Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[columbus]

Of course i did:

Lies and phony narratives:

13. The bible is full of errors.
14. The bible has changed many times.

That is my premise.. that these accusations are unevidenced, hostile smears from a competing ideology.

Obviously, people can believe whatever they want. But this list is an unevidenced, hostile list of smears against Christianity. They are not, 'common knowledge!'

To refute my premise, you would need to evidence your accusations with something more than,

"I find that vastly, vastly, less plausible.."

I wasn't referring to the dismissive responses you generally gave to posts about the strawmen in your OP.
I was specifically referring to your nonresponse to my post #288.
Tom

 

[shmogie]

You didn't address my point that it was submission, not free will, that is fundamental to Christian theology. As is always the case when that happens, my position doesn't change as you would expect. I continue to believe and proclaim that the central Christian message is not free will, nor love, nor salvation, but submission

You have shown that Jesus spoke of free will, but not that its use was encouraged or that He valued it. Free will is a big problem for Christianity. It allows people to not listen to proselytizing, to not observe the Sabbath, to not worship the god that its scriptures command be worshiped, to not tithe, and the like. They're called Commandments for a reason. One's contradictory opinions and free expression of them in either word or deed are most unwelcome.

The church very much wants to control the thoughts and actions of its adherents, but must grapple with their freedom to do as they please even as it condemns them for making choices it disapproves of, like getting an abortion. It hates that free will can be expressed in that area and labors to prevent the free expression of that will.

Christ acknowledging that people have free will does not make it a fundamental principle of Christianity. Christianity does not esteem free will. It deals with it as a problem.



I have already done that twice recently. Why shouldn't such things be offered as evidence?

I think my first introduction to politicized Christianity was the Moral Majority of the nineties, whose "unholy alliance with government" I recognized as potentially dangerous and something to be watched closely. I had already been an atheist for more than a decade, but I had no negative feelings about the religion until then.



Yes, atheism permits murder. It pretty much permits anything, just like aleprechaunism, or the lack of belief in leprechauns. Such people get no moral guidance from their unbelief, either. Maybe it was Pol Pot's aleprechaunism and not his atheism that caused him to kill.



Some do. I gave you the words of some prominent ones advocating for Christian rule of the government. Are you familiar with the Reconstructionist / Dominionist movement in Christianity? It's pure Handmaid's Tale stuff.

You are likely unaware of these things because you have no exposure to them and no interest in pursuing such things. You're not only not motivated to discover how Christianity affects and wants to affect the lives of non-Christians, you might be motivated to not see it when it is shown to you as is probably the case with topic.

Now that you've been exposed to these claims, you will either research them if you are interested in learning about theocratic efforts in the States, or you will be uninterested and not look into it. Do you care if there is any validity to the claim that there are efforts to promote theocracy in America?

I suspect that most Christians don't, which is not consistent with your claim that follows :



Really? Then why aren't they all speaking out against inflicting Christian beliefs on non-Christians with all of this recent anti-abortion legislation? I'll tell you why. Very few object to the church piercing the church-state wall, which is an extremely anti-American, anti-Constitution action. If you want to talk authentic founding principles, secular government would be one, and anybody advocating using government to enforce religious preferences is no friend of the Constitution.



It doesn't, which is why theocratic tendencies are un-American and un-Constitutional, and Constitution-loving Christians should object to any incursion of the church into the state.



No, I didn't say that there is something wrong with Christians running for elected office. They just need to be Americans first, and Christians second. They should be there to do the bidding of all Americans, not just the Christian ones

Mike Pence once said, " I am a Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican--in that order!" American didn't even make the list.



I don't hate Christians. You've seen me interacting with dozens of them, two on this thread including you, and there is no hatred there. What you're seeing is me disagreeing with Christians' claims about their religion - about how good and wholesome it is.

Now to your accusation that Christians are trying to compel others to follow Christian doctrine, I say again, nonsense.

I have shown in another post how my concern, and the Christian concern in general about abortion isn't a religious issue, it is a legal one.

So, what does that leave ? Christians exercising their immutable right under the first amendment to freely practice their religion ?

There may be many that don';t like us having that right, and there are two prescribed ways in the Constitution to eliminate that right. Change or eliminate it by an amendment to the Constitution, or by a convention of The States.

So, there you go. The path is clear for you and the other atheists/progressives who want to deny us our Constitutional Right.

So, it seems to me something like Mark Twains quotation about the weather "everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it" Though I would modify it thus " a vocal few continually complain about the free exercise of religion by Christians, and complain, and complain, yet, that is all they do"

As a former LEO, who back in the day literally did battle with the SDS, weathermen, VN veterans against the war, and other assorted political criminals, I follow the antics of their grandchildren, ANTIFA.

Since I am not aware of Chuck, or Nancy, or any democrat presidential candidate condemning them they must in some way be under the good graces of the progressives.

They have decided to take up arms and kill people rather than try and beat them senseless with baseball bats in their revolution to end alleged social injustice. That might be a third option for the most strident progressives who want to muzzle and eliminate Christians, I don't think it will go well for these progressives, however.

 

[shmogie]

while enemies rage against the biblical manuscripts, accusing, ridiculing, and mocking, none of their lies have a factual, scholarly basis. Christian scholars

So anyone who challenges the bible and authenticity is raging and or an enemy. This tells me your mind set is anyone who does not agree with 100 percent of fundamentalist Christian theology is an enemy.Its paranoid black an white.But considering everyone as an enemy who does not think exactly like you suggests you are not rational enough about this topic to describe and explain your theories.

The 'New', 'Groundbreaking!', accusations that are so popular on anti-christian web sites are the same old lies that have annoyed intelli
gent Christians for millennia.

Many Unity folks who are Unity Christians and Quakers who study the bible also question the facts that the bible is perfect, copies of copies of copies, and its not tired and the same old stuff. We have found out that many passages from the original and many words from the original bible are left our in what we read including a few books.

But yet we read the bible and consider ourselves to be Christians though we don't worship Jesus as God. So this whole black and white spin you have going with everyone not agreeing with your ideas of the bible are enemies of Christianity and God and the bible is a fantasy.

We are Christians too The bible is word and we read it as the good book but its not perfect. But you color everyone who does think the exact way as you as enemies and haters, ,I have a word for that, brain washed.

We fundamentalists consider those who disagree with us as enemies ? Really ?

Their idea's may be in error, they may believe concepts that are errors, but why does that make them an enemy ?

Professionally I have had gut and hot disagreements over policy with my colleagues, yet I never considered them enemies.

No, this is the common narrative of those who for various reasons are frustrated and agitated by fundamental Christians. Attack the message AND the messenger.

For those who want to mold Christianity, bend it here, tweak it there, make it fluid to flow where it fits with trhe prevalent hedonistic morality, we really stick in their craw.

Add to that that we are unyielding and unbending, and we do see things in black and white as defined by the Bible, and teir blood pressure skyrockets

Christ and the Apostles were Fundamentalists, and we could have no greater examples.

Those who disagree with s are enemies ? A FALSE charge.

They have freely chosen their path to walk, and as long as they don't treat us as their enemy, they are certainly not ours.

We will see where the paths end, we believe that theirs will end in extreme disappointment,

 

[sojourner]

That's a change to your claim that chapter 16 is entirely non-existent.

I didn’t claim that. Read it again. Yes, I did say the “entirety” of chap 16. I should have said “most.” But the point still stands, regardless of your nit-picking, trying to detract from the argument.

 

[sooda]

We fundamentalists consider those who disagree with us as enemies ? Really ?

Their idea's may be in error, they may believe concepts that are errors, but why does that make them an enemy ?

Professionally I have had gut and hot disagreements over policy with my colleagues, yet I never considered them enemies.

No, this is the common narrative of those who for various reasons are frustrated and agitated by fundamental Christians. Attack the message AND the messenger.

For those who want to mold Christianity, bend it here, tweak it there, make it fluid to flow where it fits with trhe prevalent hedonistic morality, we really stick in their craw.

Add to that that we are unyielding and unbending, and we do see things in black and white as defined by the Bible, and teir blood pressure skyrockets

Christ and the Apostles were Fundamentalists, and we could have no greater examples.

Those who disagree with s are enemies ? A FALSE charge.

They have freely chosen their path to walk, and as long as they don't treat us as their enemy, they are certainly not ours.

We will see where the paths end, we believe that theirs will end in extreme disappointment,

Nope.. they weren't that stupid. They knew Jesus taught in parables.

 

[sojourner]

Pilate, the Roman official, did not find Jesus guilty for the charges, so he was of the view that Jesus was innocent and his wife also saw the dream and told his husband. Pilate managed to arrange things in a way that Jesus is delivered from the Cross while he is still alive.
All these clues are there in the Bible. Right, please?

Regards

Nope. Pilate turned him over for crucifixion. There’s no biblical evidence that Pilate rescued him. Your theory rests on no textual evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Gospels bury your "Jesus myth" claim.

I don't know why I bother with your claims. You seldom, if ever, back them up with anything credible. Other posters have noted this too. And this is just one more example.

No, they don't. If you understood them you would see that they support it. They are lore and not "history". Lore often has myth mixed in with real events. The myths are clearly the miracles. They are the sort of stories that occur especially when tales are based upon an oral tradition. Like many your forget that the earliest Gospel was written well over a generation after Jesus's death. For a more modern example look at the tales of Elvis after his death. And this was in a literate society. Tales were told of him working in hamburger joints in Wisconsin and elsewhere. You are merely angry because you know that I am correct that there are no reliable sources when it comes to the Jesus story, and even the ones that you have contradict each other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course i did:

Lies and phony narratives:

13. The bible is full of errors.
14. The bible has changed many times.

That is my premise.. that these accusations are unevidenced, hostile smears from a competing ideology.

Obviously, people can believe whatever they want. But this list is an unevidenced, hostile list of smears against Christianity. They are not, 'common knowledge!'

To refute my premise, you would need to evidence your accusations with something more than,

"I find that vastly, vastly, less plausible.."

You have been given at least one very important and specific change to the Bible, the ending of Mark. And of course the Bible is full of errors. But we may disagree on what an error is.

In your opinion what would an error consist of? If you can't give a clear definition then of course no one can meet your demand.

 

[sojourner]

1. Lack of corroborating evidence does NOT equal 'conflicting' evidence.
2. False. This is just a theory, with no hard evidence. It is a prejudicial smear, with no basis.

Presence in the archeological record is one of the most compelling (and relied upon) pieces of corroborating evidence for the historicity of a story. The archeological record does not support the story.

It’s not a “prejudicial smear” — it’s the scholastic opinion of Markan scholars. Nothing after Mark 8 is found in the earliest manuscripts. It makes sense that they were later additions to Mark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

'Mythical nature?' That is just a label to smear the validity and historicity of the nt manuscripts.

Tell me, what is 'mythical!', about this preface from Luke?

Luke 1:1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

This sounds like a carefully reasearched account, not a 'Mythical nature!' fantasy.

It is mere prejudice or dismissal, not anything evidenced by facts, to paint the nt manuscripts as, 'Fantasy! Myth! 'Changed!' 'Error!' You can believe that, if you wish, but that is not the historical view, nor is there any evidence for it.

There is no evidence for any of these false accusations.

Have you ever read Sherlock Holmes? It is presented as if it were fact by "Dr. Watson". There really is no difference in the approach between the author of Luke and the author of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Besides the author of Luke made some clear errors that tell us his "investigation" was not all that thorough. Just like a made up story would be likely to have.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If it pleases you to believe variants are 'changes!' in the bible, go for it.

Variant implies change. Genetic variation is a change in the gene pool. A variable in an algebraic equation is the value that changes or can change. The variety pack contains things different from one another.

just keep pounding the anti-christian propaganda drum

Sincere, evidenced, and soundly argued criticisms are not propaganda.

Propaganda is simply repeating oneself over and over without providing evidence in the hope that one will eventually be believed, as you are doing on this thread. You simply repeat "false narrative," "no evidence," "progressive indoctrinees," "bobbleheads," and "Christian persecution." You haven't made compelling arguments for any of these.

you seem very devoted to discrediting Christianity.

Christianity, with the help of science and archeology, is discrediting itself.

I've already listed many of the Christian scandals in the news from the last several decades. That discredits Christianity.

1John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: This says it all. A true Christian doesn’t hate. And if he does he’s not a real Christian.

My definition of a Christian doesn't include whether he is loving or hateful. There are Christians of both types.

The bible is NOT full of errors.

Your "truth" is faith-based. Faith is not a path to truth. How can it be? It's a guess. Any idea or its mutually exclusive polar opposite can be believed by faith, knowing that at least one of them is wrong.

If you used evidence instead of faith to determine what is true about the Bible, you would see the errors. They're right in front of your eyes..

Christ either [1] deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or [2] He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or [3] He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable. John Duncan (1796-1870)

It's already been pointed out to you that you left out a very likely fourth possibility - Jesus was an itinerant rabbi who was deified after death and made the central character of a religion created after his death, not a fraud, deluded, or divine.

It's also possible that there was no Jesus, a fifth possibility, making him mythical rather than legendary. That's five logical possibilities. You can call it a pentalemma now.

The assumption for the trilemma is that Jesus was a real, historical human being. There is no evidence to refute this

We don't need evidence to refute claims. The claimant has the burden of proof, assuming that he wants to be believed.

I'm also not clear on how much we can strip away from the tale of Jesus and still call Jesus an actual person. Suppose we remove all of the miracles. Is what's left a historical Jesus if all of the rest actually happened? What if there were actually only six disciples and Jesus wasn't born in a manger in Bethlehem? Do we still have a historical Jesus? How about if the only part that actually happened is that a guy named Jesus preached? Is that enough?

Show me.

You'd have to look. One can't make a man see what he has a stake in not seeing.

Some here think the poor, hapless atheists are just viciously attacked for no reason.

Would you like to see how the Christian Bible depicts atheists?

[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

[6] “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” - 1 Timothy 5:8

[7] "They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you" – 1 Peter 4:4

Altogether, these depict us as depicts unbelievers as lying, corrupt, vile, abominable, wicked, godless vessels in the service of darkness and evil, not one of which does any good, and fit to be burned alive forever as the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, and the declared enemy of a good god?

And as a result, atheists were once killed and tortured for atheism being called impiety or blasphemy. Centuries later, secular governments were created that prevented the church from physical violence against atheists, but the bigotry continued. Atheists were declared unfit to coach, teach, adopt, give expert testimony in court, or serve on a jury, and they still can't get elected.

That's persecution, not people telling you why they reject Christianity. They have good reason for that. What Christianity has done to atheists (and homosexuals, and is now doing to transexuals) is indefensible, and constitutes ample ground for regarding Christianity as the enemy of atheists, anxious to degrade the lives of atheists, and should be resisted, which includes spreading what you call false narratives. I'm satisfied to let others judge for themselves who is lying and who is not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

xtian persecution, which has continued throughout history, and is ongoing, now

Maybe where Christians are proselytizing and are unwelcome, but not in your world. You haven't convinced me that you, other Christians around you, or your religion are being persecuted. What you are experiencing is atheism with a voice, a modern phenomenon. You are mistaking others rejecting and criticizing Christianity as persecution of it. Nope. It's just that non

"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen." - Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology

A young earth creationist?

Do you think that an unbeliever should respect the opinions of a creationist? He's a faith-based thinker. I can't use any conclusions premised on faith, including faith in the belief that gods exist.

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." - Dr. William F. Albright

There can not only be doubt about virtually everything in Genesis and Exodus, but there isn't much room left for not doubting.

More quotes about history, archaeology, and the validity of the bible:

Why would these quotes matter to anybody? Why would others care what these people have concluded? One should make these judgments for himself.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." ~J. Goebbels

Just the intellectual plankton, the ones who let others think for them as they drift through the sea of ideas. The nekton are those who take responsibility for their beliefs, subjecting them to critical examination and empirical testing where possible.

Isn't this exactly what you are doing - repeating lies in the hope that eventually some readers will assimilate and accept them? It's not going very well, because you are dealing with an audience that principally comprises seasoned critical thinkers. You're going to need a bigger boat.

If the bible is not historically accurate, the accounts lose credibility, and there are no facts for faith to rest on.

Bingo, except that faith doesn't rest on facts. Faith is the willingness to believe with insufficient supporting evidence, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Legend is a prejudicial leap. It is not based on evidence or history.

Legend or myth. Take your pick. Is it all fiction, or just some of it? It doesn't matter to the unbeliever if it's not all fact.

Progressive Indoctrination goes all out to smear the competition!

Indoctrination in the States is principally conservative. It comes in the form of the continual repetition of lies from conservative media outlets. Like I said, intellectual plankton being told what to think, absorbing it uncritically, and then serving as unwitting vectors spreading the indoctrination, as you are doing now with your persecution, false narrative, atheist conspiracy, and bobbleheaded progressive indoctrination memes. You've provided no evidence for any of that.

So you dismiss all other archaeologists, and lap up the revisionism and crackpot theories from an anti-christian web site.

Yes, I would dismiss any information from anybody with an agenda to promote Christianity. Perhaps you are unaware of how horrible the reputations of such people are. As I've written before, if something is true, you can find a mutually acceptable impartial site that contains the same information, feel free to link to it. If the information can only be found on religion-promoting sites, there is no reason to believe it was true and good reason to believe it isn't.

Funny how propaganda works on people. Just keep repeating the lies loudly, in 3 part harmony, and the indoctrinees glaze over and nod like bobbleheads.

Yep.

Propagandists are not concerned with facts or evidence, just repeating loudly the narratives..

Yep.

Angry? Me? Amused is closer

You've passed amused and are now in the final phase of apologist decompensation. You began even-tempered enough. Next, you hit amused, or the part where the demeanor turns to ha-ha-ha's, you've got to be kidding me. Finally, the anger and resentment, which is palpable now.

So lets forget about my psyche, my hat size, understanding, and sexual orientation. Lets stick with the topic: Lies and phony narratives of Christianity

It's been covered. You listed claims that you contend others make falsely about Christianity in the hope of unjustly smearing it, and several others have responded that several of what you call false claims are true, and that others aren't actually seen or heard. What else is there to say about that?

And please don't be coy. You want to demean those that you contend make these false statements, and then tell us that we are just bobbleheaded indoctrinees, but insist that your character and intellect are off limits. I doubt that you'll get much compliance there.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Obviously, the Indoctrination of these falsehoods has been very sucessful. But i have a challenge: Prove it. Show me the 'changes!' or 'errors!' that are so rife in the biblical texts.

There is no burden of proof for the reason and evidence-based thinker conversing with a faith-based thinker. To convince anybody of anything, they must be willing and able to examine the available relevant evidence and the argument applied to it impartially and with a willingness to recognize and be convinced by a compelling argument. If you don't bring that to the table, the reason and evidence-based thinker has no way to reach you. Teaching is a cooperative effort.

Post any variant, and show how it 'changed!' the meaning in any way.

Why bother? What good does it do. "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not murder" are variants with very different meanings. We have to kill to live, but we don't have to murder. When people tell you that their food is healthy, point out to them that it used to be healthy, but now it's dead. The word for food that is good for you is healthful, not healthy. But the point is that the ear of corn I just ate used to be living tissue, and somebody killed it so I could eat it. Also, it's hard to not step on ants and kill them.

You can ignore the truth, and choose to believe the anti-christian religious bigotry, or you can let facts and reality guide your opinions.. the choice is yours.

There is no reason yet to believe that you have any truths here apart from trivial and self-evident truths, and plenty of reason to believe that you don't.

I expect ad hom, and other logical fallacies from progressive indoctrinees. It is the only tool available

Non-Christians don't need any

I have already dismissed this person as somebody for whom no amount of evidence will be enough to persuade him to think. He has his version of Christianity, his paper deity, his persecution complex and his vast atheist conspiracy and that is the extent of his world view.

Lovely example of ad hominem and dismissal!!

I agree with him, and do not consider his comment an attack on you. He's giving what I believe is his sincere opinion, and it happens to be mine as well. You clamor for evidence and then disregard it.

This is de rigueur with apologetics. I gave you evidence with my initial reply to your OP, and you ignored it. I pointed that out once you started complaining about being shown no evidence, and you ignored that as well. Do you not realize that that behavior is evidence - evidence that nobody will get through to you with evidence, and that their is no value to you to bring it to you?

How do words on a screen 'sound angry!!?'

Words convey emotions.

Dominionism Rising: A Theocratic Movement Hiding in Plain ...
www.politicalresearch.org/2016/08/18/dominionism-rising-a-theocratic-movement-hiding-in-plain-sight/

It is absurd. Sure, there are controlling PERSONALITIES, in the human race, who do that, but they are not exclusive to Christianity, nor does Christian ideology teach or mandate such tactics and control. It teaches the opposite, in fact. So yes. This is just a repeated propaganda meme, to demean Christianity.

Dominionism is a part of Christian theology. Your words were, "American Christians want a theocracy." You were just shown that some do, and that they are organized, well-funded, and have already entered government. It's not surprising that you were unaware.

if you want to present an evidenced accusation, for any charges against Christianity in general, I'll rebut it, or at least address it.

No, you won't. You don't. I have answered several of your posts, and you ignore those answers. That's fine. I don't need you to answer or even read my comments. But please don't pretend that you don't ignore the hard questions.

The false narrative is that all historical xtians are just like these outliers

That's not an argument I've seen from anyone but you. You're fond of arguing against the presence of a bad tendency in Christianity by exaggerating the criticism and then attacking your straw man. The narrative is that there are theocratic tendencies in Chriistianity. The false narrative is the one you present that it is claimed that all Christians want theocracy in America. We're still concerned if the actual number were only half of American Christians support theocratic ideas, such as banning abortion.

So, nobody wants to actually present evidence

Not to somebody who can't see it or won't respond to it. You cured me of expecting anything from you.

A lack of corroborating evidence does not invalidate an historical account

Absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. We reject the Exodus story because of the absence of the evidence that would be found had it occurred.

CONTRARY evidence is needed, to rebut an historical fact.

No evidence is needed to reject a bare claim, even if that claim includes the word fact, another claim.

 

[columbus]

Not a jot or a tittle of the original manuscripts needs to check for the Bible to change a great deal. What matters is the interpretations of the audience.

The 1st century Judeans lived in an extremely different world from ours. They understood the unspoken references and idioms of the then current language. Etc.
For a modern westerner, in a foreign culture, living in what resembles the Roman Empire of the 21st century, in a secular society, to think that they will get the same meaning in English, as a poor Jewish peasant in Aramaic is rather ridiculous.
Of course we won't

Tom

 

[sooda]

Not a jot or a tittle of the original manuscripts needs to check for the Bible to change a great deal. What matters is the interpretations of the audience.

The 1st century Judeans lived in an extremely different world from ours. They understood the unspoken references and idioms of the then current language. Etc.
For a modern westerner, in a foreign culture, living in what resembles the Roman Empire of the 21st century, in a secular society, to think that they will get the same meaning in English, as a poor Jewish peasant in Aramaic is rather ridiculous.
Of course we won't

Tom

I think its even more complicated than that. Israel was more successful and more prosperous and controlled Judah... so its lies an politics from waaaaay back.

 

[shmogie]

Nope.. they weren't that stupid. They knew Jesus taught in parables.

??? Who and what are you talking about ??

 

[columbus]

I think its even more complicated than that. Israel was more successful and more prosperous and controlled Judah... so its lies an politics from waaaaay back.

Oh yeah, there're plenty more complications. The various parts of the Bible were themselves written across centuries, under different circumstances. Even the NT was written partially before the destruction of the temple, partially after(but before the Diaspora) and some later. Spoken in Aramaic, written in Greek, then translated into whatever language the modern reader is using.....
The list is just endless.
Tom

 

[paarsurrey]

That is the Bible narrative. You now appear to be cherry picking which parts of the Bible that you believe. Are there any reliable sources that support that claim?

I am just giving what has been mentioned in the Bible but others ignore these points because they don't follow Jesus, they follow Paul who imported Pagan-Christ and imposed it on the "sheep" and doctored the anonymous narratives and presented it as NT Bible.
If Bible is purified from the imported Pagan-Christ concept, one would ascertain the real and truthful Jesus. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Jesus did not die on the Cross, yet Bible believers maintain that Jesus died on the Cross. Had he died on the Cross, then his friends would have prayed the last funeral prayer of him, but they did not, that gives a clue that they maintained that Jesus was alive. Right, please/
Regards

So you believe and assert, without evidence.

Did they wash the body of Jesus and offer the funeral prayers of Jesus? If yes, then give the evidence, please.
So Jesus was very much alive he did not die on the Cross. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just giving what has been mentioned in the Bible but others ignore these points because they don't follow Jesus, they follow Paul who imported Pagan-Christ and imposed it on the "sheep" and doctored the anonymous narratives and presented it as NT Bible.
If Bible is purified from the imported Pagan-Christ concept, one would ascertain the real and truthful Jesus. Right, please?

Regards

I have no reason to believe in any magical version of Jesus. There very well could have been a man named Jesus that had a following and was crucified as a result. From that a mythical story was spawned.