[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[kuzushi]

You do know that Paul was born in Turkey and never met Jesus (who may or may not have existed) - by the way - Paul is an actual historical figure - the most likely founder of Christianity who took over a religious sect (one of many that existed in that part of the world at that time) and controlled it. His family were prominent Pharisees and he was clearly looking to branch out and control his own religious movement. A driven man with his own agenda - and probably a sociopath.

Does this sound like the writing of a sociopath:

13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[Triggaaar]

Jesus had such an impact that many people began to write their own gospels. I suppose the fact that so many people were writing gospels backs up the fact that Jesus must have been a real person.

Even though the gospels were written by people who weren't alive when Jesus was supposed to be alive?

The church leaders obviously wanted to make sure the most correct ones went into the canon.

'Most correct'? So you concede that even those ones aren't correct, they're just a bit more believable than some of the others.

 

[kuzushi]

Even though the gospels were written by people who weren't alive when Jesus was supposed to be alive?



'Most correct'? So you concede that even those ones aren't correct, they're just a bit more believable than some of the others.

Do you actually read them, or do you just post about them?

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Jesus had such an impact that many people began to write their own gospels. I suppose the fact that so many people were writing gospels backs up the fact that Jesus must have been a real person. It's already unlikely that a book like the New Testament would be written about someone who never existed, but to have loads of other people writing about him as well stretches credulity even further. The church leaders obviously wanted to make sure the most correct ones went into the canon.

1. The opposite is most likely accurate - the fact that so many gospels were written indicates that there were a myriad of leaders of religious sects in the region at the time - demonstrating that it is likely the Jesus of the modern bible was an amalgam of the story of a number of different individuals.
2. The New Testament isn't a book - it is a collection of a series of writings from countless different authors in different languages (proven by the study of the language and syntax used in the original texts) - and because of the major discrepancies in the texts, clearly about numerous different religious characters written over a period of probably 150 years.
3. It had nothing to do with 'the most correct ones' going 'into the canon' - The first synod to draft the canons was a political move by Constantine to gain control, using Christianity, over his empire - he need the help of the Christian sects as a power base for his rule and the canons were assembled to appease different local religious leaders. The second synod in 382CE was part of a schism over who should control Constantinople. The series of synods that led to the formation of the bible most closely aligned with the modern Western bible (but not the Eastern Orthodox version) took place in the late fourth and early fifth centuries CE and were designed to exert political control over North Africa by the Church in Rome - the local religious leaders in the region were exercising too much local control and attempting one-upmanship on each other in an effort to extend their local political and economic influence - and these synods were designed to pull them back into line under the control of Rome. These synods ultimately led to the persecution of various sects who, while Christian in origin, were gaining too much influence through adapting to local circumstances and cultures. These synods were also used to align the Christian Church with the dominant political establishment of the period through active support for political authority and offering religious support in return for Church control over religious belief. The documents that eventually ended up in the bible of this period were designed to facilitate the exercise of this political patronage.
4. So your assertions in relation to the origins of the bible are based on religious fundamentalism that has been passed down over the last 300 years - and in reality based on the notion of manifest destiny that is the backbone of the religious right in America - the blind faith that Jesus existed - that he was the son of God - and that the Gospels are historically accurate - the reality is that we do not know if there was ever a historical figure of Jesus - if he did exist he could have been the son of a carpenter and his much, much, much younger wife, and not the son of a deity - and there is very little in the bible that is historically accurate (something that has been shown by the research of countless biblical scholars).

 

[Baldseagull]

Jesus had such an impact that many people began to write their own gospels. I suppose the fact that so many people were writing gospels backs up the fact that Jesus must have been a real person. It's already unlikely that a book like the New Testament would be written about someone who never existed, but to have loads of other people writing about him as well stretches credulity even further. The church leaders obviously wanted to make sure the most correct ones went into the canon.

Biblical canon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How did they decide which were the correct ones?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Time for a Bible quiz now.
Who knows what the forbidden chapter is?

Is that the chapter where all the pages are stuck together?

 

[Happy Exile]

I wonder how Christianity will evolve over the next few hundred years while still claiming to be the same religion? A few centuries ago you could buy a pardon for your sins. You could even buy a pre-emptive pardon before you'd sinned. You were encouraged to do everything within your power to ensure people who followed the 'wrong' type of Christianity were tortured and burned alive. At the moment the religion can't even decide what it thinks about anyone who isn't heterosexual and there's so much variability in views, much of it hard to distinguish from prejudice and hatred, it makes a mockery of any supposed moral authority.

What happens to all those earnestly doing things now with faith they are doing the will of god if in 100 years the church changes it's mind and decides they were wrong? Are the torturers and those who gave them spiritual permission to commit atrocities in the name of god for Elizabeth, for Mary and countless others, in hell for going so against current Christian teaching or is the right thing whatever people at the top arbitrarily interpret it is in any given moment?

 

[kuzushi]

Is that the chapter where all the pages are stuck together?

It's Isaiah 53

 

[Triggaaar]

Do you actually read them, or do you just post about them?

I've never read the whole lot. I was taught some of them, but that was a long time ago.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Yes.
I know that Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Luke was a disciple of Paul, very close to Jesus.
Some scholars say that Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus.
We also know that Paul, who also appears in the book of Acts, written by Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke, wrote a number of books of the New Testament.
Then there's Jesus's half brother, James, who according to tradition wrote the book of James, and the letters of Peter.

The guy in this video goes into quite a bit of depth as to why he concludes that the gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew.

How Do We Know Matthew Was the Author of the Gospel of Matthew? - Jonathan Morrow

We have good reason to believe that Matthew is the author of this Gospel. Here are 3 Reasons Why the Apostle Matthew Wrote the Gospel of Mathew.

www.jonathanmorrow.org

Matthew was an eye-witness to Jesus's life and Mark wasn't. And the suggestion is that the best that Matthew could do for his gospel was to copy most of Mark's rather than write about what he had seen himself. Doesn't make sense.

 

[BadFish]

Matthew was an eye-witness to Jesus's life and Mark wasn't. And the suggestion is that the best that Matthew could do for his gospel was to copy most of Mark's rather than write about what he had seen himself. Doesn't make sense.

We can all be witnesses to the life of Jesus if we feel his hand.

 

[BadFish]

Do you actually read them, or do you just post about them?

He neds to do more than read them and post about them.

Once he feels them he will feel the lord.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I wonder how Christianity will evolve over the next few hundred years while still claiming to be the same religion? A few centuries ago you could buy a pardon for your sins. You could even buy a pre-emptive pardon before you'd sinned. You were encouraged to do everything within your power to ensure people who followed the 'wrong' type of Christianity were tortured and burned alive. At the moment the religion can't even decide what it thinks about anyone who isn't heterosexual and there's so much variability in views, much of it hard to distinguish from prejudice and hatred, it makes a mockery of any supposed moral authority.

What happens to all those earnestly doing things now with faith they are doing the will of god if in 100 years the church changes it's mind and decides they were wrong? Are the torturers and those who gave them spiritual permission to commit atrocities in the name of god for Elizabeth, for Mary and countless others, in hell for going so against current Christian teaching or is the right thing whatever people at the top arbitrarily interpret it is in any given moment?

I spent some time at Lambeth Palace (HQ of the C of E) around 15 years ago. I'd describe the ambience as complacent, wealthy and homosexual. And absolutely disconnected from the real world. It was a very confident business, secure in its income and its reach. All rather paradoxical.

 

[BadFish]

Good evensong my brothers, I have followed the balance and wisdom of our martial artists and diety and I have found that he is quite right.

The three questions have shown me the light and given me joy unabounded.

I beg you join me with your favourite bible passages

Ezekiel 23:19-20 really speaks to me and has charged me with a true undestanding.

Amen brothers (and sisters - but not as much obviously)

 

[Triggaaar]

1. The opposite is most likely accurate - the fact that so many gospels were written indicates that there were a myriad of leaders of religious sects in the region at the time - demonstrating that it is likely the Jesus of the modern bible was an amalgam of the story of a number of different individuals.
2. The New Testament isn't a book - it is a collection of a series of writings from countless different authors in different languages (proven by the study of the language and syntax used in the original texts) - and because of the major discrepancies in the texts, clearly about numerous different religious characters written over a period of probably 150 years.
3. It had nothing to do with 'the most correct ones' going 'into the canon' - The first synod to draft the canons was a political move by Constantine to gain control, using Christianity, over his empire - he need the help of the Christian sects as a power base for his rule and the canons were assembled to appease different local religious leaders. The second synod in 382CE was part of a schism over who should control Constantinople. The series of synods that led to the formation of the bible most closely aligned with the modern Western bible (but not the Eastern Orthodox version) took place in the late fourth and early fifth centuries CE and were designed to exert political control over North Africa by the Church in Rome - the local religious leaders in the region were exercising too much local control and attempting one-upmanship on each other in an effort to extend their local political and economic influence - and these synods were designed to pull them back into line under the control of Rome. These synods ultimately led to the persecution of various sects who, while Christian in origin, were gaining too much influence through adapting to local circumstances and cultures. These synods were also used to align the Christian Church with the dominant political establishment of the period through active support for political authority and offering religious support in return for Church control over religious belief. The documents that eventually ended up in the bible of this period were designed to facilitate the exercise of this political patronage.
4. So your assertions in relation to the origins of the bible are based on religious fundamentalism that has been passed down over the last 300 years - and in reality based on the notion of manifest destiny that is the backbone of the religious right in America - the blind faith that Jesus existed - that he was the son of God - and that the Gospels are historically accurate - the reality is that we do not know if there was ever a historical figure of Jesus - if he did exist he could have been the son of a carpenter and his much, much, much younger wife, and not the son of a deity - and there is very little in the bible that is historically accurate (something that has been shown by the research of countless biblical scholars).

Ouch

 

[Triggaaar]

We can all be witnesses to the life of Jesus if we feel his hand.

You sound like a priest

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

Ouch

Really, It will fly over the Christians head, we have already established, they are selective and will come back with a contrived video by some irrelevant theologian to back up his nonsense.

 

[BadFish]

You sound like a priest

I have felt many guiding hands on me during my epiphany.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I have felt many guiding hands on me during my epiphany.

You are Frankie Howard, and I claim my five pounds worth of premium bonds.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I have felt many guiding hands on me during my epiphany.

Is that from the place down Little Preston Street?