While I don't agree with JEROME's every doctrine, I fail to see how he hasn't argued his points well. Jesus Himself testified for the Scriptures (and that includes the book of Numbers), by saying "The Scripture cannot be broken". Furthermore, whenever Jesus refers to Scripture, He always refers to it as if it were absolute fact. We conclude, then, that Jesus Himself approved of the Israel's siege of the Midianites.
As for your statement that not one considered it a universal faith until Paul, let us look at Matthew.

Also, as for your denial of the existence of Jesus Christ, I doubt any modern scholar denies that Jesus walked the earth in His day. Even the secular ones.

Peter on more than one occasion disagreed with Paul on the matter of the Jewishness of christianity and on such subjects as circumcision.Paul did a good job of editing the scriptures and making them more acceptable.

Tell me one credible secular historian who can prove jesus existance,just one.I will give you a chance, one religious historian who can prove his existance.

As for your support of Jerome's view that the god of moses is the same as christs..what does it say about the speeches of Christ? it makes them out as even more fictitious than before.If you or Jerome cant see the completely different expressions of mercy and revenge expressed by the two testaments,then your faith is blinding you to the blatantly bleeding obvious.

Paul edited which Scriptures, exactly? As for the disagreements with Peter, that doesn't really matter. Many Christians have disagreed before.
It actually amazes me how anyone can even doubt Jesus' existence. I can't prove it, no, but even so, it's fairly obvious that Jesus existed.
The speeches of Christ contradict nothing in the Old Testament, so I don't see any problems here. The God of the Old Testament showed mercy and wrath, while Jesus, in the New Testament, showed both mercy and wrath. Tell me Jesus was just this kind jolly fellow all the time after reading His rebukes and anger toward the Pharisees of the day, and His sermon in Matthew 7, where He claims that men would come and plead their case before Him on judgment day, and His words to them are "I never knew you, depart from me you workers of iniquity". The only real difference here is that while God, in the OT, carries through and pours His wrath on nations, while Jesus only warns of it.
Your only real argument here is "They act kind of different so there's a contradiction!", and to that, I tell you, that God works in a series of Covenants. The Covenant between God and man has changed. However, God does not change.

As Peter was supposed to be the rock of faith then opposing him should indicate something to you.

Tell me why do you state he was a historical figure then say you cant prove it but wonder why i should doubt his existance? He is a mythical figure,woven into an elaborate story to convince the masses that they should observe certain ethics on the pain of everlasting punishment.

I asked you if you see the same god who permitted bears to eat a group of children because they cheeked his prophet and jesus who condemned any who harmed a child.Now dont be shy, is he the same god?

Where Jesus calls Peter the rock of the church, the language is very ambiguous. He calls peter A rock, yes, but when He says "...upon THIS rock...", it's more likely (in the context of the entire bible) that He referred to Himself. See the OT passages that state that God is the "rock of our salvation", etc.
First, may I ask you a question? Did the writers of the New Testament really believe what they were writing?
Well, yes. He even claimed to be the same God. Jesus saying "he who hurts one of these children should be cast into the deepest well" does not mean God Himself can not do it. It's just saying man has no right to do it.

Ah so you are distorting the scriptures to fit your view,Peter the rock,he did not really mean rock then?how convenient.
Those who wrote the testament where party to the myth making,its them who i am accusing of making the myth,so why ask me if they believed their own imaginations.
So your god would send bears to eat children if they cheeked his prophet and you think jesus would have done the same? how strange and you wonder why i would not believe in Jesus.

No, Peter is a rock, not The rock. Simon is named Peter (Petros, in Greek) while the next time rock is used in the sentence, the Greek term is "Petra". Different words.

Can you clarify this point, please. Are you saying that 'Petros' means 'a rock' but that 'Petra' means 'the rock'?

However, the fact that two different words are used here indicates that both the 'Petra' and the 'Petros' is not the same thing being referred to.

Possibly. But the difference could merely be due to the fact that 'Petros' is being used adjectivally ("rock-like") in agreement with a masculine noun (you/Simon), whereas 'Petra' is the noun form of "rock", which is feminine in gender. In that case, the two words need not refer to different people.

As for the rest of the debate, I was primarily coming from an historical perspective. Tossing around Bible verses does not make the cut regarding all of my arguments: there have been Christians, and still are a few, who do not refer to the "Scripture" of the Bible.

By my line of argument, even Peter cannot be taken to be authoritative - authority is in the hands of Jesus alone. A person might reject the notion that Peter properly understood the message of Jesus, and therefore reject his commentary on Jesus' teaching.

I appreciate Jerome's detailed responses, but an overarching point I tried to make was that a Christian might very well reject all that is contained in any Bible compilation - I gave an example of one such early Christian, Marcion.

To say that a Christian must accept any given book or list of books is to demand that mortal men have the final say as to what is and what is not the teachings of Christ

- when in reality, it is up to the individual to decide which teachings attributed to Jesus are relevant. Christians may disagree with one another and still be Christians.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." [John 8:31-32]

No, Peter is a rock, not The rock. Simon is named Peter (Petros, in Greek) while the next time rock is used in the sentence, the Greek term is "Petra". Different words.

Okay, so they've made it up. It's all some big lie. Why on earth would these apostles preach this myth, though? There seems to be no actual benefit to doing something like that. Also, even if they had a motive, I would think they'd come up with something a little more believable than Christianity. It's a rational faith, sure, but going around expecting people to believe that God became a man, who was born of a version, and was killed, and was resurrected, and now sits at the right hand of the Father, and one day all mankind, including Caesar, will bow their knee to Him. To believe a message like this in the time of the Apostles is absurd.

Also, your last comment is a total appeal to emotion. "Jesus wouldn't want children to die! He's too loving!" Though God does love children, in the general sense that he loves every human being, He can justly kill whoever He so desires, as their lives belong to Him.

And just for the record, it's not at all a wonder why you don't believe in Jesus. Man is born in total enmity with God, after all.

So you think your god is the same god who killed children for calling his prophet baldy...My mind boggles that anyone could imagine their god so evil.
The whole story is a myth,invent the apostles, invent the story, how can you claim one story is true because of another invented story.The story is virtually identical to the Mythras myth and when you have no historical reference anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it as enormous hoax.

1) Is that God evil? Really? Does God not define evil, though? By what standard do you measure evil?

2) Mithras, really? From Roman Mithraism? You must, as any older Mithraism contains little to no existent manuscripts. So, let's talk about Roman Mithraism. Before I can adress this, though, I'd like to ask which similarities you're talking about? I ask because most, if not all, similarities people usually talk about don't even exist in any Mithraist texts; such as, the virgin birth, the atonement of sin, crucifixion, etc.

Not only that, but you must remember to take into account the Messianic prophecies about Jesus from OT, which existed before Mithraism, and not make stupid claims like "the Christians copied the story", when, in fact, they could not have.

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, other say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?'"

"Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

"And I tell you, you are Peter [Petros], and on this rock [Petra] I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

"So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." [Ephesians 2:19-22]

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ." [Matthew 16:13-20]

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." [Matthew 18:18]

"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.'" [John 20:23]

"Upon this rock," not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." [Power and Primacy of the Pope, Section 28, p. 298]

"The Father revealed to Peter that he should say, "You are the Son of the living God" [Matthew 16:17]. Therefore, the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession. This faith is the foundation of the Church. [Power and Primacy of the Pope, Section 29, p. 298]

"As you come to him [Christ], a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:
'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.'"

I dont need a god to describe evil,getting bears to eat children alive is evil for most reasonable humans.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Mythras the roman pagan god was like most pagan gods, born from gods carried out miracles, was betrayed ,sacrificed and rose from the dead,sound familiar?The pagan lucky thirteen at the last supper,i could go on but it would take too long.

If your writing a myth you take into account prophecies and insert them into the script.So why could they have not copied the script?

As a side note guess where their head quarters where in Rome?Guess who Paul was working for when he came across christianity?

I accept your god has the power and the will to kill children, in your belief system and if thats ok with you then others will judge that admission, not just me.

Paul worked for the Romans and he did have a revelation.He realised if he could amalgamate mythras and christianity he had a powerful weapon of control over the masses.The common overwhelming desire for christianity and the Roman pagan god would make good partners.Against Peters wishes Rome became the centre for christianity and securing peters death by encouraging him to enter Rome, he took control of the church.
Mythras and his story was like all pagan gods and the jesus story was then altered to fit the same pagan necessities.

As for jesus ticking all the boxes of prophecy,do you think the authors of his story would not have known about the prophecies?

Is this all I have done, Didymos Thomas?

Do the verses I cited not "make the cut"?

This was your argument, Didymos:

What do you now mean by: "I was primarily coming from an historical perspective?"

Did Christ not affirm Peter's authority?
Did Christ not affirm Paul's authority?

Did Christ not promise the Apostles the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that He would lead them into all truth?

Are the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, et al. the confirmation of this promise?

Despite your cunning evasions, Didymos, the principle still stands:
it is not a debatable point what Scripture's clear statements on these matters are, but rather, all rests on whether one either believes or denies them.

Here is your problem: your peculiar theology is always and only interpreted, construed, and sifted through your peculiar anthropology, thereby placing man at the center of all of your thoughts concerning God, faith, and religion. Therefore, according to your view, whatever dreams and delusions arise from the minds of men becomes a validated form of Christian faith by virtue of their believing it [very strange indeed].

Contrariwise, according to my view, the Scriptures are precisely what they say they are: the sole norm, rule, and authority of all and every true and faithful Christian, thereby excluding all claims to private knowledge of God through the "theological ego" and/or "pious self-consciousness" as no more than vain gusts of wind, carrying with them an odor so pungently foul that even the hot breeze of a donkey's backside is as the sweetest of perfumes by comparison.

Considering this seemingly infinite chasm that separates our arguments, then, any further discussion will, more likely than not, be the bearer of very little fruit, yea, of no fruit at all. Thus, unless we are to debate the texts of Scripture upon the basis of their authority, efficacy, perspicuity, and sufficiency, then I am afraid our discussion is finished.

Mortal men had as much of a "final say" regarding the New Testament as they did the Old, dear Didymos.

Have you not read Christ's words confirming the inspiration of the Old Testament? Have I not cited many of them? Have you not read Christ's words confirming the words of the Apostles? Have I not cited many of them? What exactly, then, is your point?

Is this truly the case, Didymos? Are you not merely attempting to vainly wrestle your way out of a sure, certain, and accomplished defeat and trouncing? Of what, then, will the "individual" make of these words:

Is Christ not asserting that subjective faith is conditional upon abiding in His objective Word ["If you abide in my word..."]?

Therefore, what is your "individual" left to decide upon?

Has Christ not stated His Word as being non-identical to the "individual's" preference, fancy, desire, satisfaction, want, etc.?

Furthermore, upon the matter of how one decides whether one of Christ's words is "relevant" or "irrelevant", I would be interested in the precise methodology you employ in exercising this "spiritual gift".

How does one conclude, upon the basis of their own naked theological ambition, that, let us say, John 8:31-32 is not truly Christ's Word, while John 3:16 is most assuredly Christ's Word?

Is every man allowed to ignore, deny, or refuse all of those texts that dissatisfy, vex, or exasperate their "spirtual Self"?

Tell me, then, most venerable, most merciful Didymos, why you may charge me as being a "dogmatician" (as if this were a bad thing), and yet, upon matters of religion, it seems you cannot help but speak ex cathedra?