Just wondering...

[Shibumi]

Religions are varient belief systems, and in that sense Atheism is no different than Islam and Christianity. Richard Dawkins' arguments and patterns of thought are recognisable to anyone who has faced fundamentalist Christianity, the sole difference is the belief itself - the thought patterns verge on being identicle. Those who think like this and raise their children like this indocrinate like any fundamentalist, and the result is that a fairly large portion of people "raised atheist" latch onto a religion as soon as they leave home. Personally, I think this is why simple, evangelical Christian sects do so well in universities.

Source? I do find that hard to believe. Very hard to believe even.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Source? I do find that hard to believe. Very hard to believe even.

My life? At least 30% of my 100 or so school friends went Christian either after starting college, or starting university. That's a pretty poor retention rate in my book.

[Sigurd]

I did suspect that those proddies (as the Scots call them) who barks anti-Catholicistic sentiments, was just confused to what being a protestant is all about. That is, the great bulk of them. You do have those fringe nutters like Chick and whatshisname Phelps, but most of them are just bullies jumping on a bandwagon with no understanding of the basics.

The root issue interest me though... if we go beyond the existence of God, and into the Christian history. Catholicism vs. Protestantism. Who has the right of origin?
If there was a church organisation at 33 AD, who can rightfully claim to be most aligned with it? Did Catholicism stray? Do Protestantism return to the original?
If there was a theological battle between the two - what would be the arguments on both sides. Are there other options?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The root issue interest me though... if we go beyond the existence of God, and into the Christian history. Catholicism vs. Protestantism. Who has the right of origin?
If there was a church organisation at 33 AD, who can rightfully claim to be most aligned with it? Did Catholicism stray? Do Protestantism return to the original?
If there was a theological battle between the two - what would be the arguments on both sides. Are there other options?

Why 33AD? The scripture says Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Didn't the Old Testament saints look to him for salvation? People have been called to look to Christ for salvation ever since God made his first covenant with men when he made the Adamic covenant, so that is when Christianity was created and that is when you need to go back to if you want to claim Christian heritage.

[Sigurd]

Why 33AD? The scripture says Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Didn't the Old Testament saints look to him for salvation? People have been called to look to Christ for salvation ever since God made his first covenant with men when he made the Adamic covenant, so that is when Christianity was created and that is when you need to go back to if you want to claim Christian heritage.

I know what you get at.

However, with the culmination of the atoning sacrifice - a new order was established, led not by the priests of the pharisees or the Sadducee, but by the disciples. A group that would be known as Christians. You could say that this was the reorganized pre-Moses church - if you consider the whole christian history (Adam -> Christ). But for simplicity - let's focus on the organization established by Christ in the flesh. Hence 33AD. The one that every 'Christian' looks to for origin. To go beyond this point is not really necessary as every Christian would agree that the church and its 12 apostles is a point in time where true Christianity existed. And it is the time following this event that is to be discussed.

[Shibumi]

I know what you get at.

However, with the culmination of the atoning sacrifice - a new order was established, led not by the priests of the pharisees or the Sadducee, but by the disciples. A group that would be known as Christians. You could say that this was the reorganized pre-Moses church - if you consider the whole christian history (Adam -> Christ). But for simplicity - let's focus on the organization established by Christ in the flesh. Hence 33AD. The one that every 'Christian' looks to for origin. To go beyond this point is not really necessary as every Christian would agree that the church and its 12 apostles is a point in time where true Christianity existed. And it is the time following this event that is to be discussed.

Find something every christian agree on and you will win the internet.

Will elaborate earlier points asap.

[Sigurd]

Find something every christian agree on and you will win the internet.

Will elaborate earlier points asap.

That Jesus is the Christ?
the internet, is that a cookie?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know what you get at.

However, with the culmination of the atoning sacrifice - a new order was established, led not by the priests of the pharisees or the Sadducee, but by the disciples. A group that would be known as Christians. You could say that this was the reorganized pre-Moses church - if you consider the whole christian history (Adam -> Christ). But for simplicity - let's focus on the organization established by Christ in the flesh. Hence 33AD. The one that every 'Christian' looks to for origin. To go beyond this point is not really necessary as every Christian would agree that the church and its 12 apostles is a point in time where true Christianity existed. And it is the time following this event that is to be discussed.

It is absolutely necessary for people to go back beyond that point, because only then will they realise that Christianity is not an arbitrary set of rules on a piece of paper, but rather it is the natural, self-evident religion for all mankind, and is written on mens' hearts as Paul himself says.

You talk about the "organization established by Christ", but what organisation is that? He never set up an earthly religious system, although he abolished an existing one. But the law of Moses was always separate from the law of Christ. It was a shadow of it, not a predecessor that was replaced in 33AD.

There is no new faith or religious system, just the same one that's been around since the time of Adam.

[Sigurd]

It is absolutely necessary for people to go back beyond that point, because only then will they realise that Christianity is not an arbitrary set of rules on a piece of paper, but rather it is the natural, self-evident religion for all mankind, and is written on mens' hearts as Paul himself says.

You talk about the "organization established by Christ", but what organisation is that? He never set up an earthly religious system, although he abolished an existing one. But the law of Moses was always separate from the law of Christ. It was a shadow of it, not a predecessor that was replaced in 33AD.

There is no new faith or religious system, just the same one that's been around since the time of Adam.

A very Mormon view you have there...

It can't be denied that an organisation was established in the meridian of time. It has been a long tradition that the christian church started at the day of Pentecost. But as it is an appeal to tradition - I can't really use it can I?
Since you are ignoring the obvious with your comment: "He never set up an earthly religious system", I have to wonder what you perceive as an religious organisation/system.
The New Testament refers 114 times to a church. The Gospels, Acts and letters refers to several instances of people being given offices (apostles, prophets, teachers, elders, pastors, evangelists, bishops, priests and deacons). If this is not talking about an organized religious system, I am curious of what your thoughts are.

Talking about the church of Adam is pointless as there is nothing documenting this. That is, within the canon. As anything outside it would be irrelevant right?
If you would consider extra-canonical literature - I would be happy to show you a few more.