Metaloctopus

quote:

---

Wrong.

---

What a thoughtful, in depth rebuttal.

quote:

---

Not John the apostle.

---

Yes, John the Apostle

quote:

---

Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only 4 are about his life. Well, 4 that made it as acceptable. There were actually dozens.

---

How many books of the Bible are dedicated to anyone else? Those four books are the Gospel. How many books needed to be written about his life? 40? Those books are specifically about his life, but Jesus' teachings are referenced all throughout the New Testament.

quote:

---

And don't they all come from the Catholic church? As far as western Europe goes since I have to make that distinction, I guess.

---

None of them come from the Catholic church. The Catholic church, itself, is a denomination that rose from the early Christian movement. I will say this once more: The Catholic church made up doctrines that are not found in scripture, and Bible believing Christians left that church because of it. you don't say that the Catholic church influenced every other denomination, when these denominations specifically rejected Catholic doctrine. They rejected it because the Catholics moved too far downstream from original doctrine which, itself, served as the influence for the protestant movement, not Catholicism. And I don't agree with every denomination, as some of them only made minor tweaks and didn't really correct much of anything.

quote:

---

That is not an endorsement of what is said about him.

---

What in the world is this supposed to mean? Saying that hardly anyone rejects the existence of Jesus is not an endorsement? There is historical evidence for Jesus. People choose to believe whatever they will about Him, but denying that he ever existed is willful ignorance. That was the point.

quote:

---

Or he was someone who perverted the message in order to make it palatable for government and leaders while turning Jesus into an idol. He was considered a heretic by other sects, but that was done away with by the Romans.

---

This is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen. No matter what you believe, there is no way Paul is "perverting" anything, by spreading a message of hope, and there is especially no way he was doing anything to make it "more palatable" for government, when every government in the world was pagan, and he was risking his life to spread the message of Jesus, and ultimately was killed in the end for it. He had nothing to gain from the world, but everything to gain in eternity for his faith.

He was considered a heretic by the Pharisees and by pagans. What else would you expect? That's supposed to be some kind of proof that Paul was a false teacher? They thought Jesus was a heretic, too, remember?

quote:

---

His story on Damascus Road for example is total bullshite.

---

Were you there? You somehow find it impossible to believe that the Son of God could appear in front of him and blind him, bring conviction upon him, restore his sight and use him to spread the Gospel? What makes this somehow unbelievable, but not other accounts in the Bible? You aren't a Christian, so you don't really believe any of it. Is your unbelief evidence that Paul, or any figure in the Bible, is a liar?

quote:

---

None of them were written by eyewitnesses. Some of them were written hundreds of years later. The gospels were written anonymously. At best there could be some oral repetition, which is a poor form of testimony.

---

I'm starting to get the impression that you aren't a very serious student of the things you claim to know. The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All disciples who walked with Jesus. Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus, and wrote a large number of books.. John also wrote Revelation.

Not a single New Testament book was written after the first century. All writers either new Jesus, or were contemporaries with those who did. Anything written about Jesus hundreds of years later was not part of scripture, and was left out for a reason.

Try being honest next time.

quote:

---

But the influence is still there.

I mean we can go further into other splits as well, but they all seem to be influenced from the same direction with minor differences in views.

I mostly call it the religion of Paul.

---

Rome was influenced by the Christians who brought it there in the first place. Rome proceeded to taint it to a very large degree. The greatest influence is Jesus, Himself. We have multiple denominations because people sometimes interpret texts to have different meanings, and sometimes because people deliberately pervert the scriptures for their own means, which we would call false Christianity.

All Rome did was attempt to unify, which they failed miserably in doing, because they failed to follow scripture faithfully. No one said there wasn't any influence. I said as much way earlier. But to suggest that Rome made Christianity what it is is false, because it was already there. People already knew the scriptures. Rome tried to decree an official canon, but this ultimately didn't resolve all of the disagreements.

And it is not the religion of Paul. Paul was an apostle who spread the word that Jesus taught. Jesus, Himself, is widely accepted even by secular historians as being a true historical figure. I, as a Christian, do no need the approval of historians to believe in Him, but I bring this up to say it is not really a question in the eyes of the vast majority of people that Jesus is real, whether or not they accept that He is God, and therefore the teachings of Jesus are not fabrications of later writers, but genuine eyewitness testimony of those who walked and talked with Him.

quote:

---

I am pointing out these things were largely decided by government authorities. I can understand why you wish to pretend that's not your history, but that is what happened and you likely wouldn't be Christians today if not for that.

---

Even though your comment wasn't directed at me, I feel compelled to respond to this:

Rome didn't write the Bible. They had an opinion on which books to accept. Most of those books were common sense inclusions into the canon. But not everyone agreed on every book, nor many other issues, which is why there was a split in 1520. The idea that we wouldn't be Christians if it weren't for the Roman Catholic church is absurd, considering we left the catholic church because of their corruption, and have existed apart from them for over 500 years. They made themselves the authority rather than allowing the Bible to stand on its own authority.

No one needed them, they just needed the word of God, and when the Roman church decided it was God and ruled with an iron fist, many people thought for themselves and left.

quote:

---

Rome basically picked the books you accept in the bible. The Council of Rome produced a list of 73 books.

That was in 382 AD.

Now I realize Rome didn't create those books and what not. But it was done as a way to declaring other gnostic based books false because not all Christians believed the same things.

So Romans did basically choose the values.

The Protestant bible narrowed it down to 66 (taking out more Old Testament books) in the 1500s.

That's the one most of us know.

---

Yes I am aware of this. Rome took an established faith and made themselves the "law", making a lot of unilateral decisions. That's why people left the church in protest. I am also a protestant.

In no way does that make Rome the founder of Christianity. It had already been established for a couple of hundred years.

quote:

---

I know enough about it to say this, those emperors were nearer to the end of Rome, but also made lots of enemies, so even historians disagree about accuracy. In those days you could destroy physical records and monuments.

---

They were nowhere near the end of Rome. Caligula was from 37 to 41 AD, and Nero was 54-68 AD. The empire was established around 30 BC. Your comment about them making lots of enemies makes the assumption that people lied out of hatred. Historical records are quite consistent and well supported by evidence as to the behaviors of both of those emperors. And I only mentioned them as the most glaring examples, but the vast majority of their emperors were brutal dictators, just not as mentally unstable as Nero and Caligula.

quote:

---

But now you’ve made me realize that Republicans need to turn to Roman rather than Christian values, which Christianity is based on.

---

And how did it make you "realize" that? How can Christianity be based on Roman values, when Rome hated Christians and murdered them, as I said, for sport? How could Rome influence Christianity, when Romans were pagans who did not believe in Biblical values and did not teach anything resembling the Gospel? It wasn't until Constantine came around in the 300's that he converted to Christianity and made it the official religion of Rome.

You don't know history, friend.

quote:

---

The Trump admin has done this. If you can look at the actions of this administration and say with a straight face that it’s Godly, you’re either a sycophant or a fool.

---

Trump isn't a conservative, he's a populist. He, himself, is not someone that I would currently consider a Godly person, despite the fact that I support his policies. But his administration has not hijacked the movement, whether or not you like him. They have done more to fight for traditional values than anyone since Reagan.

I am neither a sycophant nor a fool. I'm simply not filled with blind hatred like it sounds you are.

quote:

---

Modern medicine(knowing more about the body really) is allowing these guys to go for a long time. In the sport I love(motocross) it was common to race until 29-32ish but not guys are racing closer much longer. Over 35 for some.

---

Most guys are not playing very long anymore, at least effectively. There are some exceptions, but a lot of guys seem to break down early. That makes what sale is doing pretty extraordinary.

I can remember the 90's and early 2000's watching all those hall of famers dominating into their late 30's and some in their 40's.

In football, QB's are definitely lasting longer, thanks to the rules that protect them, but that's about all I've noticed in terms of playing longer.

quote:

---

Have you read the Poli Board.....What do they think of well everyone that looks remotely different from them.....

Considering what Russia is doing to Ukraine, I would not blame any Ukrainian not wanting to team up with a Russian.....

I am more offended that a athlete who has played pro basketball in Europe can now come and play college ball here.

---

I don't base my beliefs, political opinions or emotions on what the poliboard says. Do you? And have I read that board? Yeah. I've read it enough to know that they (most of them) don't care that someone looks different than them. People care about one's ideology, as it says everything about them. it's not about where you're from or what you look like; it's about what do you believe and who do you associate with.

But if the poliboard DID judge people based on what they look like or where they are from, and if Kate thought just like they do, how is that a defense of her character?

quote:

---

Would you like to play on the same team with a couple of guys from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

Are they terrorists? Are they teenage girls? Are Russian citizens known for going around and killing anyone who doesn't convert to their religion?