Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

I just pointed out that Harry was right: to discuss "Christianity" without reference to Christ is absurd. So now that you've conceded that, we're good.

But I do not concede that, so I hope that we remain un-good.

Well, you did concede it...and now you take it back. But okay. You can do that.

You're back to having absolutely no definition of "Christianity."

Feel better now?

[Harry Baird]

The first question is, did the man Jesus of Nazareth live approximately 2,000 years ago, or is his existence a myth? I think the mythicist case fails, and I understand that so do you, so we agree that he is a real historical person.

In fact I think it is rather obviously both.

I expect that it wasn't at all deliberate but rather a casual misunderstanding, or at least that if it was deliberate it was for cheeky rhetorical effect, but you are misrepresenting my case: it is not possible for it to be both, because the two options (as I intended them) are mutually exclusive. By "his existence [being] a myth" I meant "his never actually having existed at all (but rather having been an entirely imaginary, made-up character)".

In any case, that's just a little niggle that I felt the need to express, because your point is otherwise well taken.

I think you have misunderstood my term 'confusion of ideas' and 'confusion of peoples'. The first centuries were times of tremendous mixing of peoples and mixing of ideas. Everyone who would encounter the idea of a divine avatar (though they would not have used the term avatar: a descent of God into the material, phenomenal world) would have had no choice but to receive the idea, to imagine the notion, within the existing structure of their 'worldview'. So a clear example can be cited when the Hebrew *world* encountered the Greek *world*. The philosophical Greeks had a very different location and let's say 'mental process' and orientation when compared to the Hebrews. But in the encounter the *idea* of a savior, or the fact of the arrival of a savior, had to be (necessarily) *translated* into terms of ideation that could be made sense of.

Perhaps to your annoyance, I think that this deserves a response again in terms of what you fairly noted at the beginning of your response as "fundamentals", which you allowed for as a useful exercise.

To reiterate (perhaps, again, annoyingly!): Christianity, is, to me, fundamentally, that religion determined by the words, deeds, and life of Christ, whatever they actually were. So, insofar as you talk about a "mixing of peoples and mixing of ideas", my fundamental concern would be to what extent that "mixing of peoples and mixing of ideas" adulterated the true testimony regarding the words, deeds, and life of Christ.

I don't, however, expect that to be of much interest to you, since, perhaps fairly, you seem to think that the true testimony is beyond recovery anyway.

I learned that the locals understood that the reason why this happened was because up there on that mountain there lived somewhat malicious spirits that the locals, when they were told about the malicious Jews who thwarted Jesus's mission and put him to death, associated the Jews with these devilish mountain spirits. See? They had to receive an idea, a notion, and an image, and translate it as best they could into terms that made sense to them in their world.

Sure, I understand your point. Not only do ideas have consequences, but they are also interpreted and extrapolated, especially in local contexts.

However, the New Testament has been fixed for well over a thousand years, and thus there is - whether or not it is a true reflection of the words, deeds, and life of Christ - a baseline doctrinal Christianity to which to refer, which is unlikely (I expect) to ever change. That baseline might be varied in local contexts, but it will always (I expect) be there to limit the potential for local variability.

Yes yes yes, Harry. You will at the end of this win a substantial prize for your searing logic!

Oh boy oh boy, it's a bathroom renovation, isn't it?! You knew just what I needed!

Not only does your point remain I may even carve it into a giant block of marble so that it can be immortalized for all time!

Excuse the bit of sarcastic humor . . .

Of course, of course, but I think you misunderstand. I was under no illusion that I was saying anything at all profound(ly logical)! I was simply explaining my understanding as clearly as I could. (The same is true of everything in this post. There's nothing at all profound in it, just a hopefully clear expression of a perspective).

One of the most strange and really bizarre events is the entire Trump phenomenon and the radical divisions that have arisen which certainly seem to spread out from there to the rest of the world. The American Evangelical support for (whatever it is that they see when they contemplate) Donald Trump, and the backdrop of an utterly strange *Christian conception* that dovetails into vast conspiratorial, somewhat hallucinated, projections onto a *world* that many of them (it seems) do not know how to interpret, causes me not to care so much for strict doctrinal theology, but rather to observe and try to understand what people do with this.

The so-called "Christian" support for Trump is a travesty. The guy doesn't have a Christian bone in his body. It's a relationship of mutual convenience: two parties cynically using one another. Your concern over all of this is of course totally warranted.

And now you tell me that you will be walkin' on the darkened sides of the street meditatin' of black (greasy?) phallus with quirky Henry.

Dude. Where did that phallus reference come from?! Ain't nobody talkin' 'bout penis here.

And it's my old mate (and maybe hq?) with the predilection for African beauties. I don't have any particular such predilection.

What am I to think Harry?!?

You are to think the Hail Mary fifty times (don't forget the rosary beads) and then visit the confessional.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, you did concede it...and now you take it back. But okay. You can do that.

You're back to having absolutely no definition of "Christianity."

Feel better now?

Nothing has changed.

I oppose your mission & certainly your corrupt intellectual tactics, Immanuel. Just get clear about this and that this is so. The undertaking I propose as an alternative is not easy to enunciate. But at the least you can, and others who read here can begin to understand better what I am up to and why.

The more that I interact with you the more I discern in you an intellectual disease. It is something that requires a cure. I do not know what thet is or should be. But perhaps in time I'll get more clarity.

If it works for you to say that I have "absolutely no definition of "Christianity" then keep working that angle. Again, if it works.

[henry quirk]

And now you tell me that you will be walkin' on the darkened sides of the street meditatin' of black (greasy?) phallus with quirky Henry.

Get bent.

[Harry Baird]

We get that. We're just not sure it's profitable to do, without first recognizing that what you're indicting is essentially a secular ideological phenomenon, centered on the goal of using the label "Christian" as a propaganda tool to sanctify secular political projects of dubious moral value. And one couldn't get a better description than that of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Pogroms, Hitler's use of pseudo-Christian themes alongside his Aryan occultism, or the American Prosperity 'Gospel.' They're all merely secular propaganda strategies for making the unholy look holy, especially to a populace that thinks it remains at least nominally "Christian" but doesn't know any better, and whose understanding of, and commitment to real Christianity is no deeper than a mud puddle.

So let me get this straight: The *we* you employ here is you & Harry? Are you so sure you & Harry are on the same page?

In the issue of Christianity being defined by Christ? Yes, we agree.

I did flag this mentally as a mention. It is true that IC and I agree that Christianity is (in essence) defined by Christ, and that a "Christless Christianity" makes no sense.

However, IC - and I say this without at all being offended (or even miffed), nor intending offence - I am not necessarily comfortable with the actual collective statements you've included me in. I mean the ones with reference to "profitability" and "indicting [...] a secular ideological phenomenon", etc. It might be that I would agree if I contemplated and discussed them a little more, but since we haven't explicitly discussed and agreed on them, I have to distance myself a little from the association with them that you impute to me.

[Belinda]

Jesus is an iconic figure which is capable of movement between cultures. Jesus is an icon who symbolises supreme sacrifice for others.

[Immanuel Can]

I oppose your mission & certainly your corrupt intellectual tactics, Immanuel.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...don't like the message? Shoot the messenger. I get it.

Not smart, but predictable.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: One of the most strange and really bizarre events is the entire Trump phenomenon and the radical divisions that have arisen which certainly seem to spread out from there to the rest of the world. The American Evangelical support for (whatever it is that they see when they contemplate) Donald Trump, and the backdrop of an utterly strange *Christian conception* that dovetails into vast conspiratorial, somewhat hallucinated, projections onto a *world* that many of them (it seems) do not know how to interpret, causes me not to care so much for strict doctrinal theology, but rather to observe and try to understand what people do with this.

The so-called "Christian" support for Trump is a travesty. The guy doesn't have a Christian bone in his body. It's a relationship of mutual convenience: two parties cynically using one another. Your concern over all of this is of course totally warranted.

Harry, I think you might be substantially unaware of numerous very relevant details that pertain extremely relevantly to Evangelical conceptions and worldview. One is that Donald Trump relocated the American embassy to Jerusalem. I do not think you have much of a concrete idea of what this means to Israelis and world Jewry in the context of Jewish history and the Jewish historical mission. I think that the reason this is so is because it simply does not interest you. So no part of it appears on your radar and on the map of your mind.

You must understand Evangelical Christian concept: the Hebrew God is like a puppet-master operating behind scenes. He can animate a worthless rascal and fill him with God's power and mission. If it takes Donald Trump to finally situate Jews in Israel -- all in anticipation of Jesus of Nazareth's return on flaming phosphorescent clouds to set up office in Jerusalem -- then he, Donald, just like any specific person, is simply operating within God's world-plan.

You must understand that in Israel, among the religious and the Zionist-committed, that the Third Temple must be built! This is the Restoration of God's scattered people, the in-gathering, and what must be seen and identified is all that opposes God's plan.

Immanuel, surely you have something to contribute on this topic, don't you?

Right now there are miniature models of the Third Temple. The ritual accoutrements have been assembled and are closely guarded. The specific sort of sheep and oxen and doves required for ritual offering are being bred. Everything is being put in readiness. Jerusalem will become, and must necessarily become, the center of World Government of a spiritual sort. This is what I refer to as Hebrew idea-imperialism.

Harry, for God's sake, where have you been?!?

Within American Evangelical circles all the defects of Trump are well known, well understood. But you fail to grasp the implications of the momentous events that are right now on-going.

[phyllo]

Jesus is an iconic figure which is capable of movement between cultures. Jesus is an icon who symbolises supreme sacrifice for others.

Yeah, he's not a real guy any more and he hasn't been for centuries.

[Nick_A]

Satan offered Jesus the ability to save the world.

This is why I come to the experts. I'm not even going to check the verse, whatever it may be.

I always thought that Satan offered to make Jesus the king of the world. I missed saving the world, because he would be king of the world. I was not attentive enough to catch it, and as I recall, I recently read the verse.

In my current state of ignorance, savouring the mystery of the actual kjv language that I don't recall word for word, I figure that saving the world is an interpretation put upon the verse, and that's going to stand until a correction appears and ends the mystery.

If I'm wrong, I'll voluntarily surrender to the appropriate authorities and endeavour to persevere as a sincere student of the interpretations, of the divinely inspired word.

Satan offers the potential to save the world by becoming king of the world.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

A secularist will just assert that this supports war pitting one side against another. A Christian knows it refers to awakening; to become free of the darkness of imagination. A king rules the world supporting its values. Jesus knew saving the world is impossible so concentrated his efforts for those capable of awakening to the reality of the human condition keeping man in spiritual darkness and ignorant of universal values.

[Belinda]

Jesus is an iconic figure which is capable of movement between cultures. Jesus is an icon who symbolises supreme sacrifice for others.

Yeah, he's not a real guy any more and he hasn't been for centuries.

If you think symbolic figures from man's past are not "real" then I cannot answer you. Your use of language has a facetious tone that puts me off anyway.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And now you tell me that you will be walkin' on the darkened sides of the street meditatin' of black (greasy?) phallus with quirky Henry.

Get bent.

Hold on Henry. Why do you get angry that I make a little fun (without rancor!) of this post of yours:

The Emperor is nekkid.
and his willie is small

I only work with what I am given! Harry went to some graphic lengths with phallic imagery. You talked about walking on the 'dark side of the street'.

Why must you torture me so?!?

[Harry Baird]

Harry, I think you might be substantially unaware of numerous very relevant details that pertain extremely relevantly to Evangelical conceptions and worldview.

But AJ, why would anything in my post have indicated that to you?

I explicitly stated that "It's a relationship of mutual convenience: two parties cynically using one another."

Everything that you wrote is compatible with this statement. For a start: the evangelicals used Trump to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, and Trump in turn used the evangelicals for significant political support. A relationship of mutual convenience, as I said.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I oppose your mission & certainly your corrupt intellectual tactics, Immanuel.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...don't like the message? Shoot the messenger. I get it.

Not smart, but predictable.

Again, you lie. You cannot do anything but see what I do as a manifestation of anti-Christian action.

I am opposed not to the messenger (you) but to the content of an aspect of the message. I am drawing attention to what I call Hebrew idea-imperialism (for want of a better term). It is not 'evil' to do this.

Surely you have your virtues. And I assume you wouldn't kick my dog if I left him with you for a day or two. But this does not have to do with you-singular. Not in the most important sense.

You must begin to read me with more care, more honesty. At the very least, out of respect, don't reinterpret and rephrase what I say. Understand what I am saying and why!

[Nick_A]

Oh ye of little faith.

That you think that a man referred to as SATAN had an offering of the parts of the Earth, a place of God's creation to offer - who? GOD!

You simple of mind to not comprehend the TEST_AMEN_t ..satan is a nothing, and so many fundamentalist fools think that this entity has some dominion over the ALPHA to OMEGA.

IDIOT.

Belief in SATAN is a theists greatest folly.

You don't know how to read the Bible. What is the high mountain being referred to? It is a quality of consciousness. If you don't understand this, how can you be expected to understand the essential idea being expressed as to the ways of man compared to God's will especially when you've never pondered the will of god or universal necessity and confuse it with the will of man.

Define SATAN.

Satan is a universal influence dedicated to obfuscation; denying man the natural ability to psychologically retaining the big picture revealing human purpose in favor of arguing details