Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[oldbadger]

Matthew is the Greek name and Levi was the Hebrew name. As a tax collector, Matthew worked for Greek-speaking Romans. He gathered taxes from Hebrew-speaking Jews. We see, as an example, Peter also being called Simon (Matt. 16:16).

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/was-taxman-named-matthew-or-levi

I think that Hebrew was Western Aramaic? If so, then that is a problem because Galileans spoke Eastern-Aramaic.

 

[oldbadger]

Matthew is the Greek name and Levi was the Hebrew name. As a tax collector, Matthew worked for Greek-speaking Romans. He gathered taxes from Hebrew-speaking Jews. We see, as an example, Peter also being called Simon (Matt. 16:16).

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/was-taxman-named-matthew-or-levi

Apparently Matthew is the Greek form of the Hebrew Mattityahu, meaning 'Gift of Yahweh'. I will paste up what I found:-

English form of Ματθαιος (Matthaios), which was a Greek form of the Hebrew name מַתִּתְיָהוּ (Mattityahu) meaning "gift of YAHWEH", from the roots מַתָּן (mattan) meaning "gift" and יָה (yah) referring to the Hebrew God. Matthew, also called Levi, was one of the twelve apostles.

 

[sojourner]

My understanding is that Saul of Tarsus aka Paul got hold of these anonymous documents named them after the disciples to dodge them and imported in them pagan-Christ concepts to make god or son of god out of it. Paul, it is understood, knew that Jesus had gone out of Judea and cannot correct the wrong narratives Paul had made "the sheep" to believe. Right, please?

Regards

Wrong. Your understanding is a gross misunderstanding. We’re not sure that Paul was even aware of the gospels. The gospels were not named until long after Paul.
Nope. You’re just wrong.

 

[Riders]

You forgot 'Hater!'

No problem. Post all the links you want. Pretend they destroy my arguments. Feel victorious and superior to the 'haters!', and 'deniers!' who obsess you so...




Attack! Attack!

ROFL!!

I made a list of perceived caricatures (and lies) about Christianity, that are commonly promoted in the public discourse, and visibly in this forum and this thread.

How does projecting these feelings on me justify them?

All I've asked for is this:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.

Blaming me for the impotence of the accuser's evidence isn't fair. I've presented a challenge, and exposed the phony narratives as being prejudicial and bigoted.

Then believe wiki, if you choose to.
yes, i omitted that one. I have not heard it before. Historically, almost all xtians must be motivated by selfishness, in their founding of hospitals, care for the poor, leading the abolitionist movement, and other such selfish and greedy actions.

I didn't miss that! I had it under a more general category of 'oppression!'

2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.

But i do appreciate examples given, presented as 'self evident' Truth, even though they are biased generalizations.

Your relihion hsd clerly

You forgot 'Hater!'

No problem. Post all the links you want. Pretend they destroy my arguments. Feel victorious and superior to the 'haters!', and 'deniers!' who obsess you so...




Attack! Attack!

ROFL!!

I made a list of perceived caricatures (and lies) about Christianity, that are commonly promoted in the public discourse, and visibly in this forum and this thread.

How does projecting these feelings on me justify them?

All I've asked for is this:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.

Blaming me for the impotence of the accuser's evidence isn't fair. I've presented a challenge, and exposed the phony narratives as being prejudicial and bigoted.

Then believe wiki, if you choose to.
yes, i omitted that one. I have not heard it before. Historically, almost all xtians must be motivated by selfishness, in their founding of hospitals, care for the poor, leading the abolitionist movement, and other such selfish and greedy actions.

I didn't miss that! I had it under a more general category of 'oppression!'

2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.

But i do appreciate examples given, presented as 'self evident' Truth, even though they are biased generalizations.

Screaming out haters, and everyone's attacking and oppressing you, and how were all biased. Are you going to actually speak and say anything in this thread I wonder? Screaming and running off LOL what a joke.

 

[sooda]

Wrong. Your understanding is a gross misunderstanding. We’re not sure that Paul was even aware of the gospels. The gospels were not named until long after Paul.
Nope. You’re just wrong.

True.. Paul died in Rome around 64 AD.

 

[sojourner]

I made a list of perceived caricatures (and lies) about Christianity, that are commonly promoted in the public discourse, and visibly in this forum and this thread.

How does projecting these feelings on me justify them?

All I've asked for is this:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.

We have made arguments and supported them. But you’re offering no supportable rebuttal. Why is that?

 

[oldbadger]

Wrong. Your understanding is a gross misunderstanding. We’re not sure that Paul was even aware of the gospels. The gospels were not named until long after Paul.
Nope. You’re just wrong.

Of course! Paul did not know the details about Jesus's mission or he would have referred to incidents and speeches from the gospels, but of course he did not. I can't think of one referral apart from the last supper.

But without knowledge of the gospels' contents, how did Paul come to believe in Jesus? Paul could not have had access to other gospels that we don't know about because he didn't refer to any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course! Paul did not know the details about Jesus's mission or he would have referred to incidents and speeches from the gospels, but of course he did not. I can't think of one referral apart from the last supper.

But without knowledge of the gospels' contents, how did Paul come to believe in Jesus? Paul could not have had access to other gospels that we don't know about because he didn't refer to any.

It is hard to say how Paul came to his beliefs. I saw one video that found all sorts of flaws in his "Road to Damascus" story. Number one was that Damascus at that time was not part of Judea so why would he have any authority in that city anyway? It was in a different country at that time. Believers in that story must explain how Paul could arrest persecute or prosecute people that did not live in his country. Found it:

 

[sojourner]

Of course! Paul did not know the details about Jesus's mission or he would have referred to incidents and speeches from the gospels, but of course he did not. I can't think of one referral apart from the last supper.

But without knowledge of the gospels' contents, how did Paul come to believe in Jesus? Paul could not have had access to other gospels that we don't know about because he didn't refer to any.

Oral stories. His was an oral culture.

 

[oldbadger]

Oral stories. His was an oral culture.

He was investigating folks within an oral culture, for sure, but his own was obviously literate. He was contracted and instructed by 'the authorities' whether that was the Sanhedrin or the Prefecture.

I do think that the peasant classes in Palestine used Oral Tradition, and I expect that it was very accurate. Maybe they had 'memory-men' who made a living by that?

But Paul......... as he heard reports through Oral communication, so he would have included them in his letters as a means of communicating them to the churches.

But he did not. I never did figure how Paul could have known nothing, absolutely nothing about the life and incidents that happened during Jesus's 11-12 month mission, (or 3 year mission if that's your belief).

Either he just didn't know, OR he was intimately acquainted with a mass of details and preferred to minimise the attention upon Jesus. He sure did want to be the religion's prophet and founder imo.

 

[oldbadger]

It is hard to say how Paul came to his beliefs. I saw one video that found all sorts of flaws in his "Road to Damascus" story. Number one was that Damascus at that time was not part of Judea so why would he have any authority in that city anyway? It was in a different country at that time. Believers in that story must explain how Paul could arrest persecute or prosecute people that did not live in his country. Found it:

I cannot watch the video at this time.... will do so later.

Without checking my files I think that Damascus was the seat of the Syrian Legate to Rome, and the controller of the Prefect who controlled Idumea, Judea and Samaria, Antipas who controlled Galilee and Perea, Philip (and a sister) who controlled the Norther Provinces. And so Damascus was 'connected' to Palestine.

I seem to remember that Damascus was a far-flung but included city in the 'Ten-City' Decapolis area and that it had a fairly large number of Jews scattered in and around it. I don't think that there is too much of a problem with stories that report Jewish (pro-Jesus antiTemple) uprisings.

If I had been a Jewish peasant worker living out in the Decapolis, and I heard that the Baptist and Jesus had called for 'mercy before sacrifice' and that they were redeemimg folks and cleansing them 'for nothing' and bypassing all the horrendous costs of local board/lodging, money-changing charges, Temple dues, lamb purchase and more, taking away all my hard saved money......... I would have stayed away and undergone a similar feel-good ceremony near home, like John's and Jesus's redemption by immersion in water. Temple takings would have been crashing (which is why the Baptist got arrested imo) and Rome took a cut of the takings.

And so, although I haven't seen your video yet, the concept of a contracted enforcer being sent out to Damascus to kick backsides, take the Temple dues off everybody and kill a few as an example...... yep...... possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As requested by a poster, i am listing a set of what i perceive to be caricatures and phony narratives about Christianity.

This assumes a specific, exact, historical definition of Christianity, as defined by the Founder.

1. Christians hate science.
2. Christianity is responsible for all wars, exploitation, and oppression.
3. Christianity is the same as islam, but not as peaceful.
4. Muslims would love us, and live in harmony, if they weren't triggered by the hateful Christians.
5. American Christians want a theocracy.
6. American Christians want to ban all books but the bible.
7. The bible is the source of all hate and oppression in the world.
8. Christians want to force everyone to believe, and go to church.
9. Christians hate atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, muslims, Hindus, and any who do not believe as they do.
10. America was founded by irreligious skeptics, who saw the evil of Christianity and tried to keep them from meddling in the lives of others.
11. Christians want to control and manipulate everyone.
12. Christians cannot reason or follow science, as they are blinded by their superstitions.
13. The bible is full of errors.
14. The bible has changed many times.
15. Hitler was a Christian.
16. Christianity is an opiate for humanity, squashing free expression.

Aside from 13 and 15, I'm actually not aware of anyone who makes these claims...
Also, 15 is a claim about Hitler, not about christianity. Several others aren't claims about christianity either, but about people who may or may not be "true" christians.
And 13 is not a lie.

There are more, and i am sure the helpful posters here will chime in with additional false narratives. We can debate the merits of each charge, to see if there is any validity, or if they are bigoted smears, from a competing ideology.

What competing ideology?
I'ld like to know where you pulled this list from?

I look forward to a civil and informative discussion.

I'ld agree that all of these, with the exception of 13, 14 and perhaps 15, is pretty much false are at best far to general...

Take 1 for example.
Christians (as in: all of them) certainly don't hate science. Plenty of christians are actually very respected scientists.
SOME christians hate science.

Or 5: American christians (as in: all of them) certaintly don't want to live in a theocracy. But SOME do.

 

[Augustus]

But Paul......... as he heard reports through Oral communication, so he would have included them in his letters as a means of communicating them to the churches.

But he did not. I never did figure how Paul could have known nothing, absolutely nothing about the life and incidents that happened during Jesus's 11-12 month mission, (or 3 year mission if that's your belief).

Either he just didn't know, OR he was intimately acquainted with a mass of details and preferred to minimise the attention upon Jesus. He sure did want to be the religion's prophet and founder imo.

Paul was writing letters to communities of believers that already existed regarding issues that affected them. He wasn't writing a basic biography of Jesus and introduction to his teachings for people to read thousands of years later and judge how much he knew about Jesus.

If you send an email to the IT guy at work regarding an occasional connectivity problem, he doesn't respond with an explanation of what the internet is, its historical evolution and how networks function, he tells you how to solve the problem. If a future person discovered this email, it wouldn't be correct to assume he knew nothing of these things simply because he didn't mention them.

It's like in the Quran, there are references to numerous Biblical narratives, yet these are not explained as it is assumed the audience is already familiar with them.

 

[usfan]

Screaming out haters, and everyone's attacking and oppressing you, and how were all biased. Are you going to actually speak and say anything in this thread I wonder? Screaming and running off LOL what a joke.

ROFL!!

Now, it looks like the anti-christian hordes are skipping over the list of false narratives, and going for the lister! Shoot the messenger, if you don't like the message.. how original..

1. I have a life, as pathetic as it is, and don't (won't?) spend all my time defending the lies and false accusations directed at Christianity.
2. The attacks and labels (hater!, denier!) are directed at me. I've not called anyone names.
3. I am the one who knocks. I expose bigotry, and hostile, anti-christian propaganda. It's not fun, to have this kind of thing revealed, especially to those who are convinced it is the 'Christians!', who are the evil haters, deniers, and bigots. Mirrors are not appreciated in an ugly environment.

I will likely continue defending Christianity in this thread, and am not intimidated by distortions, ad hominem, irrational accusations, and overt bigotry. I expect it, in this world of increasing intolerance and progressive Indoctrination.

So avoid the topic, and ridicule me, or promote narratives about me, personally, as if that provides reason for your arguments. Don't take it personally, if i don't take these hostile outbursts personally. I find them vapidly amusing, and see them as tactics for defeated debaters, who have no arguments, facts, or reason for their beliefs, and must rely on fallacies.

..but.. i will begin to tire of the ad hom streams, and dogpiles of false accusations and personal needling, and will just ignore those who do it. I may expose it from time to time, but i feel no compulsion to dignify every hostile outburst with a response.

 

[sooda]

I cannot watch the video at this time.... will do so later.

Without checking my files I think that Damascus was the seat of the Syrian Legate to Rome, and the controller of the Prefect who controlled Idumea, Judea and Samaria, Antipas who controlled Galilee and Perea, Philip (and a sister) who controlled the Norther Provinces. And so Damascus was 'connected' to Palestine.

I seem to remember that Damascus was a far-flung but included city in the 'Ten-City' Decapolis area and that it had a fairly large number of Jews scattered in and around it. I don't think that there is too much of a problem with stories that report Jewish (pro-Jesus antiTemple) uprisings.

If I had been a Jewish peasant worker living out in the Decapolis, and I heard that the Baptist and Jesus had called for 'mercy before sacrifice' and that they were redeemimg folks and cleansing them 'for nothing' and bypassing all the horrendous costs of local board/lodging, money-changing charges, Temple dues, lamb purchase and more, taking away all my hard saved money......... I would have stayed away and undergone a similar feel-good ceremony near home, like John's and Jesus's redemption by immersion in water. Temple takings would have been crashing (which is why the Baptist got arrested imo) and Rome took a cut of the takings.

And so, although I haven't seen your video yet, the concept of a contracted enforcer being sent out to Damascus to kick backsides, take the Temple dues off everybody and kill a few as an example...... yep...... possible.

The Roman legions of Vespasian were stationed in Syria … only a few Roman soldiers were in Jerusalem.

 

[sooda]

He was investigating folks within an oral culture, for sure, but his own was obviously literate. He was contracted and instructed by 'the authorities' whether that was the Sanhedrin or the Prefecture.

I do think that the peasant classes in Palestine used Oral Tradition, and I expect that it was very accurate. Maybe they had 'memory-men' who made a living by that?

But Paul......... as he heard reports through Oral communication, so he would have included them in his letters as a means of communicating them to the churches.

But he did not. I never did figure how Paul could have known nothing, absolutely nothing about the life and incidents that happened during Jesus's 11-12 month mission, (or 3 year mission if that's your belief).

Either he just didn't know, OR he was intimately acquainted with a mass of details and preferred to minimise the attention upon Jesus. He sure did want to be the religion's prophet and founder imo.

It has always seemed to me that Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus was the realization of the political power available to someone like himself. He was under 30.. The vision is dated to the mid to late 30s AD.

 

[usfan]

Aside from 13 and 15, I'm actually not aware of anyone who makes these claims...
Also, 15 is a claim about Hitler, not about christianity. Several others aren't claims about christianity either, but about people who may or may not be "true" christians.
And 13 is not a lie.
What competing ideology?
I'ld like to know where you pulled this list from?
I'ld agree that all of these, with the exception of 13, 14 and perhaps 15, is pretty much false are at best far to general...
Take 1 for example.
Christians (as in: all of them) certainly don't hate science. Plenty of christians are actually very respected scientists.
SOME christians hate science.
Or 5: American christians (as in: all of them) certaintly don't want to live in a theocracy. But SOME do.

1. These are narratives, or generalities, that i (and many others) have heard, personally, to smear and demean xtianity.
2.15 is a smear by proxy, attempting to correlate Christianity with the acts of Hitler.
3. "13. The bible is full of errors.", is a false narrative, and has been repeated loudly in this thread, with only assertions, and beliefs, not FACTS, to support that opinion.
4. This list is my own, but is nothing new or startling among those who defend Christianity from its detractors.
5. The competing ideology is progressive ideology, which has become the unofficial State Religion, and has been indoctrinated for decades, as the exclusive worldview.
6. "Some, therefore all!" is a common fallacy used to disparage xtianity. The intent is to correlate 'Christianity!', with any and all absurd caricatures, from the most extreme outliers. The 'Hitler!', Reductio ad Nazium is a common example.

 

[usfan]

And don't play down the ultimate selfishness of your religion, you would not give your place in Heaven, now, would you?

Paul said he would...
But would i sacrifice my eternal soul for others?
1. That is not an option, as far as i can see.
2. Jesus already made the ultimate sacrifice. How can i improve on that?
3. I am likely too selfish, and would not sacrifice my eternal soul for hostile enemies of God. I cannot relate to, or comprehend the sacrifice of Christ, Who did exactly that.
Romans 5:6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

A conservative man who likes flags once ate my bag of potato chips while I listened to "World So Cold" by Three Days Grace. I suppose I would blame your side for that, while you would blame me for not having better choices in music.

i don't blame anyone's worldview for taking a bag of chips! That is plain old human nature, and if those were an especially good bag of chips, who can blame them?

You’re forgetting the part about the late dating of the texts and the likelihood that the apostles were illiterate, based on cultural anthropology.

So you assume & assert, without evidence. This is not an historical view, based on evidence, but a speculation and conjecture, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I come to think that your opinions could be the unacceptable face of Christianity which has caused so many enemies.

!!

..so i, personally, am to blame for the 'enemies!', of xtianity?

Your relihion hsd clerly

You got me there. I have no rebuttal for that!

We have made arguments and supported them. But you’re offering no supportable rebuttal. Why is that?

You (the 'we' you refer to), have not offered evidence, just assertions and speculations. I can only dismiss those as prejudicial. I have consistentl refuted and exposed most of the unbased charges of 'error!'

All I've asked for is this:
1. Make your charge.
2. Support it.
3. It can then be examined, and a rebuttal offered.

 

[Riders]

ROFL!!

Now, it looks like the anti-christian hordes are skipping over the list of false narratives, and going for the lister! Shoot the messenger, if you don't like the message.. how original..

1. I have a life, as pathetic as it is, and don't (won't?) spend all my time defending the lies and false accusations directed at Christianity.
2. The attacks and labels (hater!, denier!) are directed at me. I've not called anyone names.
3. I am the one who knocks. I expose bigotry, and hostile, anti-christian propaganda. It's not fun, to have this kind of thing revealed, especially to those who are convinced it is the 'Christians!', who are the evil haters, deniers, and bigots. Mirrors are not appreciated in an ugly environment.

I will likely continue defending Christianity in this thread, and am not intimidated by distortions, ad hominem, irrational accusations, and overt bigotry. I expect it, in this world of increasing intolerance and progressive Indoctrination.

So avoid the topic, and ridicule me, or promote narratives about me, personally, as if that provides reason for your arguments. Don't take it personally, if i don't take these hostile outbursts personally. I find them vapidly amusing, and see them as tactics for defeated debaters, who have no arguments, facts, or reason for their beliefs, and must rely on fallacies.

..but.. i will begin to tire of the ad hom streams, and dogpiles of false accusations and personal needling, and will just ignore those who do it. I may expose it from time to time, but i feel no compulsion to dignify every hostile outburst with a response.

I dont know who you are speaking about but its not me, I told you Im going to Unity church and consider myself a Unity Christian, so to call me an anti Christian is disrespectful, and its name calling which is against the rules. You disrespectfully call me that again and I will report you. Your rude way of speaking to people shows you to not be a true Christian, you are deceived.

 

[sojourner]

But Paul......... as he heard reports through Oral communication, so he would have included them in his letters as a means of communicating them to the churches.

But he did not. I never did figure how Paul could have known nothing, absolutely nothing about the life and incidents that happened during Jesus's 11-12 month mission, (or 3 year mission if that's your belief).

Paul would have heard the stories — not as gospels, but just as stories. His job in writing his letters wasn’t to tell stories, though. Paul wasn’t writing gospels, so he had no need to include the stories.

He sure did want to be the religion's prophet and founder imo.

Well, Paul was the main apostle to the Gentiles in the beginning. His job was to take The church from a Judaic sect to a broader spectrum of spirituality.