Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:51 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:47 pm the Daughter Churches

Christianity is not a "daughter" of Catholicism. Christianity existed long before the Romans ever got involved with it.

Wrong.

Indeed it was the Romans who first coined the label "Christian" and it was used in a derogatory manner, in the same way that the word 'cultist' is used today.
Early followers of Jesus did not have bibles which they referred to as "The Word of God". Nor did they call one another "Christians"

Christianity is the invention of Rome [with Jewish influencing in order to tie the two together]

DP

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 5:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:51 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:47 pm the Daughter Churches

Christianity is not a "daughter" of Catholicism. Christianity existed long before the Romans ever got involved with it.

Wrong.

Actually, if you think about it, it HAS to be right. Christianity started with Jesus Christ.

Indeed it was the Romans who first coined the label "Christian"

Actually, it was not. Apparently it happened in the city of Antioch, and if anything, you'd have to say it was the Greeks that came up with the term. It is, after all, A Greek term, not a Roman one. (Acts 11:26)

...it was used in a derogatory manner, in the same way that the word 'cultist' is used today.

That's incorrect, too. Actually, the early Christians were branded as "Atheists," by the Romans, because as the Romans saw it, the Christians didn't believe in enough gods. They only believed in one. The Romans thought that made them very impious.

Early followers of Jesus did not have bibles which they referred to as "The Word of God". Nor did they call one another "Christians"

Heh. Ask Jews about that. They had the whole OT, to which Jesus Himself made reference on many occasions, as did Paul and the other NT authors. And as Acts 11 indicates, they did indeed already have the label "Christians."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 5:36 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 5:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:51 pm
Christianity is not a "daughter" of Catholicism. Christianity existed long before the Romans ever got involved with it.

Wrong.

Actually, if you think about it, it HAS to be right. Christianity started with Jesus Christ.

Indeed it was the Romans who first coined the label "Christian"

Actually, it was not. Apparently it happened in the city of Antioch, and if anything, you'd have to say it was the Greeks that came up with the term. It is, after all, A Greek term, not a Roman one. (Acts 11:26)

...it was used in a derogatory manner, in the same way that the word 'cultist' is used today.

That's incorrect, too. Actually, the early Christians were branded as "Atheists," by the Romans, because as the Romans saw it, the Christians didn't believe in enough gods. They only believed in one. The Romans thought that made them very impious.

Early followers of Jesus did not have bibles which they referred to as "The Word of God". Nor did they call one another "Christians"

Heh. Ask Jews about that. They had the whole OT, to which Jesus Himself made reference on many occasions, as did Paul and the other NT authors. And as Acts 11 indicates, they did indeed already have the label "Christians."

And there is the evidence that the fruit does not fall far from the tree. Like Mother Like Daughter.

Christianity is defined by the Resurrection event, so Jesus was not a Christian.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:14 am Christianity is defined by the Resurrection event, so Jesus was not a Christian.

What does that mean?
And if I am not mistaken, Jesus was the central character of that event...

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:33 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:14 am Christianity is defined by the Resurrection event, so Jesus was not a Christian.

What does that mean?
And if I am not mistaken, Jesus was the central character of that event...

I can explain to you, VVilliam.


The defining belief of Christians is that Jesus died and was resurrected from death.If you do not believe in the Resurrection you are not a Christian.


Resurrection takes place only after death.

Jesus could not have been resurrected until after he died. Therefore JC could not have been a Christian during his lifetime.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:23 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:33 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:14 am Christianity is defined by the Resurrection event, so Jesus was not a Christian.

What does that mean?
And if I am not mistaken, Jesus was the central character of that event...

I can explain to you, VVilliam.


The defining belief of Christians is that Jesus died and was resurrected from death.If you do not believe in the Resurrection you are not a Christian.


Resurrection takes place only after death.

Jesus could not have been resurrected until after he died. Therefore JC could not have been a Christian during his lifetime.

The problem I see with your theory Belinda, Is that Jesus only dies for a few days and then lives again, so following your theory, he would have been the very first "Christian" and would have been so, prior to his dying because he obviously believed in being resurrected before the authorities declared "enough!"

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:39 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:23 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:33 pm

What does that mean?
And if I am not mistaken, Jesus was the central character of that event...

I can explain to you, VVilliam.


The defining belief of Christians is that Jesus died and was resurrected from death.If you do not believe in the Resurrection you are not a Christian.


Resurrection takes place only after death.

Jesus could not have been resurrected until after he died. Therefore JC could not have been a Christian during his lifetime.

The problem I see with your theory Belinda, Is that Jesus only dies for a few days and then lives again, so following your theory, he would have been the very first "Christian" and would have been so, prior to his dying because he obviously believed in being resurrected before the authorities declared "enough!"

Jesys

But Jesus was a Jew all of his life. Christianity had not been invented until after Jesus died. Indeed Jesus even declared not he himself but that God alone is good, so Jesus did not believe in the Trinity.

The most you could say is that the Jewish sect that contained Jesus was more like what came to be called 'Christianity' than was conventional Judaism of the time.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 7:39 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:23 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:33 pm

What does that mean?
And if I am not mistaken, Jesus was the central character of that event...

I can explain to you, VVilliam.


The defining belief of Christians is that Jesus died and was resurrected from death.If you do not believe in the Resurrection you are not a Christian.


Resurrection takes place only after death.

Jesus could not have been resurrected until after he died. Therefore JC could not have been a Christian during his lifetime.

The problem I see with your theory Belinda, Is that Jesus only dies for a few days and then lives again, so following your theory, he would have been the very first "Christian" and would have been so, prior to his dying because he obviously believed in being resurrected before the authorities declared "enough!"

A "christian", like a "muslim", are only those human beings who BELIEVE and FOLLOW/ADHERE to some 'thing' or to some 'story'.

Obviously, a human being cannot BELIEVE nor FOLLOW some 'thing/story', which has not yet occurred nor happened.

A "christian" is just a BELIEVER and/or FOLLOWER of a human being with the label "christ". The one labelled (jesus) "christ" was NOT a BELIEVER nor FOLLOWER of itself, and therefore was NOT a "christian".

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:48 am

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:57 am "Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

I think, even KNOW, 'we' exist within a creation, but I am NOT saying that we exist within a reality simulation.

WHY do you think, or BELIEVE, that 'a creation' is the same as 'a reality simulation'.

The two, to 'me', are two VERY DIFFERENT 'things'.

Why do you think or believe the two conditions are different things?

Is it simply because of your belief that the universe has always existed?

Age wrote:The Universe, Itself, is totally unconditional, to and of Itself, and/or to and of any thing within Itself. The Universe, Itself, is also totally unconditionally existing, always has and always will. The Universe just always IS.

But something which has always existed cannot be a creation.

Christianity was first a Jewish sect among the Jewish community before Christianity became Romanised. However Jesus was dead before the Jewish Christian sect formed.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:26 pm Christianity was first a Jewish sect among the Jewish community before Christianity became Romanised. However Jesus was dead before the Jewish Christian sect formed.

I am satisfied that it is not directly relevant to the thread topic...

VVilliam wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:40 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:48 am

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:57 am "Anyone who thinks we exist within a creation is also saying that we exist within a Reality Simulation."

I think, even KNOW, 'we' exist within a creation, but I am NOT saying that we exist within a reality simulation.

WHY do you think, or BELIEVE, that 'a creation' is the same as 'a reality simulation'.

The two, to 'me', are two VERY DIFFERENT 'things'.

Why do you think or believe the two conditions are different things?

For the VERY SIMPLE and VERY OBVIOUS FACT that if 'you' are existing within a 'Reality simulation', then some REAL 'thing' would have had to create that 'Reality simulator'. That REAL 'thing' would have to be within Creation, Itself. Thus, ALL of this would 'have to be' within 'Creation', Itself.

Now, Creation, Itself, is what is REALLY happening.

If you are REALLY within a 'Reality simulator', then this is REALLY happening. Thus, it is a part of Creation, Itself.

A 'Reality simulator' can be, and has to be, made/created within Creation, Itself. BUT, 'Creation', Itself, can NOT be made/created within a 'Reality simulator'.

The difference between existing within the two very different conditions is:
One 'has to be' and is ALWAYS within Creation, Itself, no matter how many 'Reality simulators' they might be within. AND,
One might be within a 'Reality simulator' or they might not be. But, they have to be within Creation, Itself, no matter what.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:40 pm Is it simply because of your belief that the universe has always existed?

LOL

What a joke.

Let us SEE if you can READ and HEAR this. I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing.

Now, what did you READ and HEAR here?

By the way, the Universe is always existing can be, will be, and IS PROVEN True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Sat Mar 06, 2021 4:40 pm

Age wrote:The Universe, Itself, is totally unconditional, to and of Itself, and/or to and of any thing within Itself. The Universe, Itself, is also totally unconditionally existing, always has and always will. The Universe just always IS.

But something which has always existed cannot be a creation.

WHY NOT?

And, are you OPEN to the fact that the opposite could be true?

Why do you think or believe the two conditions are different things?

One 'has to be' and is ALWAYS within Creation, Itself, no matter how many 'Reality simulators' they might be within. AND,
One might be within a 'Reality simulator' or they might not be. But, they have to be within Creation, Itself, no matter what

Yes - so do you have evidence that "Creation" is the only reality there is or is your assumption belief based?

I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing.

I know you claim not to believe or disbelieve anything so can you show us what you know that convinces you we exist in an actual reality, rather than a virtual one.

By the way, the Universe is always existing can be, will be, and IS PROVEN True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

Also btw - words in themselves are not PROVEN True, Right, Accurate, and Correct...not even when written in CAPS.