buffalo Loc: Texas

The term"Christianity," especially since the Reformation, has covered an
astonishing range of groups. Those claiming to represent "true
Christianity" in the twentieth century can range from a Catholic
cardinal in the Vatican to an African Methodist Episcopal preacher
initiating revival in Detroit, a Mormon missionary in Thailand, or
the member of a village church on the coast of Greece. Yet Catholics,
Protestants, and Orthodox agree that such diversity is a recent—and
deplorable—development. According to Christian legend, the early
church was different. Christians of every persuasion look back to the
primitive church to find a simpler, purer form of Christian faith. In
the apostles' time, all members of the Christian community shared
their money and property; all believed the same teaching, and
worshiped together; all revered the authority of the apostles. It was
only after that golden age that conflict, then heresy emerged: so says
the author of the Acts of the Apostles, who identifies himself as the
first historian of Christianity.

But the discoveries at Nag Hammadi have upset this picture. If we
admit that some of these fifty-two texts represent early forms of
Christian teaching, we may have to recognize that early Christianity
is far more diverse than nearly anyone expected before the Nag
Hammadi discoveries.26

Contemporary Christianity, diverse and complex as we find it,
actually may show more unanimity than the Christian churches of
the first and second centuries. For nearly all Chris-
[ xxii]
Introduction
Christians since that time, Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox, have
shared three basic premises. First, they accept the canon of the New
Testament; second, they confess the apostolic creed; and third, they
affirm specific forms of church institution. But every one of these—
the canon of Scripture, the creed, and the institutional structure—
emerged in its present form only toward the end of the second
century. Before that time, as Irenaeus and others attest, numerous
gospels circulated among various Christian groups, ranging from
those of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, to such
writings as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of
Truth, as well as many other secret teachings, myths, and poems
attributed to Jesus or his disciples. Some of these, apparently, were
discovered at Nag Hammadi; many others are lost to us. Those who
identified themselves as Christians entertained many—and radically
differing—religious beliefs and practices. And the communities
scattered throughout the known world organized themselves in
ways that differed widely from one group to another.

Yet by A.D. 200, the situation had changed. Christianity had become
an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests,
and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the
only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the church
of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy.
Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus
and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and
outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation."27
Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straightthinking")
Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be
catholic—that is, universal. Whoever challenged that consensus,
arguing instead for other forms of Christian teaching, was declared
to be a heretic, and expelled. When the orthodox gained military
support, sometime after the Emperor Constantine became Christian
in the fourth century, the penalty for heresy escalated.

The efforts of the majority to destroy every trace of heretical
"blasphemy" proved so successful that, until the discoveries at Nag
Hammadi, nearly all our information concerning alternative forms
of early Christianity came from the massive orthodox attacks upon
them. Although gnosticism is perhaps the earliest—and most
threatening—of the heresies, scholars had known only a handful of
original gnostic texts, none published before the nineteenth century.

http://sanctuaryinterfaith.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Gnostic-Gospels.pdf

Homestead

First off, no one knows when Christ was born.

Biblical scholars have guessed that he was born in the beginning of summer, three years after the assumed date.
That's based on descriptions of plants and foods described at the time as well as historical events surrounding his birth. But, it's still just a guess.

The pagans celebrated the winter solstice.
The solstice is long after the harvest, but, long before the starving time of winter.
The celebration is a good way to break up a long winter and use up food that is going to go bad.

The Christians were trying to spread the word of Christ, but, the Pagans were holding on to their traditions.

So the Christians of the time chose that day to celebrate the birth of Christ.

When you don't know the exact day of his birth, what difference does it make what day you celebrate it?

The winters were just as long for the Christians as is was for the pagans and the Christian's food wasn't going to last any longer without spoiling than the pagan's.
Eventually the pagans got to know Christ and abandoned their Gods for him.

So in the end, Christians who worshipped Christ, worshipped Christ....................you got a problem with that?
They now did so in the dead of winter, breaking up a long winter....................so what's your problem with that?
The pagans weren't forced to give up their celebrations, but, eventually they decided to follow the Christians.

I suppose you'd be happier if they took the Islamic road and told them to convert or die and execute the lot of them?

In the meantime, the ten Commandments were still the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule was still the Golden Rule.

Your problem is that you start with the premiss that God doesn't exist.

So then you look for things that are out of place after thousands of years of oral history, before writing was invented. Even after writing was invented, very few people wrote and parchments didn't last forever. So they had to be rewritten many times by people spread across the world in different tribes.

Yet, you're surprised that there are contradictions and conflicts in the details.

★ WHAT ISLAM IS NOT ★
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEXWjlgJ83E

Islam Truth - Agenda of Evil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg3WVE8lI9c

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6xh5xLj-UI

"Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram
Aedificabo Ecclesiam meam,
Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam:
Et tibi dabo claves
Regni coelorum.
Quodcumque ligaveris super terram,
Erit ligatum et in coelis;
Et quodcumque solveris super terram
Erit solutum et in coelis."


"You are Peter, and on this rock
I will build My church,
And the gates of hell will not prevail against it:
And I will give you the keys
To the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth
Will be bound also in heaven;
And whatever you release on earth
Will be released also in heaven."

Matthew 16:18-19

Mr Bombastic

(18) Thou art Peter, and upon this rock . . .—It is not easy, in dealing with a text which for many centuries has been the subject-matter of endless controversies, to clear our minds of those “afterthoughts of theology” which have gathered round it, and, in part at least, overlaid its meaning. It is clear, however, that we can only reach the true meaning by putting those controversies aside, at all events till we have endeavoured to realise what thoughts the words at the time actually conveyed to those who heard them, and that when we have grasped that meaning it will be our best preparation for determining what bearing they have upon the later controversies of ancient or modern times. And (1) it would seem clear that the connection between Peter and the rock (the words in the Greek differ in gender, πέτρος and πέτρα, but were identical in the Aramaic, which our Lord probably used) was meant to be brought into special prominence. Now, at last, by this confession of his faith, Peter had risen to the height of his new calling, and was worthy of his new name. (2) Whether he is to be identified with the rock of the next clause is, however, a question on which men may legitimately differ. On the one side there is the probability that in the Aramaic, in which our Lord spoke, there would be no difference between the words in the two clauses; on the other, the possibility that He may have used the Greek words, or that the Evangelist may have intended to mark the distinction which he felt by the use of the two words, which undoubtedly differ in their meaning, πέτρος being a “stone” or fragment of rock, while πέτρα is the rock itself. The Aramaic Cepha, it may be noted, has the former rather than the latter meaning. (3) On the assumption of a distinction there follows the question, What is the rock? Peter’s faith (subjective)? or the truth (objective) which he confessed? or Christ Himself? Taking all the facts of the case, the balance seems to incline in favour of the last view. (1.) Christ and not Peter is the Rock in 1Corinthians 10:4, the Foundation in 1Corinthians 3:11. (2.) The poetry of the Old Testament associated the idea of the Rock with the greatness and steadfastness of God, not with that of a man [Deuteronomy 32:4; Deuteronomy 32:18; 2Samuel 22:3; 2Samuel 23:3; Psalm 18:2; Psalm 18:31; Psalm 18:46; Isaiah 17:10; Habakkuk 1:12 (Hebrew)]. (3.) As with the words, which in their form present a parallel to these, “Destroy this temple” (John 2:19), so here, we may believe the meaning to have been indicated by significant look or gesture. The Rock on which the Church was to be built was Himself, in the mystery of that union of the Divine and the Human which had been the subject of St. Peter’s confession. Had Peter himself been meant, we may. add, the simpler form, “Thou art Peter, and on thee will I build My Church,” would have been clearer and more natural. As it is, the collocation suggests an implied contrast: “Thou art the Rock-Apostle; and yet not the Rock on which the Church is to be built. It is enough for thee to have found the Rock, and to have built on the one Foundation.” (Comp. Matthew 7:24.)

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

In other words, the Bible must be interpreted. It's clear words cannot be taken at their obvious meaning. I have always found fundamentalists to be confusing when it comes to this concept.

bahmer

Prior to that we have this.

Matthew 16:15-18

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

I believe that it is Peters confession that Jesus is the Messiah that is the Rock that Jesus is talking about and not Peter himself.

Mr Bombastic

Wrong! The Bible does need to be interpreted, but not in the way you mean. If it is studied in context, in the original language, no "interpretation" is required. It's meaning is clear. BTW, After Peters supposed elevation to Popehood. The Apostle Paul corrected him on church doctrine. Funny. I thought the Pope was infallible. Also, the Catholic Church, at one time, made it a crime to own a Bible. That tells me all I need to know. It is not of God. It is a Pagan religion, and Peter was never the Pope. He never even went to Rome, where the Church was supposedly set up.

Loki Loc: Georgia

A Roman Catholic (I'm not one) would argue that the Church was established by Christ with the Apostle Peter as it's first head.

http://www.thoughtco.com/roman-catholic-church-history-700528

Christianity was incorporating Pagan beliefs into it's dogma long before 590 AD. As early as 325 AD at the Nicene Council of Churches at the behest of the Emperor Constantine, who decriminalized Christianity.

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

A concise read about the origins of Catholicism can be found in Britannica. Not exactly concise, but it won't take all night.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism

Mr Bombastic

And yet Gods word remains unchanged. Your dogma is not part of Scripture. It is the result of apostasy.

Loki Loc: Georgia

The Christians were trying to spread the word of Christ, but, the Pagans were holding on to their traditions.

So the Christians of the time chose that day to celebrate the birth of Christ.

When you don't know the exact day of his birth, what difference does it make what day you celebrate it?

The Pagans were holding onto their traditions so the leaders of the Christian church simply incorporated some of those traditions into Christian worship to make the new religion more acceptable to potential converts.
As for the next 2 statements, don't you find it odd that Christians chose the birthday of Mithra, head godlet of a cult that was Christianity's biggest competition, to celebrate the birth of Christ, even though there is absolutely no Biblical admonishment to do so?
When you don't know the exact date of Christ's birth, why put it on the birthday of his competition, unless you want to incorporate elements of Mithraism into Christian theology?

"I suppose you'd be happier if they took the Islamic road and told them to convert or die and execute the lot of them?"
You mean like the Catholics did to the Jews? How about the Hugenots and the Albigensian Heresy? Lots of Barbeques of heretics. Don't forget the Spanish Inquisition.
For that matter, Protestants have not been gentle in their treatment of Roman Catholics.
You state that I don't believe in God. That is incorrect. I just don't believe in your version.

Loki Loc: Georgia

It does? Then why does the King James Version of the Bible contain 66 Books now, when it contained 73 prior to 1825?
During the first two centuries after the crucifixion, various books were added to and deleted from the text of what became the Bible.

Mr Bombastic

Loki Loki Loki. You disappoint me. The only thing that matters is what is written in Gods word. The Bible. There are no Pagan practices or traditions in the Bible. Everything you just mentioned is the result of humans. Probably apostates. False Christians. You cannot judge Christianity by what it's practitioners do. The only thing that matters is the word of God.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Mr. Bombastic, Mr. Bombastic, Mr. Bombastic, you disappoint ME. Which God's word do you refer to? The Catholic Bible which predates the Protestant Bible, and which Protestant Bible? The one before or after the censors got hold of it in 1825 and cut out six books? You think someone had a revelation from God directing them to delete a substantial portion of the scripture which was the Word of God until someone in 1825 decided it wasn't? The Bible that the Founders who created our Constitution relied on wasn't good enough for the revisionists. So which Word of God?

Mr Bombastic

The original Bible predates both Catholic and Protestant Bibles. There are mutually agreed upon criteria for what books are Scripture. Are you familiar with them? And the books that were cut out...I assume you mean the Apocrypha? Those do not meet the criteria. They were not written by one of the 12 Apostles or someone who was close to them. There are other criteria, such as whether or not they agree with the rest of Scripture. There is only one Bible. Accept no substitutes.

Homestead

You keep a very selective set of facts.

Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

"unless you want to incorporate elements of Mithraism into Christian theology?"

I noticed you didn't consider that the Christians were introducing Christianity into Mithraism which they in fact did and it worked.

In the meantime it doesn't matter what day the Christians picked to celebrate the birth of Christ, because people like you would find some other objection, based on some other event or religion.

There's only 360 days in a year and civilization is thousands upon thousands of years old. I'm sure there has been some kind of tragedy or heinous belief on every one of those days by somebody.

Again, your starting with the premiss that God doesn't exist, so your grasping at any thing to support that position.