are arguments over when a fetus is officially alive inside a mother’s womb. And whether a person whose bodily functions are sustained by a machine is still alive. If I used your logic “life” has no meaning (and I don’t mean that in the existential sense).
First off Joe I cannot strongly enough recommend at least an introduction to logic class. In trying to lecture me about faulty reasoning you are relying soley upon your own wishes not upon sound reasoning.
Take your father being his own son example. You employ the fallacy of equivocation in order to give the illusion of the conclusion being true, when in fact the conclusion is necessarily false. No man ever sired himself.
As for your Hippocrates suggested example, this too fails on logical ground for you are employing a difference of type while asserting an identity. It is literally nonsensical to claim that even if this “jebus” entity ever existed, that it took itself as a savior, giving over its self to… itself. The very act of denying self in giving it to another is impossible for the entity to which the self is being given.
As for your notion that I have excluded some who existed, you yet again are erroneously putting the cart before the horse (as well as assuming your conclusion as axiomatically true) in that you are taking the writings of the xn bible as evidence that nothing existed in that time “before” the xn bible. In relying upon that bible you are necessarily defeating your position for you are either 1. relying upon the bible you are trying to discredit, else 2. discrediting the xn bible such that [b] it cannot serve as evidence in your own argument (logically speaking) [/b] Either way you undermine your own argument to the extent of necessitating its failure on logical grounds.
As for “planet” and “life” you are yet again relying at best upon hand waving and wishful thinking. Whereas you are discarding the entirety of the ONLY connection to a specific creation, that of xnty, in your position and using the term to mean something entirely different, the two suggested examples are refinements, not whole cloth discarding of the word and its meaning. “Planet” did not suddenly come to point at a chocolate sundae, as would be necessary for your argument to hold water logically speaking.
Though you have chosen to overlook or ignore the many clear and sound refutations of your claims, including the explanations of the INHERENT contradictions in your arguments, perhaps you will be willing to consider that if your claims were true, then language would necessarily always be completely private. This is to say that we could not communicate with another for no word would ever have meaning or point to anything in the real world but rather would be as you would have it entirely subjective and changeable at whim. So when I say “That barn over there is red” your response could be “Yes Friday was a round asparagus” and no meaning would be lost, for there would be none to be had. You might “feel” that you are responding to the citing of the barn and its color, but since your words have no connection to reality, that is to say that they are subjective and subject to pure whimsy thus are prevented from having any meaning whatsoever, they fail to convey anything at all about the barn or the color.
BTW it is not “my logic” or yours, it is logic. It is OBJECTIVE and in no way relies upon any individual. But of course for all I know that is what you meant with your claims to the contrary for as you are arguing, necessarily your words have no causal chains linking them to concepts or entities in reality.
[quote comment="18673"]No, I merely believe languages can evolve. For instance the word “cool” has an extra meaning it didn’t have 50 years ago. The word “gay” means something completely different than it did in 1900. Word meanings can change over time. Christianity is an ever evolving concept just like “hot”, “bad”, and many others.
As the bible wasn’t even compiled until the 3rd or 4th century, any definition of Christianity that would make Jesus Christ, himself, and his apostles non-Christians is simply a “bad” definition. Even Joeism isn’t that restrictive.[/quote]
Joe: so, going back to the original post, you wouldn’t have any problems with “I’m a vegan, but I eat meat”? Even though the definition — indeed, the point — of the term “vegan” is not consuming any kind of meat whatsoever?
Words evolving is one thing. But redefining words yourself, and expecting everyone else to accept your definitions as valid… I don’t know. I believe that you and I can communicate because we’re using a common language (English), but we wouldn’t be able to do it if “dog” meant a four-legged, commonly domesticated canine to me, and a particular shade of the color blue to you…
P.S. - and, yes, to most of today’s “Christians”, including the entire religious right, Jesus, as described in the Bible, would be nothing but a dirty communist hippie.
[quote comment="18806"]
P.S. - and, yes, to most of today’s “Christians”, including the entire religious right, Jesus, as described in the Bible, would be nothing but a dirty communist hippie. :)[/quote]This is all I’ve been trying to say from the beginning. Very few of the Christian religions today bare much resemblance to the teachings preached in the bible. Yet the majority of these denominations are accepted as Christian faiths by the overwhelming majority of society. This assertion that Christianity must be 100% tied to the bible, while certainly rational, represents a disconnect with the actual reality of the situation.
Sure your definition is fairly logical, but it doesn’t fit with most people’s accepted definition of Christianity is. Otherwise Christianity would be considered a mostly dead religion. People have been making up religions and getting them recognized as Christian faiths for milennia. You’re endorsing a claim that only those regarded as the craziest of Christians would support. My definition, on the otherhand, while being completely head-scratchingly, illogical is much closer to the accepted truth than yours.
[quote] This assertion that Christianity must be 100% tied to the bible, while certainly rational, represents a disconnect with the actual reality of the situation.[/quote]
Here again we have an fine example of putting the cart before the horse. You are in essence completely disconnecting the word from reality by allowing it to freely point to nothing at all. In other words you remove any hint of any meaning from the word, thus causing amongst other things, all of your claims which use the word to also be meaningless.
Imagine making a similar claim about squares. Does it make any sense to claim that squares are not defined by their definition? Can we do as you imply here and simply refer to anything at all as a square, even though it may be round or not even a shape at all?
I can call myself a billy goat all day long, any by your reasoning that is sufficient to actually make me a billy goat, regardless of the fact that I am entirely human.
Surely one of these counter-examples ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that reality in fact fails to reach the same conclusion as your argument does, and since it is reality that determines truth this necessitates that your conclusion must be false.
Truth is not a popularity contest. Herein lay one of the most obvious and most damning false premises upon which your argument and position rest. Reality determines truth, not mere popularity or convenience.
Joe: please note that I said “Jesus, as described in the Bible“.
I believe I’ve said this in another post: I can perfectly accept an argument like “modern so-called Christians are all wrong about what Jesus was really about, so they shouldn’t be the “standard” for Christianity.” That makes sense.
However, it raises a new question: how do you know what Jesus was about? As far as I can see, there are only 3 possibilities:
1- the Bible
2- historians from his time
3- your own imagination / wishes.
We’ve discussed 1; it’s what this post (along with the two previous parts) is about. 2 is right out; no historian mentioned Jesus until more than a century after his death, not even as a mortal preacher / rabbi / revolutionary (probably because new messiahs appeared every week in that region, back then). As for 3… well, obviously, I have a problem with it. I don’t know how one can worship something he just made up with a straight face, sorry.
A 4th possibility would be to disregard Jesus completely, but there is no way “Christianity without Christ” makes sense…