Christian Lies

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, Dan said:

It seems to me that you are taking the possibility of variations from the original manuscripts to the earliest extant complete manuscripts as proof that it happened.  Your assertion that nothing in the new gospels ever presented Christ as a sacrifice almost requires it given the witness of John the Baptist who several times referred to Jesus as the "lamb of God".  The acceptance by Rome of Christianity as it's official religion is recognized by the vast majority of scholars on the subject as the transition from antiquity, the era of the early church, to the medieval era.  See "The Cambridge Ancient History" for confirmation of this assertion.

To the contrary, the point I am trying to make is that people simply can’t take the Gospels as gospel, based on the available evidence, but that rather they do so based on faith.  There is a considerable amount of evidence and NT scholarship that demonstrates how NT writings had developed over the decades following Jesus’ death and in fact it is centuries later before we end up with the actual earliest available versions of manuscripts, some hundreds of years after the fact.  To state there there is no way they could have been built on, exaggerated, that sources were legitimate witnesses, etc, seems nonsensical. There is every chance of that and even some very strong likelihood based on what scholarship, not faith, has established.

There is also a considerable amount of non-canonical writings developed in these communities after Jesus’ death, which if nothing else, simply demonstrates a wide and varied understanding of Jesus’ life developed in the first couple of hundred years following Jesus’ life.  We cannot prove which stories are true and correct, nor can we establish the integrity, motive or accuracy of those whose writings did make it to the cannon.  In most cases, we don’t even know who the authors actually are or anything else about them and in some cases we even know the author isn’t even who they are pretending to be.  

That’s all well and good and people of faith are free to believe or otherwise as they feel so compelled.  It just doesn’t change history and actual factual evidence that can be presented to support such views.

I think your point about John calling Jesus the ‘lamb of God’ as evidence that Jesus was on earth as a human sacrifice, is a classic example of faith leading for you.  There is no reference in the earliest NT writings to this occurrence.  Paul doesn’t mention it, nor do Mark, Mathew or Luke.  Such a significant moment, but one in which Paul and all the other Gospel writers fail to mention.  Yet for you, this one individual cited instance of John calling Jesus the lamb of God, seems to nail it for you.  That is not to mock your beliefs, but just to point out that they are faith-based, not evidence-based, in my opinion.

It is apparent to scholars and historians alike that the Jesus cult ‘developed’ over the decades following Jesus’ death.  The writings of the gospels, understood in their proper chronological order of writing, demonstrates this - Mark being written first, followed by Mathew & Luke, and culminating with the most spiritual of all, John, which transforms Jesus into something that the other Gospels never even considered (Jesus as existing before creation, Jesus as the 'lamb of God', etc).  

Another good example of Jesus cult development is the ‘ending’ of Mark.  I presume you understand that the earliest manuscripts actually demonstrate Mark stopping at 16:8, but of course other versions that proliferated in the early centuries actually portrayed a significant difference and in fact added a story about the resurrection that didn’t even exist in Mark’s earliest versions! According to the earliest versions of Mark that we have, there was no resurrection!  This is a significant change to the depiction of what Jesus was about, and suspiciously appears in these later versions of Mark that for hundreds of years have been promoted as gospel, but now we know that such a story was not in the earliest copies of Mark we have.  Personally, I think that is a significant point that demonstrates how people’s thoughts of Jesus grew and morphed in the decades following his actual life and how it entered 'Christian' thinking.

[Fastguitars]

On 2/11/2021 at 3:19 AM, Beanieboy said:

I have yet to meet one gay person that refers to themself as leading a gay lifestyle,

"gay" lifestyle is the pursuit of homosexual sexuality, as this is the definition.

Its not "honest" to pretend that "gay lifestyle" is not strictly related to the pursuit of sexuality that is "homosexual".     Therefore , its not honest to maintain the claim that "gay civil rights" is not based on what dictates the definition of "homosexual", which is, the "gay" sexuality, and nothing more and nothing less.

 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Fastguitars

[PaulS]

On 7/15/2021 at 2:08 AM, Fastguitars said:

"gay" lifestyle is the pursuit of homosexual sexuality, as this is the definition.

Gay people don't 'pursue' being gay, they simply are gay.  Do heteros pursue a heterosexual lifestyle, or do they just live, like gay people just live?

[Kellerman]

On 7/14/2021 at 2:08 PM, Fastguitars said:

"gay" lifestyle is the pursuit of homosexual sexuality, as this is the definition.

Its not "honest" to pretend that "gay lifestyle" is not strictly related to the pursuit of sexuality that is "homosexual".     Therefore , its not honest to maintain the claim that "gay civil rights" is not based on what dictates the definition of "homosexual", which is, the "gay" sexuality, and nothing more and nothing less.

 

 

Uhh...I literally can't even parse what you are trying to say. 

But gay people don't pursue anything, they're just gay. If a gay person is celibate, they're still gay. If a gay man is married to a woman, he's still gay. 

Where choice comes in is if that person chooses to pursue a lifestyle that is truth or lies. Many gay people choose lies because living their truth is too dangerous. 

That's where gay rights come in, it's an effort to make it less dangerous for gay people not to live a lie. 

I'm straight, but if I lived in a world where being openly straight could get me savagely beaten in broad daylight, I might choose to live a lie too, but I would still be 100% straight. 

[Fastguitars]

On 7/15/2021 at 11:19 PM, PaulS said:

Gay people don't 'pursue' being gay, they simply are gay.  Do heteros pursue a heterosexual lifestyle, or do they just live, like gay people just live?

Heterosexual, is defined as "sexual desire for the opposite sex, committed as a sexual lifestyle".

Homosexual is defined as "sexual desire for the same gender, committed as a sexual lifestyle".

Have you noticed that there are no "civil rights" given to "heterosexuality", but they are given to "homosexuals"?

So, what does that mean?  It means that civil rights are given to homosexuals, based on their sex life, as that is what defines them as "Gay".

So, how can that be the same as civil rights given to women, blacks, or an ethnic group?

A.) It can't, so, its a lie that is being  legally performed, as "gay rights", based on this lie..."born this way".

That's not a reality.   That is a Lady GaGa song that has become accepted as truth by people who are media led sheep.

However, its not truth.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Fastguitars

[PaulS]

21 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

Heterosexual, is defined as "sexual desire for the opposite sex, committed as a sexual lifestyle".

Homosexual is defined as "sexual desire for the same gender, committed as a sexual lifestyle".

Have you noticed that there are no "civil rights" given to "heterosexuality", but they are given to "homosexuals"?

So, what does that mean?  It means that civil rights are given to homosexuals, based on their sex life, as that is what defines them as "Gay".

So, how can that be the same as civil rights given to women, blacks, or an ethnic group?

A.) It can't, so, its a lie that is being  legally performed, as "gay rights", based on this lie..."born this way".

That's not a reality.   That is a Lady GaGa song that has become accepted as truth by people who are media led sheep.

However, its not truth.

I don't know where you get your definitions from, but heterosexuality (or homosexuality for that matter) has nothing to do with being committed as a sexual lifestyle but rather gay people are simply attracted to people of the opposite (and heteros to the same) sex.  It is who they are, it is not a choice.  They can be no more committed to a sexual lifestyle than you are committed to breathing air.  It is just part of them living.  

And if you understood what civil rights were you'd realize the gaps in your argument.  Civil rights - guarantees of equal social opportunities and equal protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other personal characteristics.

So you'll find that most of your heterosexual civil rights came about already, due to heteros being the majority group.  Minorities, such as blacks, women and gays are still trying to gain certain civil rights pertaining to them because of bigots who don't think their lives should be treated equal as others.

It's not hard really - treat everybody the same whatever their ethnicity, whatever their sex, and whatever their sexuality.  Love your neighbor as yourself, as somebody once said.

I think you're 'truth' is a little messed up.

[Fastguitars]

On 7/17/2021 at 9:50 AM, PaulS said:

I don't know where you get your definitions from, but heterosexuality (or homosexuality for that matter) has nothing to do with being committed as a sexual lifestyle but rather gay people are simply attracted to people of the opposite (and heteros to the same) sex.  It is who they are, it is not a choice.  They can be no more committed to a sexual lifestyle than you are committed to breathing air.  It is just part of them living.  

And if you understood what civil rights were you'd realize the gaps in your argument.  Civil rights - guarantees of equal social opportunities and equal protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other personal characteristics.

So you'll find that most of your heterosexual civil rights came about already, due to heteros being the majority group.  Minorities, such as blacks, women and gays are still trying to gain certain civil rights pertaining to them because of bigots who don't think their lives should be treated equal as others.

It's not hard really - treat everybody the same whatever their ethnicity, whatever their sex, and whatever their sexuality.  Love your neighbor as yourself, as somebody once said.

I think you're 'truth' is a little messed up.

Homosexuality is not the attraction, its the sex acts.

"Homo" = same or one.   "sexual", = type of sex you enjoy as a LIFESTYLE.

"homosexual sex" is what defines you as a homosexual.

Desiring to molest little children is another type of sexual lifestyle....so, should we believe they are "born this way" and legalize them also?

C'mon.

Did you realize that every Transgender is a homosexual?

So.....Notice that this is distinctly different than being "born black" "born a woman", "born a native American" "born a jew".

See those?   

So, the issue.....  the LIE, is when a "group" is given ethnic status based on "sexual attraction" and this is taught as "its the same as being born a "woman". "its an ethnic group".

See that LIE? 

 = Thats the media driven cultural  shell game of nonsense..    See how they had to try to legit sex acts, as "ethnic group", ????? =  so that they could  legalize the FAKE "civil rights"  of the person based on their sex life, as if this is the same as being "born black", "born a woman" "born a asian". "born a jew".

= "born this way".

Its incredibly deceptive nonsense, and some really bright people can't even realize it, because they have become media led sheep.

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Fastguitars

[romansh]

5 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

Homosexuality is not the attraction, its the sex acts.

So if some has a singular and intense desire for people of the same sex but are celibate, they are not homosexual? 

 

5 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

Desiring to molest little children is another type of sexual lifestyle....so, should we believe they are "born this way" and legalize them also?

See ... here you say desire is a lifestyle ...  So is pedophilia a life style or an act? Make up your mind.

5 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

So, the issue.....  the LIE, is when a "group" is given ethnic status based on "sexual attraction" and this is taught as "its the same as being born a "woman". "its an ethnic group".

What ???? You seem to be incapable of not conflating gender and sex. Biological sex is simply an XX and XY binary with very rare exceptions with other combinations of X and Y chromosomes. 

Regarding gender, for me this gets a bit more complicated. What environmental forces are at at play for people to have/feel a gender that is not in line with their chromosome inheritance. Some argue it is societal, whereas my bet it is ultimately chemical. 

5 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

Its incredibly deceptive nonsense, and some really bright people can't even realize it, because they have become media led sheep.

Incredible lack of understanding of how one's biases are fogging one's argument. 

 

[PaulS]

19 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

Homosexuality is not the attraction, its the sex acts.

Like I said, I don't know where you get your definitions from.  Here's a proper definition for you that shows you that the true meaning of sexual and sexuality is not about sex acts alone like you portray.  You are simply wrong:

sexual
/ˈsɛkʃʊəl,ˈsɛksjʊəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals

 

19 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

"Homo" = same or one.   "sexual", = type of sex you enjoy as a LIFESTYLE.

"homosexual sex" is what defines you as a homosexual.

Desiring to molest little children is another type of sexual lifestyle....so, should we believe they are "born this way" and legalize them also?

C'mon.

Desiring to abuse a child is NOT a lifestyle.  It is a sex act and it is a crime.  It's like calling rape a lifestyle.  Again, you are simply making up you're own definitions based on your bias.  Homosexual love between two consenting people is nothing like pedophilia - this is a very common error in many Christians' mindset.

19 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

Did you realize that every Transgender is a homosexual?

No, they are not.  Again, you are just making up your own definitions.  Transgender people are people whose gender identity is different from the gender they were thought to be at birth.   Hetero or homo sexuality pertains to the gender that people are sexually attracted to.  Please, refer to a dictionary to better understand definitions rather than your personal bias.

19 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

So.....Notice that this is distinctly different than being "born black" "born a woman", "born a native American" "born a jew".

See those?   

So, the issue.....  the LIE, is when a "group" is given ethnic status based on "sexual attraction" and this is taught as "its the same as being born a "woman". "its an ethnic group".

So you're saying heterosexuals as a defined ethnic group (that is, they are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex) is a lie?

19 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

See that LIE? 

 = Thats the media driven cultural  shell game of nonsense..    See how they had to try to legit sex acts, as "ethnic group", ????? =  so that they could  legalize the FAKE "civil rights"  of the person based on their sex life, as if this is the same as being "born black", "born a woman" "born a asian". "born a jew".

= "born this way".

Its incredibly deceptive nonsense, and some really bright people can't even realize it, because they have become media led sheep.

I'm afraid this is crazy talk to me.  You are off on a tangent my friend.  I hope you come to better understand the issue one day.  

[JosephM]

I think to be fair we can say just as there  is evidence that people are born homosexuals , there is also evidence that people are born pedifiles.. Either one can be classified at times and has been classified in the past by society as a crime. Some are homosexuals yet are able to resist the urge and some are pedofiles and are able to resist the urge.  Others are not able to resist the urge regardless of how society classifies it.

I'm heterosexual and it appears to me I was born that way. It's the attraction and urge i remember since i was young. Does that make me better or worse than other alternatives? I don't think so .... yet in general,  society makes their own rules and defines acceptable conduct and it does seem wise to me to try and fit in. Just sayin.

[romansh]

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

Like I said, I don't know where you get your definitions from.

Clearly the poster has not thought this through. ie a celibate priest by definition would be considered asexual by his definition ... assuming a he.

[PaulS]

9 hours ago, romansh said:

Clearly the poster has not thought this through. ie a celibate priest by definition would be considered asexual by his definition ... assuming a he.

Yes, the definitions they are applying are certainly a biased interpretation and not what is properly understood by the terms.

[John Hunt]

On 6/24/2021 at 1:39 PM, Dan said:

What is your justification for claiming that Jesus never claimed to be God incarnate?  The Pharisees heard him claim that he and the father were one and were ready to stone him for what they perceived was blasphemy, and our of anybody else's mouth it would have been.

Jesus is often referred to in the New Testament as “Lord” (though this can mean anything from “sir” upwards) and “Christ,” maybe not identifiable with God but indicating divinity in some form. In one of the earliest documents, in 1 Corinthians 16:22 (“Our Lord, come!” NRSV), the suggestion is that Jesus is prayed to, and Jews prayed only to God. But there may have been many Jews whose perception of God as holy and separate was not as clear as others, and who believed that the coming Messiah would be divine. At no point in the first millennium BC can you say there was a monolithic certainty amongst Hebrews or Jews as to what they believed.

Jesus is also referred to frequently in the Gospels as Son of Man and occasionally as Son of God. They’re slippery terms, no more easily defined than “spirit” or “mind.” Son of man is the expression that Jesus uses most and seems most comfortable with. “Son of Man” means pretty much “mankind” (Psalm 8:4). Adam, Israel, and kings of Israel are all referred to in the Old Testament as Son of Man. Jesus frequently distinguishes between God and himself (eg: Luke 18:19; Luke 22:42; Mark 13:32). The synoptic gospels all lean in this direction. John takes a higher view (John 6:69; John 8:59), but here Jesus also raises his disciples to the same level as himself (John 20:17) and suggests a distinction between himself and God (John 14:28). In John 10:34 he says to them, “Ye are gods.”

The meaning overlaps with son of God. “Son of God” is another vague phrase with multiple meanings. Adam, David, Jacob, Ephraim, angels are all called sons of God, as were other prophets around the time of Jesus. Jesus calls peacemakers sons of God (in the Greek text of Matthew 5:9). He’s also described as fulfilling the Jewish tradition of the Messiah (Hebrew for “anointed one,” the Greek term being “Christ”). The Messiah would be a great leader and obey the Law perfectly, but he is nowhere described as God, or the Son of God. “Messiah” meant someone through whom God worked in history in a striking way. The Persian emperor Cyrus is called mashiah in Isaiah 45:1, because through his actions in returning the Jews to Judah he was fulfilling the will of God, even though he may never have heard of Him.

Moreover, many verses in the Gospels suggest that Jesus defined himself as “man” in the ordinary sense of all people being sons of God. He frequently distinguishes between God and himself (Luke 18:19; 22:42; Mark 13:32). This is particularly so in the first of the Gospels to be written, Mark, where there’s only one reference to Jesus as Son of God, and that of doubtful authenticity. The references increase through Matthew and Luke, a generation later. And of course there are the words on the cross: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

In Paul’s letters he refers to Jesus as “Lord” more than 200 times, which is ambiguous. “Lord” (Greek “Kyrios”) can mean “God” or “Sir,” or pretty much anything in-between. Paul never comes straight out and says that Jesus is divine. There are one or two verses that suggest it, like Philippians 2:6 or Romans 9:5 (disputed translation) but the balance is on the other side.

Outside church-related institutions the overwhelming scholarly view is that the first Christians did not believe that Jesus was divine, that was idolatry – they even forbad speaking the name of God. The idea of Jesus’ divinity developed because non-Jews who believed in him as the “way” to God (and in the first century AD they were increasingly in the majority) would have assumed he was one himself. They wouldn’t have been able to understand him not being one. Anyone of considerable significance, even a great athlete, could be thought of as divine. There are examples in Acts - 14:8-13 - where Paul heals a cripple and the locals think he and Barnabas must be the gods Jupiter and Mercury. Another in 28: in Malta where Paul is declared a god because he survives drowning and heals a snakebite. .But for the first three centuries the highest status he reached was God’s Son. Sons, by definition, are not the same as their fathers. They are “begotten,” created later. It wasn’t till the fourth century AD that the phrase “Son of God” was promoted to mean “God the Son,” as coequal with God. Almost all scholars, even conservative Christian ones, would agree on that. By then, Jesus had taken on all the titles that previously belonged to emperors like Caesar Augustus – Savior of the World, Redeemer, Liberator, Emmanuel, Lord of Lords, God from God, the One who established Peace on Earth, etc.

In the first century AD Jews believed that whatever form the Messiah took he was definitely going to make a difference. At the very least, the Romans would be driven out, the exiles would return, and a reign of peace would begin. At best, the dead would be resurrected, God would rule the world and judge humankind. None of these things happened when Jesus came. Few outside Palestine knew for generations that Jesus had lived at all. For these kind of reasons Jesus’ own people do not accept him as Messiah, and still regard “Son of God” as an essentially pagan idea. Today, the idea that God has a “son” is hard to take seriously, unless you’ve been brought up to think that way.

[romansh]

On 6/28/2021 at 4:46 PM, PaulS said:

To the contrary, the point I am trying to make is that people simply can’t take the Gospels as gospel, based on the available evidence, but that rather they do so based on faith.  There is a considerable amount of evidence and NT scholarship that demonstrates how NT writings had developed over the decades following Jesus’ death and in fact it is centuries later before we end up with the actual earliest available versions of manuscripts, some hundreds of years after the fact.  To state there there is no way they could have been built on, exaggerated, that sources were legitimate witnesses, etc, seems nonsensical. There is every chance of that and even some very strong likelihood based on what scholarship, not faith, has established.

There is also a considerable amount of non-canonical writings developed in these communities after Jesus’ death, which if nothing else, simply demonstrates a wide and varied understanding of Jesus’ life developed in the first couple of hundred years following Jesus’ life.  We cannot prove which stories are true and correct, nor can we establish the integrity, motive or accuracy of those whose writings did make it to the cannon.  In most cases, we don’t even know who the authors actually are or anything else about them and in some cases we even know the author isn’t even who they are pretending to be.  

That’s all well and good and people of faith are free to believe or otherwise as they feel so compelled.  It just doesn’t change history and actual factual evidence that can be presented to support such views.

I think your point about John calling Jesus the ‘lamb of God’ as evidence that Jesus was on earth as a human sacrifice, is a classic example of faith leading for you.  There is no reference in the earliest NT writings to this occurrence.  Paul doesn’t mention it, nor do Mark, Mathew or Luke.  Such a significant moment, but one in which Paul and all the other Gospel writers fail to mention.  Yet for you, this one individual cited instance of John calling Jesus the lamb of God, seems to nail it for you.  That is not to mock your beliefs, but just to point out that they are faith-based, not evidence-based, in my opinion.

It is apparent to scholars and historians alike that the Jesus cult ‘developed’ over the decades following Jesus’ death.  The writings of the gospels, understood in their proper chronological order of writing, demonstrates this - Mark being written first, followed by Mathew & Luke, and culminating with the most spiritual of all, John, which transforms Jesus into something that the other Gospels never even considered (Jesus as existing before creation, Jesus as the 'lamb of God', etc).  

Another good example of Jesus cult development is the ‘ending’ of Mark.  I presume you understand that the earliest manuscripts actually demonstrate Mark stopping at 16:8, but of course other versions that proliferated in the early centuries actually portrayed a significant difference and in fact added a story about the resurrection that didn’t even exist in Mark’s earliest versions! According to the earliest versions of Mark that we have, there was no resurrection!  This is a significant change to the depiction of what Jesus was about, and suspiciously appears in these later versions of Mark that for hundreds of years have been promoted as gospel, but now we know that such a story was not in the earliest copies of Mark we have.  Personally, I think that is a significant point that demonstrates how people’s thoughts of Jesus grew and morphed in the decades following his actual life and how it entered 'Christian' thinking.

While all this is very interesting, if you like that sort of thing; for me the question is, "How do we deal with reality today?"

Sort of the topic here.

[PaulS]

16 hours ago, romansh said:

While all this is very interesting, if you like that sort of thing; for me the question is, "How do we deal with reality today?"

Sort of the topic here.

I'm not sure I can answer that other than to say "I live it".  I mean, reality is such a broad topic.  Are you asking how do we deal with the reality about what we now know concerning biblical scholarship, or other parts of our reality?

[romansh]

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

I'm not sure I can answer that other than to say "I live it".  I mean, reality is such a broad topic.  Are you asking how do we deal with the reality about what we now know concerning biblical scholarship, or other parts of our reality?

I think I was alluding to any aspect of reality, not that those aspects are somehow independent of any other aspect.

But I think your "I live it" points to a reality. Most of the time I just do stuff. Sometimes I just think about things, come to conclusions, and then go on doing stuff. ie just live it. A new Nike slogan?

Edited August 9, 2021 by romansh

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, romansh said:

But I think your "I live it" points to a reality. Most of the time I just do stuff. Sometimes I just think about things, come to conclusions, and then go on doing stuff. ie just live it. A new Nike slogan?

Well if you see Nike using it, just remember it was invented here first!  Could be a good little fundraiser for our site!

[Fastguitars]

On 8/1/2021 at 7:55 AM, JosephM said:

I think to be fair we can say just as there  is evidence that people are born homosexuals ,

"it could be"....

This isn't evidence.

[Fastguitars]

On 5/10/2021 at 11:27 AM, murmsk said:

I think we can all agree that conservative religion in general and Christianity in particular has been on the wrong side of history at virtually every crossroads.

More personal opinion pretending to be historical accuracy.

[romansh]

On 9/4/2021 at 3:37 AM, Fastguitars said:

"it could be"....

This isn't evidence.

If you really cared you might do some searching for evidence

Wikipedia on the subject

[Fastguitars]

On 9/10/2021 at 2:54 PM, romansh said:

If you really cared you might do some searching for evidence

Wikipedia on the subject

When did wikipedia become the truth?

[romansh]

2 hours ago, Fastguitars said:

When did wikipedia become the truth?

It's a place to start.

Perhaps Britannica is more to your liking.