It seems that many here are under the mistaken impression that Christianity is and always was monolithic. — Fooloso4

Many more are under the impression that there are no good historical or theological reasons to hold that Mormons are not Christians. I hope your post was not yet another non sequitur argument for that idea.

Paine was responding to Art48, and there is no evidence at all that he was limiting Christianity to Nicean or Chalcedonian Christianity. Curiously, Art48's OP is more theologically astute than your excursus, because it is a very late phenomenon for self-identified Christians to identify Jesus as a mere man. Dozens of early Christian sects would have disagreed with the Christology of Nicea, but none of them held that Jesus was just a man. All of the disputes among early Christians were about what sort of non-mere man Jesus was.

What do you mean by 'defending itself'?? How should religious people defend their religion? — boundless

You can either get accused of being a coward or else of being a brute. Feel free to pick your poison.

You can either get accused of being a coward or else of being a brute. Feel free to pick your poison. — Tarskian

Well, as Socrates said ""It is better to suffer injustice than to do wrong" (I don't remember where and if the phrase is exactly this, but I do remember this in one platonic dialogue). Also in the Bible it is said, for instance, "For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:17, NIV translation). So, yeah, I would say that it is better to have a reputation of being a 'coward' than act as a 'brute'. And I would say that specifically for Christians being a 'brute' contradicts these words: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36, quoted before)

So, yeah, I would say that it is better to have a reputation of being a 'coward' than act as a 'brute'. — boundless

That would be the first-order assessment.

Then, there is the second-order one: Regardless of whether you are yourself a coward or a brute, do you prefer to be surrounded by cowards or by brutes?

You see, I could myself be a coward but if I am surrounded by brutes, I can always count on someone else to do the dirty work for me.

That is a strategy that allows me to remain myself Socratically kosher but simultaneously still benefit from useful external effort.

Many more are under the impression that there are no good historical or theological reasons to hold that Mormons are not Christians. I hope your post was not yet another non sequitur argument for that idea. — Leontiskos

? I have not said anything about Mormons. I pointed to the early Jesus movement prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church and the First Council of Nicaea.

Paine was responding to Art48, and there is no evidence at all that he was limiting Christianity to Nicean or Chalcedonian Christianity. — Leontiskos

That is correct. I did not say or imply that the examples I pointed to are the only cases. I don't know how you would reach this conclusion. Yet another non sequitur argument!

it is a very late phenomenon for self-identified Christians to identify Jesus as a mere man. — Leontiskos

This is simply not true. This is why I pointed to the use of the term son in the Hebrew Bible. It is used many times both in the singular and plural. It often refers to kings and rulers and never means a god.

The plural can be found in Exodus:

Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, my firstborn.

(4:22)

All of the disputes among early Christians were about what sort of non-mere man Jesus was. — Leontiskos

As I said:

Under pagan influence the Hebrew בן (bên) came to take on different meanings. — Fooloso4

"Mere man" is ambiguous. The traditional Jewish notion of a messiah is a man not a deity. A man with a mission from God is still a man. An exception man is still a man. The disciples, Paul, and other Jewish followers did not believe that Jesus was a god.

In Paul we find the idea that resurrected bodies are "spiritual bodies", sōma pneumatikos. As a resurrected body Jesus would no longer be a physical body. This holds for all men who have been saved and will be resurrected. Not "mere men", but men none the less.

Thank you for the reply; I appreciate the effort.

You really do not understand the “We believe,” its significance, weight, or meaning, do you. First though, let’s dispose of questions that are causing confusion. Does God exist materially, like an automobile or a horse; can his existence be proved? Neither my topic, nor questions that interest me.

Do some people say God exists, and do some of them call themselves Christian? Yes to both. The question here is not the nature of that existence but instead what people mean when they say “God exists,” and also what Christians have understood it to mean.

The problem with predicating material reality of God is the requirement for direct evidence. There is none. Further, if there were, then the being wouldn’t be God. To say that God is, is to say that God is something, which at the same time says what he is not – a whole lot of things he is not, and God is not understood as a being who is not a whole lot of things. People pressed on this point tend to explode.

Christian thinkers a long time ago knew all this perfectly well and knew it was a problem. Their solution to make it all an expression of belief, not least because they knew that belief and knowledge are not the same thing, and that you can – must – believe in what you cannot know. Further, that if you could know it, then it would no longer be a matter of belief, their word being faith.

Which is to say that the reality of God is an axiom of Christian thinking, or in different language an absolute presupposition. As such, it is not a question as to any fact of the matter, but rather the historical question of for whom it was an absolute presupposition, and its use. It was and is for Christians, and its use as a ground and justification for Christian thinking.

Ask a person if God exists and if he or she just answers yes, then possibly they’re answering carelessly and informally. If they mean it, then their thinking not in accord with Christian belief, possibly in mere ignorance. But ask a Christian, and he or she will likely answer that the question of God’s existence as a matter of fact does not arise; it is instead for a Christian a matter of faith that he does.

Now, you flatter me in supposing these observations mine and mocking me for them. But in fact you’re mocking Augustine through Thomas Aquinas, a host in between and those that came after. My exposure to these mainly incidental through secondary sources, but the ideas so basic and so clear that they cannot be mistook. Or, that is, in mocking me you mock yourself.

All of which leaves questions as to what modern Christians believe – but that a different topic.

Yes, the dominance of one view over competitors is prominent in the history of the first two hundred years after Jesus. Attempts at understanding how the 'kingdom of heaven' was visualized before that time is also murky and involves questions only a time machine could solve. What I find interesting is how committed to a single world that will change when X happens that many of these incompatible views have. The collection from the Nag Hammadi is remarkable to me because they do not point to a common ground so much as suspending talk of such a thing. Singularities placed in close proximity to one another. The work upon the Dead Sea scrolls displays a similar insistence upon singularity.

I grew up in a Protestant tradition and the insistence upon a single path was heard by me in all of its cacophony. I do take the teaching that 'identity', on that level, is between me and my maker. It is not an explanatory principle for many other things.

Yes.

As I understand it, this was the genius of at least one strand of early Christianity guided by inspiration, the witnessing of the indwelling of spirit. It was all but destroyed by the Church Fathers. To this day it is vehemently denied by those Christians who desire to be led, to be told what to believe by other men claiming the mantle of divine authority.

You have mentioned before the Gospel of Thomas and the idea that the kingdom is within. If this is believed then, as the Church Fathers feared, one cannot be subject to their authority.

the idea that the kingdom is within. — Fooloso4

I wasn't raised Christian, but I have read the Gospels and this is always how I've treated the "kingdom of heaven" primarily. Perhaps the kingdom of heaven indicates some external future state of affairs, but the far more relevant interpretation is that the kingdom of heaven is within us. "The kingdom of heaven is within" makes the kingdom of heaven parables personally applicable/relevant. That to me is one of the most interesting things about the gospels.

As I recall that conversation, the passage I emphasized in Gospel of Thomas was Jesus saying that the Kingdom of Heaven had arrived. That is a strong difference from the Pauline expectation of the end of this kosmos and the beginning of the next. The Gospel of Thomas does not rule out the kosmos being transformed through the new order. The emphasis upon personal transformation is clear.

The instruction to follow James the Just after Jesus leaves suggests a possible alignment with the Jerusalem followers, not an association typically considered a 'gnostic' source. I do not detect the tension between law and faith central to Paul's letters. Getting stuffed into a clay jug has made the topic difficult to study.

Then, there is the second-order one: Regardless of whether you are yourself a coward or a brute, do you prefer to be surrounded by cowards or by brutes? — Tarskian

'Not being a brute' is hardly the same as 'being a coward'. If 'not being a brute' means to be 'non violent', I hardly see how being 'non violent' is being a coward.

BTW, it is for me unsurpassingly strange how some christians chose to be violent etc when their core belief is that God himself chose not 'defend Himself' and die on the cross. And, say, when Saint Paul reccomended to have the 'same mindset' as Jesus (see my posts above with the quotations). I consider it one of the most disconcerting mysteries in human history.

Thanks my friend. If I recall correctly we also discussed during this or another conversation the meaning of the kingdom being at hand. This can be taken to mean, as it often is, soon to be, but alternatively as already here, within our reach. Paul and his followers believed that the end was near, about to happen at any moment and that it was a cosmic or geo-political event, rather than a matter of personal transformation.

The picture is further complicated by differing beliefs in resurrection, whether this would be spiritual or physical. The Gospel of Thomas says nothing about resurrection. In addition, various notions regarding the messiah. Whether this was to be a victory of the Jews over their enemies or a new world order or personal salvation.

In any case, what is clear as that the OP's question about Christianity being false is ill-formed.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? — Leontiskos

This is the topic at hand, and it is addressed to christians.

Suppose you came to believe that Jesus was just a man. How would you proceed? What would you do? Make a choice and explain why. — Art48

You seem to be obsessed with mormons for some reason; I haven't said anything about them. You seem to want to police who can address the topic, otherwise there is no reason to endlessly discuss the boundaries of what a christian is.

As a one time protestant who came to believe that Jesus was just a man, my answer has been that it made little or no difference to the truth of what Jesus taught about how to live. I do not generally call myself a christian because it would confuse people like you, who expect supernatural belief in all religion.

As to mormons, i think they consider themselves christian, and I can see that you do not, and I couldn't give a flying fuck either way.

This is the topic at hand, and it is addressed to christians. — unenlightened

And your statement seems to have nothing at all to do with it. So again I ask, What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

I grew up in a Protestant tradition and the insistence upon a single path was heard by me in all of its cacophony. I do take the teaching that 'identity', on that level, is between me and my maker. It is not an explanatory principle for many other things. — Paine

But that's a key issue with religion. It's innate subjectivity and relativism. I also grew up in the Protestant tradition. Baptist. We were taught that all religions were a pathway to the divine. We were also taught that the Bible was an allegorical work and not intended to be taken literally. Religions, even within the one tradition, can't agree on anything.

The problem with this of course is what to do with the Jesus story. And given the tedium of the Bible as literature (for my taste), why not pick something more engaging as a source of allegory? The Great Gatsby, perhaps? It even ends in sacrifice, execution and redemption.

This is simply not true. This is why I pointed to the use of the term son in the Hebrew Bible. It is used many times both in the singular and plural. It often refers to kings and rulers and never means a god. — Fooloso4

Have you now reduced a historical question to an exegetical question? The number of ex-Protestants in this thread is not coincidental.

The disciples, Paul, and other Jewish followers did not believe that Jesus was a god. — Fooloso4

Of course he did. Paul incorporates Jesus into the Hebrew Shema in places like 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. He says that Jesus bears the image of God in 2 Corinthians 4, and the name of God in Philippians 2.

Have you now reduced a historical question to an exegetical question? The number of ex-Protestants in this thread is not coincidental. — Leontiskos

I am not sure if you include me in that census. You are not in a position to judge what I believe or not. My uncertainty is for me to wrestle with. I am in still within the conversation. I take seriously the invitation to the party. Otherwise, it is of no concern. If I thought a horse was dead, I would not encourage it to perform better.

Have you now reduced a historical question to an exegetical question? — Leontiskos

It is about the meaning of a term and how that meaning changed when interpreted by pagan ears. That change can be seen by looking at the relevant texts. This is a historical question.

The number of ex-Protestants in this thread is not coincidental. — Leontiskos

This is anachronistic.

Paul incorporates Jesus into the Hebrew Shema in places like 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. — Leontiskos

The passage makes a distinction between the one God, the Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ. This distinction is not present in the Shema. In the Shema God is the Lord. If, as a Jew, Jesus recited the Shema he was not praying to himself. I seems highly likely that he would have been appalled to learn anyone would claim that the son is the father. That God is two and not one. The same goes for Paul.

the image of God in 2 Corinthians 4 — Leontiskos

An image is not the thing it is an image of. Your image in a picture or mirror is not you.

The passage says:

God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

(4:6)

All of mankind is God's image:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

(Genesis 1 :26)

the name of God in Philippians 2. — Leontiskos

Are you referring to this passage:

God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that [is] above every name

(9)?

God did not gave himself a name or exalt himself. The passage refers not to God himself but to Jesus.

Here again a distinction is made between God the Father and Jesus the Lord

- What I find in the U.S. is that Protestantism tends to be narrow minded, and those that reject this tradition desire to be broad minded, in much the way that a compressed spring reacts against its compression. This would help explain the reactionary attitude among ex-Protestants towards a kind of broad mindedness, even where no rational justifications are present. I've seen in this thread a fair amount of resentment towards any "narrowed" conception of Christianity, in one case even unto the remarkably unjustified conclusion that anyone who is not hateful is therefore somehow Christian. I grant that there are many people who are resentful towards narrow or exclusivist forms of Christianity, but I do not grant that this has anything to do with rigorous philosophical thinking. Along similar lines, many of the ways that strong inclusivity has crept into Christian theology can be directly traced to parents who had a vested interest in the idea that their children who left the faith did not in fact leave the faith. This was, for example, the motivational context for Rahner's "anonymous Christians."

I don't know where you fall in any of this, but in general you tend to be a more precise thinker who does not carve out a position based on emotional reaction, so I do not assume that this trend would apply.

What I find in the U.S. is that Protestantism tends to be narrow minded, — Leontiskos

On its face this is both exactly wrong and nonsensical, even making me think the writer has never been to the US - or in a Protestant church. But perhaps I misunderstand or misread, and he will clarify. Maybe start with what he means by "narrow-minded"?

Protestant, in the US, includes a lot and many. Depending on region and sub-sect, there may well be some persons and individual churches that are seemingly, relatively, "narrow-minded." But my long experience is that Protestant churches are consciously and deliberately broad-minded in that they not only embrace and welcome all comers and take them and cherish them as they are - no circumcision nor anything else required - but would have the whole world equally as welcoming and receptive and accepting. By that I mean the opposite of narrow-minded.

But that's a key issue with religion. It's innate subjectivity and relativism. I also grew up in the Protestant tradition. Baptist. We were taught that all religions were a pathway to the divine. We were also taught that the Bible was an allegorical work and not intended to be taken literally. — Tom Storm

The sense of inclusion you refer to varies greatly amongst different denominations. My mother (as a child) was prescribed by a doctor to leave her Southern Baptist church in order to stop the nightmares she was experiencing. It worked. The family moved to a Methodist church. Now that church is more "inclusive" of other faiths but strictly as figurative versions of a person only having access to salvation through Jesus Christ. The distinction between "allegorical" and "literal" means widely different things to different people.

Another element to consider is the emphasis upon the danger of walking the walk versus expressing an opinion. Bonhoeffer's preaching on the difference between cheap and costly grace could not put that danger more sharply.

Less evangelistic but no less focused upon action is Kierkegaard and his equation of freedom with capability. While a person may be commanded in their solitary existence before God, we cannot do that to each other. Thus, Kierkegaard developed the role of indirect communication as a form of life.

Since the conversation has turned to Americans, I will top this off by a reference to Paul Holmer who emphasized that language of faith stands above the language about faith. That is a helpful way to approach the role of creeds and liturgy as a topic of theology even if one has no skin in the game.

The problem with this of course is what to do with the Jesus story. And given the tedium of the Bible as literature (for my taste), why not pick something more engaging as a source of allegory? The Great Gatsby, perhaps? It even ends in sacrifice, execution and redemption. — Tom Storm

Not very apocalyptic, however. One needs the tale twice told to get the tang of Dostoyevsky watching the church execute Jesus again.

Not being a brute' is hardly the same as 'being a coward'. If 'not being a brute' means to be 'non violent', I hardly see how being 'non violent' is being a coward. — boundless

Refusing to "go over the top" or to open fire when instructed, is an act of cowardice.

http://www.worcestershireregiment.com/shot_at_dawn.php

Shot at Dawn

Offences under the British Army Act, which resulting in a court martial with a sentence to be shot at dawn included alleged acts of cowardice, desertion, sleeping at post, casting away arms and disobedience.

Christianity is deemed to have some responsibility for the fact that Germany lost both world wars:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-ataturk-in-the-nazi-imagination-by-stefan-ihrig-and-islam-and-nazi-germanys-war-by-david-motadel-1421441724

‘It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.”

This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.

Except during the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1944, Judaism did not encourage the Jews either to put up a fight. It was all too easy to mass transport them to the extermination camps.

There are moments in the life of a nation in which the day is carried away by the courage of their men, effectively turning them into murderous brutes. Judaism and Christianity are deemed to be liabilities and not assets, when the going gets tough.

Option 3 surely.
I am convinced enough of my religion that if I truly was convinced that the Christian God was not real it would be because of a slight difference, not a major issue, and I would likely know where to look for a religion that fits the logical process that convinced me better.

Additionally, while this might have been the right choice given the post, Jesus could never have been just a man, in that he was either divine or he was a hypocrite who told others to repent while being so prideful as to make himself divine when he was not.

as to make himself divine when he was not. — Igitur

Probably you're more familiar with the bible than I am. Where in it does Jesus "make himself divine"?

Except during the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1944, Judaism did not encourage the Jews either to put up a fight. It was all too easy to mass transport them to the extermination camps. — Tarskian

I don't even think that it was Judaism per se that helped spark/encourage the Warsaw ghetto uprising. I just know that at that point the Jews were finally able to acquire weapons from the Polish resistance. Rates of firearm ownership among Jews in Eastern Europe was very low. There were a few uprisings at concentration camps but likely not so much due to Judaism as much as the knowledge that they'd be killed regardless and that they wanted to choose the manner of their death. Judaism tends to emphasize fighting bravely (and choosing your battles wisely) and also staying alive as opposed to telling its adherents that this life doesn't matter & only the next one does.

Here's an example of Jesus claiming God is his father in the Bible:

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.

- Matthew 16:17
And here saying his father conferred the kingdom upon him:

29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:29

If you are going off of the Bible as a source, it's hard to see a way that Jesus could have just been an ordinary man, or a "great moral teacher" as many say.

- Probably the most basic evidence for Jesus' claim to divinity is the fact that the Jewish authorities arranged to have him executed for blasphemy.* Someone who does not understand the Jewish context of the New Testament should presumably start there.

* For example, Mark 14:64

Thank you, now I know better.

Thank you so much. I knew there was some big evidence I missed.

Probably the most basic evidence for Jesus' claim to divinity is the fact that the Jewish authorities arranged to have him executed for blasphemy.* Someone who does not understand the Jewish context of the New Testament should presumably start there. — Leontiskos

Good advice. Let's look closer:

First, the accusation of blasphemy covers a great deal more than a claim to divinity. To break the Law is blasphemy. Jesus claimed to have fulfilled the Law. The Jewish authority did not agree. Much of what he did could be considered breaking the Law. Clearly the question of the Law was of central importance. Second, the term 'divine' did not mean that someone who was called divine is a god, but rather has an important relationship to God. A son of God, for example. Third, is the political problem. A "king of the Jews" would have authority over the Jewish leaders. This is not something they would accept. Fourth, related to the others, is the claim to be the Messiah. The Messiah is divine but is not God.