Counterfeits.

[Jedidiah]

If that were so, there would never have been any religious wars.

Us humans can fight over even very clear issues.

[tabibito]

So of the three branches of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic and Othodox), you think two of them ignored God's message (presumably the two you do not belong to)?

Oh - I'm not Catholic ... but on that one issue, the Catholics have it right (their application of what they've got right is kind of questionable but). On the other hand, I'm not sure what that your explanation of the Orthodox position is wholly accurate.

And for centuries, God has allowed these huge organisations to spread misunformation in his name?

Pretty much.

So you think no one has the right message?

Comparing what is with what should be, no other conclusion is tenable. (and I'll admit to being a Cessna)

What does that say about God's communication skills?

Not a thing. The first step toward fixing the problem (and only the first) is to acknowledge that there is a problem. But of course, it will always be easier to make excuses than to address the issues.

[Aractus]

Of all the main world religions the claims to be the Christian faith has more counterfeits than them all.

This points to a genuine Christian faith.

No it doesn't. There is a Christian faith that can be traced all the way back to the first century, there's no doubt whatsoever about that. It doesn't make it genuine/true. It simply means there was a first century mythology from which all other Christian mythologies/faiths originated from.

[37818]

No it doesn't. There is a Christian faith that can be traced all the way back to the first century, there's no doubt whatsoever about that. It doesn't make it genuine/true. It simply means there was a first century mythology from which all other Christian mythologies/faiths originated from.

While I happen to know Christianity is true [I'm not the only one who thinks this]. Just because there happens to be a genuine [like for example "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" founded by Joseph Smith] does not in and of itself being genuine mean that belief system is true.
There is an origin to Christianity and so an original genuine Christianity. It still has more counterfeits than any other religious belief system.

[37818]

Okay. And is that by God’s grace by faith alone OR by God’s grace received through faith and on-going participation in the work of one’s salvation OR by God’s grace, which Christians receive by faith and by observing the sacraments?

See the point here is that Protestant and Orthodox and Catholic churches disagree on this vital issue, which to my mind means two of them (at least) have garbled the message right.

And every time I point this out you seem to duck the issue.

Have Protestant and Orthodox and Catholic churches ALL got the right message with regards to salvation?

No. If you were to suppose one or none of those three were correct about the genuine Christian gospel. If you were to explain that gospel to someone and as to why it was believed true. What would or would you have explained?

[Aractus]

While I happen to know Christianity is true [I'm not the only one who thinks this]. Just because there happens to be a genuine [like for example "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" founded by Joseph Smith] does not in and of itself being genuine mean that belief system is true.
There is an origin to Christianity and so an original genuine Christianity. It still has more counterfeits than any other religious belief system.

It depends on what you mean by "origin". The origin I'm talking about is Pauline Christianity, which I'm convinced Jesus would not have supported. It ignores many of his key teachings, for example that the Law of Moses would last until the end of the age. Christianity is based on Judaism, and Judaism was based on still older mythologies. The working hypothesis that I agree with is that Judaism is an amalgamation of two primary pre-existing belief sets. It was written down (in the Pentateuch) as a way for the ancient Semitic people living in the Levant to agree to what they believed, and didn't. It was essentially a treaty between people of different beliefs.

Now answer me this: Humans have been on this planet at least 200,000 years and probably longer. In all that time, only for the last 2700-2800 years has there been a religious order that worships the Yahweh god. So for greater than 98% of human history, Yahweh, if he exists, had never made himself known. That by the way conflicts with what the Pentateuch claims which is that God was known from the beginning.

[tabibito]

It depends on what you mean by "origin". The origin I'm talking about is Pauline Christianity, which I'm convinced Jesus would not have supported. It ignores many of his key teachings, for example that the Law of Moses would last until the end of the age.

The statement attributed to Christ in full is

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, [till all be fulfilled.

Quoting only half of the statement leads to a false conclusion: the statement could as readily be translated "unless" as "until" ... note the prior verse "I come not to destroy but to fulfil".

Christianity is based on Judaism, and Judaism was based on still older mythologies.

It would be more accurate to say that both had their origins in a break with prior belief systems.

The working hypothesis that I agree with is that Judaism is an amalgamation of two primary pre-existing belief sets.

The hypothesis doesn't seem to be particularly well supported by hard evidence.

It was written down (in the Pentateuch) as a way for the ancient Semitic people living in the Levant to agree to what they believed, and didn't. It was essentially a treaty between people of different beliefs.

There were a number of beliefs, but the Pentateuch was by no means a treaty nor did it gain majority acceptance - which, had it been a treaty, it would have.

Now answer me this: Humans have been on this planet at least 200,000 years and probably longer.

I could be wrong, but I think 200 000 years is pretty solid.

In all that time, only for the last 2700-2800 years has there been a religious order that worships the Yahweh god. So for greater than 98% of human history, Yahweh, if he exists, had never made himself known. That by the way conflicts with what the Pentateuch claims which is that God was known from the beginning.

The name,YHVH, has indeed been known for a relatively short time, though your time estimate: I believe it to be a few centuries short. However, the person going by the name of YHVH has been known by other names for much longer.

[37818]

It depends on what you mean by "origin". The origin I'm talking about is Pauline Christianity, which I'm convinced Jesus would not have supported. . . .

Please explain what you mean.

It ignores many of his key teachings, for example that the Law of Moses would last until the end of the age. . . .

Again, you need to explain what you mean. Give a specific case as to why you think that.

Christianity is based on Judaism, and Judaism was based on still older mythologies.

Ah, provided the specifics. Just saying that because someone may have said that does not make it so.

The working hypothesis . . .

Someone's guess?

. . . that I agree with is that Judaism is an amalgamation of two primary pre-existing belief sets. It was written down (in the Pentateuch) as a way for the ancient Semitic people living in the Levant to agree to what they believed, and didn't. It was essentially a treaty between people of different beliefs.

Please give specifics.

Now answer me this: Humans have been on this planet at least 200,000 years and probably longer. In all that time, only for the last 2700-2800 years has there been a religious order that worships the Yahweh god. So for greater than 98% of human history, Yahweh, if he exists, had never made himself known. That by the way conflicts with what the Pentateuch claims which is that God was known from the beginning.

If that time frame is true then it has been that long since the first two humans knew Yahweh [the Self Existent One] in that garden.

[Doug Shaver]

Us humans can fight over even very clear issues.

An issue is the subject of a controversy. A clear issue is easily understood in the sense that it is obvious or readily apparent what the adversaries are fighting about. It does not have to be equally obvious which side is right, notwithstanding assurances by partisans of one or both sides.

All orthodox Christians agree (as do most of the unorthodox ones) that the Bible is God’s message to mankind, but they have continually disagreed, sometimes violently, over the meaning of that message—what they understood the Bible to be saying about God’s will. But a clear message, by definition, is not easily misunderstood. Christianity’s history demonstrates that it is trivially easy to understand the Bible in contradictory ways, and so its message cannot be clear.

[Sparko]

An issue is the subject of a controversy. A clear issue is easily understood in the sense that it is obvious or readily apparent what the adversaries are fighting about. It does not have to be equally obvious which side is right, notwithstanding assurances by partisans of one or both sides.

All orthodox Christians agree (as do most of the unorthodox ones) that the Bible is God’s message to mankind, but they have continually disagreed, sometimes violently, over the meaning of that message—what they understood the Bible to be saying about God’s will. But a clear message, by definition, is not easily misunderstood. Christianity’s history demonstrates that it is trivially easy to understand the Bible in contradictory ways, and so its message cannot be clear.

the bible is not an instruction manual. It is history, commandments, prophesy, poetry - inspired by God and written by men over thousands of years in different languages from different cultures. yet it is surprisingly consistent in its message. But yes if someone does not study it carefully and understand the cultures and language and idioms of the times it was written in, they can misread it. That doesn't mean it isn't God's message, just that men are superficial and ignorant.

[Tassman]

the bible is not an instruction manual. It is history, commandments, prophesy, poetry

Certainly it is an interesting reflection of the culture of the times and contains much beauty.

- inspired by God and written by men over thousands of years in different languages from different cultures.

This is where you come unstuck. There's no good reason to think this collection of myths and folk-tales is "inspired by God".

[Jedidiah]

This is where you come unstuck. There's no good reason to think this collection of myths and folk-tales is "inspired by God".

Many folks far more intelligent than you have concluded just the opposite.

[Doug Shaver]

Many folks far more intelligent than you have concluded just the opposite.

And folks equally intelligent have concluded that the Bible is not inspired.

So, I guess we can't decide what to believe just by noticing what smart people think. Maybe we need to examine the evidence for ourselves and reach our own conclusions?

[Doug Shaver]

yet it is surprisingly consistent in its message.

Some people have interpreted it so as to make its message consistent.

But yes if someone does not study it carefully and understand the cultures and language and idioms of the times it was written in, they can misread it.

Many people way more familiar with the cultures and languages than either your or me have read it very differently than you. Shall I just take your word for it that they are misreading it?

men are superficial and ignorant.

Because they dare to disagree with you?

[tabibito]

Some people have interpreted it so as to make its message consistent.

Neat ploy. Anything said to counter what you consider an inconsistency, you can dismiss on grounds that it is an interpretation made with the intent to make it consistent.