Jacob Hansen: Yesser No?

[PseudoPaul]

Are you a Catholic?

Regards,
MG

No, LDS.

[drumdude]

[MG 2.0]

I can see you only as an empty vessel. You have nothing to offer.

Regards,
MG

I couldn’t care less how you see me, nor is it relevant. What is relevant is your inability to stick to the topic at hand and offer something substantive and qualitative to the on topic points that I raised in response to your questions.

If I am communicating with someone who may not have a guiding philosophy, religion, or ethical code I see that as potentially resulting in a lack of internal set of principles. This might be compared to a container with nothing inside. An empty vessel. I don't know what your foundational beliefs or values are which guide your decisions and behavior. A person like this may be void of substance, conviction, or wisdom in matters of morality or spirituality. That is why I essentially find any type of actual conversation with you somewhat meaningless/vacuous. You may or may not have a firm set of moral/ethical values, but it is difficult to say.

It is so easy to be the critic/judge, isn't it? Especially when you believe you are under no obligation to defend your own personal set of values or lack thereof. For all intents and purposes here, you might as well be an empty vessel. Obviously that doesn't mean that you don't have personality or intellectual prowess. You do seem to have at least the latter.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Are you a Catholic?

Regards,
MG

No, LDS.

You would surely liven up our Gospel Doctrine Class.

I've been studying a bit more in regards to early Christian history in the years after Christ. Interesting stuff. It is true that the Restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a behemoth organization with a firm system of practice and doctrinal control and implementation along with strict guidelines which protect the distribution of authority and keys. I think that it is this, however, that gives the church the ability to stay true to the guiding principles that Jesus taught. It is these principles that, at the end of the day, are core to the everyday practice of being a Latter-day Saint and disciple of Jesus Christ. That's the way I see it anyway.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I couldn’t care less how you see me, nor is it relevant. What is relevant is your inability to stick to the topic at hand and offer something substantive and qualitative to the on topic points that I raised in response to your questions.

If I am communicating with someone who may not have a guiding philosophy, religion, or ethical code I see that as potentially resulting in a lack of internal set of principles. This might be compared to a container with nothing inside. An empty vessel. I don't know what your foundational beliefs or values are which guide your decisions and behavior. A person like this may be void of substance, conviction, or wisdom in matters of morality or spirituality. That is why I essentially find any type of actual conversation with you somewhat meaningless/vacuous. You may or may not have a firm set of moral/ethical values, but it is difficult to say.

It is so easy to be the critic/judge, isn't it? Especially when you believe you are under no obligation to defend your own personal set of values or lack thereof. For all intents and purposes here, you might as well be an empty vessel. Obviously that doesn't mean that you don't have personality or intellectual prowess. You do seem to have at least the latter.

Regards,
MG

I couldn’t care less how you see me, nor is it relevant. What is relevant is your inability to stick to the topic at hand and offer something substantive and qualitative to the on topic points that I raised in response to your questions. Stop deflecting and respond to the substantive and qualitative to the on topic points that I raised in response to your questions.

[huckelberry]

Here's some more food for thought. This was posted on the Academic Biblical subreddit. It's handy for getting a sense of just how diverse the views were in early Christianity. There was never a consensus view until a few centuries in with the development of the Catholic Church. The text below is quoted from that sub:

The canonical gospels and the authentic and inauthentic Pauline texts were mostly crafted between (perhaps as early as) 60 and 185, and were created to advance the positions of Christians who sought to advance their own ideological, philosophical, and theological agendas.

During this timeframe, several distinct and influential groups contributed to the later orthodoxical Christian paradigm.

Below are the sects which were probably most influential to the emerging Christian orthodoxy:

The Nasaraeans – The Nasaraeans were a heretical Jewish sect not explicitly attached to Christianity. Hippolytus and Epiphanius describe a sect leader named Elxai, who in the late 1st/early 2nd century, led a band of Nasaraeans, Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Essenes; this group believed the Christ was a masculine, 96 mile tall figure in the sky, and had a feminine counterpart, which was the Spirit. The Nasaraenes rejected the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament), believed scribes had corrupted Moses’ teachings, and they claimed to possess Moses’ true teachings. Epiphanius also said they resembled the Hemerobaptists, which, coupled with these other details, implies they might be the source of the John the Baptist sect. Epiphanius puzzled over how the Nasaraeans could be Jewish in nationality, practice Jewish customs, yet reject Judaism’s tenets as he understood them. My speculation is that these Nasaraeans were derivatives of a Queen of Heaven cult, which revered a long-lost deity which was purged during King Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform in the 7th century BCE.

https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... ntify_the/

Only a portion of the original post is copied here. Complete statement and more is in the link.

PseudoPaul,

This selection you provide does show variety and proposes some unusual and perhaps questionable connections. In terms of the discussion it is odd that what is usually thought of as proto catholic is left out. By end of first century there are bishops and letters, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Time gets to Irenaeus we find a pretty clearly developed idea of what Christianity is which historical result shows to be the main line. (Though not the only line.)

MG is correct, I think, to point out that what Christianity was is a moving target. If one askes what Jesus's religion was more specifically than Jewish it might be important to consider that Jesus's view of the meaning of the kingdom coming may have been a developing idea and not a fixed doctrine. His death and followers believing in his resurrection opened a new dimension to that project. l would not see that process of discovery as done but continuing now.

[MG 2.0]

If I am communicating with someone who may not have a guiding philosophy, religion, or ethical code I see that as potentially resulting in a lack of internal set of principles. This might be compared to a container with nothing inside. An empty vessel. I don't know what your foundational beliefs or values are which guide your decisions and behavior. A person like this may be void of substance, conviction, or wisdom in matters of morality or spirituality. That is why I essentially find any type of actual conversation with you somewhat meaningless/vacuous. You may or may not have a firm set of moral/ethical values, but it is difficult to say.

It is so easy to be the critic/judge, isn't it? Especially when you believe you are under no obligation to defend your own personal set of values or lack thereof. For all intents and purposes here, you might as well be an empty vessel. Obviously that doesn't mean that you don't have personality or intellectual prowess. You do seem to have at least the latter.

Regards,
MG

I couldn’t care less how you see me, nor is it relevant. What is relevant is your inability to stick to the topic at hand and offer something substantive and qualitative to the on topic points that I raised in response to your questions. Stop deflecting and respond to the substantive and qualitative to the on topic points that I raised in response to your questions.

It doesn't really matter if "you couldn't care less". What I've said still applies.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Here's some more food for thought. This was posted on the Academic Biblical subreddit. It's handy for getting a sense of just how diverse the views were in early Christianity. There was never a consensus view until a few centuries in with the development of the Catholic Church. The text below is quoted from that sub:

The canonical gospels and the authentic and inauthentic Pauline texts were mostly crafted between (perhaps as early as) 60 and 185, and were created to advance the positions of Christians who sought to advance their own ideological, philosophical, and theological agendas.

During this timeframe, several distinct and influential groups contributed to the later orthodoxical Christian paradigm.

Below are the sects which were probably most influential to the emerging Christian orthodoxy:

The Nasaraeans – The Nasaraeans were a heretical Jewish sect not explicitly attached to Christianity. Hippolytus and Epiphanius describe a sect leader named Elxai, who in the late 1st/early 2nd century, led a band of Nasaraeans, Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Essenes; this group believed the Christ was a masculine, 96 mile tall figure in the sky, and had a feminine counterpart, which was the Spirit. The Nasaraenes rejected the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament), believed scribes had corrupted Moses’ teachings, and they claimed to possess Moses’ true teachings. Epiphanius also said they resembled the Hemerobaptists, which, coupled with these other details, implies they might be the source of the John the Baptist sect. Epiphanius puzzled over how the Nasaraeans could be Jewish in nationality, practice Jewish customs, yet reject Judaism’s tenets as he understood them. My speculation is that these Nasaraeans were derivatives of a Queen of Heaven cult, which revered a long-lost deity which was purged during King Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform in the 7th century BCE.

https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... ntify_the/

Only a portion of the original post is copied here. Complete statement and more is in the link.

PseudoPaul,

This selection you provide does show variety and proposes some unusual and perhaps questionable connections. In terms of the discussion it is odd that what is usually thought of as proto catholic is left out. By end of first century there are bishops and letters, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Time gets to Irenaeus we find a pretty clearly developed idea of what Christianity is which historical result shows to be the main line. (Though not the only line.)

MG is correct, I think, to point out that what Christianity was is a moving target. If one askes what Jesus's religion was more specifically than Jewish it might be important to consider that Jesus's view of the meaning of the kingdom coming may have been a developing idea and not a fixed doctrine. His death and followers believing in his resurrection opened a new dimension to that project. l would not see that process of discovery as done but continuing now.

I've come to believe/think that the 'project of Christianity' has always been an ongoing and evolutionary process that God has implemented and carried out in order to bring souls to a greater understanding of who they are and what they can become. It wasn't something that God or Jesus could simply wave a magic wand and 'make happen'. Too many things in the way.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I couldn’t care less how you see me, nor is it relevant. What is relevant is your inability to stick to the topic at hand and offer something substantive and qualitative to the on topic points that I raised in response to your questions. Stop deflecting and respond to the substantive and qualitative to the on topic points that I raised in response to your questions.

It doesn't really matter if "you couldn't care less". What I've said still applies.

Regards,
MG

No. It doesn’t. The thread isn’t about me. I guess now though people can see you desperately evading responding to the substantive and qualitative points I raised in answer to your questions.

[MG 2.0]

It doesn't really matter if "you couldn't care less". What I've said still applies.

Regards,
MG

No. It doesn’t. The thread isn’t about me. I guess now though people can see you desperately evading responding to the substantive and qualitative points I raised in answer to your questions.

TTOC