Lies and Phony Caricatures of Christianity

[Enoch07]

Only the unbeliever is free to read the scriptures dispassionately and critically, and report what he finds unadulterated by a faith-based confirmation bias.

That is utter nonsense.

That would require the believer to think they already know the truth. To which then they would seek confirmation bias in the Bible. This is nonsensical.

It is the atheist that seeks confirmation bias. Their truth is that there is no gods and religion is based upon fiction. They then look for info and even manipulate it and take it out of context, to confirm their pre-existing belief this it is all fiction or mostly fictional at least.

Nice projection though bra.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity apparently can't compete with secular humanism. The numbers of the latter are swelling at the expense of the former.

Perhaps the church should begin to take responsibility for that rather than concocting conspiracies of malicious enemies indoctrinating people to disapprove of the church and Christianity

Thank you for saying that! As a member of the clergy, I’ve been calling for accountability for a long, long time.

Only the unbeliever is free to read the scriptures dispassionately and critically, and report what he finds unadulterated by a faith-based confirmation bias

I disagree. Some of the best biblical scholars, translators and exegetes on the planet are faithful Christians and Jews. But they’ve risen above their petty fears and needs for bias and have chosen to love the texts enough to treat them honestly and objectively, without all the mawkish and maudlin emotional piety.

Many people find great fault with the church and its influence on society. To you, that makes them victims of anti-christian propaganda

I’m a member of the clergy, and I find great fault with the church. Being honest about its faults keeps us accountable — as it should be. No need to be a church-hater to find fault. Many are church-lovers who dare to find fault and Name. It.

 

[Riders]

Revisionist history, from contemporary critics, millennia removed from the people and events, does not refute the historical evidence for authorship of the original texts.
1. The early church fathers, apologists, and defenders of the faith constantly (and voluminously!) disputed against heresies, distortions, and lies, that attempted to corrupt the purity of the Gospel message. They CLEARLY acknowledged the authors of the NT books, and there was no dispute as to their accuracy. Marcion, an early heretic, CHANGED and edited the NT books, to suit his personal agenda, and was exposed and condemned as a heretic.
2. "According to", was the only preface, in the gospel accounts. κατά, is the simple word, attributing authorship.
3. Nobody disputed the authorship of the manuscripts, because early on, the writers were there, and everyone knew them. Their disciples and followers kept the integrity and sources of the books, as Irenaeus and other early apologists clearly illustrate.
4. Asserting, 'change!', or 'anonymous!', is an unevidenced assertion.. a FALSE NARRATIVE, to impugn the integrity & credibility of the texts. These are smears, ONLY, from hostile competitors, promoting their own beliefs and smearing the competition. There is NO EVIDENCE, for this accusation. It is a propaganda driven belief, to promote anti-christian sentiments.

Many of them did not believe but pretended to believe. The Unitarian Universalist church of Dallas was started in the 60s mostly by theology apologist students of Baylor University in Dallas. They were all atheists but believed teaching Christianity was the only way to get people to act right and to live a good right lifestyle.

There's been a lot of Atheists in Theology school. They broke away from the Baptist church and started the UU church,

 

[oldbadger]

Very interesting take! Did you think of this, or did you read some scholar, because I’ve never, in all my study, come across this analysis.

This whole picture hit me a few years ago as I accessed the Australian Numismatic society's pictures of member's Tyrian skekels. !! (Now you know how my head works.... )

People weren't so different then from today and the bottom line for ordinary people is the money in their pocket. In addition they don't like being insulted by folks they already don't like. The Temple shekel was a total wind-up.

They could bring their own lamb for sacrifice (to save a lot of money) but it had to be perfect, and I can see the Priest condemning it so that a Temple lamb must be bought anyway.

Today if we were within that social framework, most of us would be calling it a total crock of muck. No wonder the Jews burst in to one revolt after another, not so many years later.

Do you know what? I smile, every time I think of the Baptist, totally crashing the Temple takings, the profits of the stuck-up locals, the whole shebang. I wish we knew more about him, and Jesus, of course.

 

[oldbadger]

Yawn.

If ever you can't get to sleep.......... share some posts with me.

Jesus is risen in all four Gospels and various epistles. If you had that kind of affirmation for your revisionist fables you'd be doing cart wheels.

Epistles?
You have found affirmation of the resurrection in some epistles?

Would you be so kind as to offer a couple of examples?

 

[Spartan]

I can't get it to load.

It's up again. Apparently it was down for maintenance.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

 

[Spartan]

Epistles?
You have found affirmation of the resurrection in some epistles?

Would you be so kind as to offer a couple of examples?

Here you go!

18 Bible Verses about the Resurrection

 

[Spartan]

The Gospels are not evidence for a resurrection. They are evidence that such a claim was made.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written.

"Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen."

He considered the testimony of the evangelists legitimate testimony and evidence.

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

Nice try.

 

[Spartan]

Like your fundamentalist propaganda posts, for instance...

No, like your fairy tale, revisionist, anti-Christianity, feral horse manure.

 

[Spartan]

Fine. Matthew augmented the earlier Markan material (circa post- 70 CE) with material from Q and adding in his own, unique material, Circa 85 CE. Luke, circa 95 CE, redacted Mark with Q in a different order from Matthew, and added his own material. These dates are not in dispute by reputable scholars. Neither is Q. All of this is first century.

Flush.

Q? Really? Do you ever research what you post? Here's why Q is a load of rubbish:

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

You’re welcome.

You're busted.

 

[Spartan]

Funny, though, how all gospels differ in their resurrection accounts.

They don't differ at all about the RESURRECTION. All four Gospels confirm it. If there are any differences it's about OTHER things or events that occurred AFTER the resurrection (i.e. did one angel appear or two at the tomb, etc.). Don't miss the forest for the trees!

Furthermore, if you'd bother to do some research once in a while, you would have come across this - "The Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts":

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Glad to help you out!

 

[Spartan]

I can’t help it if your survey efforts have been encumbered by blinders. I don’t usually use anything as pedestrian as Wikipedia for textual reference, however, I’m not at the office where my books are. This link should suffice for the time being to refute your assertion that, just because you’re not aware of it, it’s not a “thing.”

Luke–Acts - Wikipedia

There are better references, but, as I said...

That's your claim to fame? Your link had the following notation:

"Luke–Acts has sometimes been presented as a single book in published Bibles or New Testaments, for example, in The Original New Testament (1985)"

SOMETIMES? In 1985?

Your link also notes Luke and Acts are two books (not one).

Scholars also date Acts LATER than Luke:
Luke - 63 AD
Acts - 64 AD

Once again, nice try.

 

[Spartan]

Copse NOT corpse.

Corpse

Definition of CORPSE

 

[usfan]

Luke and acts were originally one document. All scholars agree on this.

More like, "NO scholars agree on this." Why the bandwagon fallacy? Why pretend that a few contemporary critics, with an obvious anti-christian agenda, overrides and supercedes CENTURIES of careful, historical textual criticism, facts, and historical evidence?

This is just claiming 'revisionist history!' is better than actual history. All historians for the last 2000 years were wrong, and contemporary , cherry picked 'experts!', who just happen to support an anti-christian agenda, somehow 'know' better, but with no evidence, just plausible theories they trumpet as facts.

And eager indoctrinees, drink up the lies like kool aid.

It is a tragic commentary on the critical thinking and skepticism of this generation.

Typical Pauline drivvle!

You claimed nobody would give their soul for others. I showed you where Paul offered that very thing. How does bashing Paul support your claim?

I think that maybe you follow Paul and not Jesus. That's where I think all the dreadful dangerous extremism comes from, you know.

Oh my! 'Dreadful, dangerous extremism!!'

I think i have that concept in the OP:

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.

There is no shortage of illustrations, for this thread. Its a bit tragic, that seemingly intelligent, rational people can be indoctrinated into a bigoted, anti-christian perspective, with just loudly repeated lies.

Your flimsy dismissal of solid scholarship as “revisionist history” does not make such scholarship so.

I quote actual historians, eyewitnesses, early apologists, and actual facts, concerning the biblical texts. The detractors here post distortions, revisionism, lies, caricatures, and propaganda.

THAT is what i dismiss, not sound scholarship. I know real scholarship when i see it, and the revisionist crap presented here is nothing but lies and smears, from anti-christian bigots, promoting their own worldview, and smearing others.

It’s not psychobabble. It’s your unwillingness to debate.

I debate with facts and history, not ad hom, bandwagon, falsehoods, and other fallacies, like the anti-christian hordes here. You have falsely asserted many things here as 'fact!', when they are not even valid theories. ..like the 'luke and acts used to be one book!', and other such bluffs that had NO scholarship, evidence, or historical precedence.
Then, you try to smear me, personally, with psychobabble allusions, to discredit my motives, intelligence, or mental state. Those are not 'scholarship!', 'facts!', or 'evidence!'. Those are fallacies, either from someone trying to bluff knowledge of a subject, an active promoter of known distortions, or a deceived indoctrinee, who has bought the entire anti-christian narrative. Which is it? I don't know , nor do i care to analyze the motives of proactive promoters of propaganda. I can only deliver correction, facts, and history. I cannot convince anyone against their will.

Happily, none of the gospel writers is likely to have been an apostolic eyewitness; the writers were telling mythic stories about earlier events

..just a constant propaganda stream of distortions and blatant falsehoods. You must really have a lot of hostility against Christianity, to revile it so..

, what were the actual facts? The gospels don’t tell us, because they’re not that kind of document. Ergo, full of factual error.

Not at all. The opposite, in fact.

Like your fundamentalist propaganda posts, for instance...

Or your anti-christian tirades and propaganda? What groupthink ideology drives you? Anti-christian Progressivism ?

Asserting anonymity is an attempt to be as true to the earliest text as possible — not a political attempt to besmirch anyone. The exegetical process promotes no sentiments, nor does it attempt to be pro- or anti- anything.

It is a revisionist smear, to cast doubt on the authorship of the original autographs. It is basically a variation of, 'Hath God said?', that has been the downfall of humankind.

The nt books are historical, valid records of actual people, their words, and events. Disbelieve them if you wish. But the constant propaganda assault on the historicity of the biblical accounts is nothing but anti-christian bigotry. They have NOT been 'changed!', they were NOT written centuries later. They were NOT 'anonymous!' These are false narratives.. LIES.. from anti-christian propagandists, intent only on smearing and demeaning Christianity.

I can certainly debate facts and history, and analyze the wealth of data that is there. But i can only dismiss and expose the lies and distortions used to smear historical Christianity.

 

[sooda]

They don't differ at all about the RESURRECTION. All four Gospels confirm it. If there are any differences it's about OTHER things or events that occurred AFTER the resurrection (i.e. did one angel appear or two at the tomb, etc.). Don't miss the forest for the trees!

Furthermore, if you'd bother to do some research once in a while, you would have come across this - "The Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts":

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Glad to help you out!

The authors of the four Gospels never explicitly identify themselves.

 

[sooda]

1. Who Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An ...
   www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html
   The four canonical gospels comprise of synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) plus John. None are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and they are all written in Greek , not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus.
   

 

[usfan]

Furthermore, if you'd bother to do some research once in a while, you would have come across this -

If the anti-christian propagandists even glanced casually at history and scholarship, they would see the wealth of data and evidence that refutes their anti-christian narratives. But that is the nature of propaganda: repeat the lies loudly, and people will begin to believe it.

This thread proves itself, with abundant internal evidence, as wave after wave of propagandists repeat their indoctrination, with NO FACTS, no history, and primarily fallacies and revisionism for their position.

It is a tragic commentary on the demise of western civilization , where mandated beliefs, and groupthink loyalty takes precedence over facts, history, and reason.

 

[sooda]

If the anti-christian propagandists even glanced casually at history and scholarship, they would see the wealth of data and evidence that refutes their anti-christian narratives. But that is the nature of propaganda: repeat the lies loudly, and people will begin to believe it.

This thread proves itself, with abundant internal evidence, as wave after wave of propagandists repeat their indoctrination, with NO FACTS, no history, and primarily fallacies and revisionism for their position.

It is a tragic commentary on the demise of western civilization , where mandated beliefs, and groupthink loyalty takes precedence over facts, history, and reason.

What denomination do you follow?

 

[usfan]

The authors of the four Gospels never explicitly identify themselves.

Immaterial, even if this were true. But both Luke and John clearly relate themselves as the authors.

This is an attempt to smear the gospel accounts with innuendo.. 'nobody really knows who wrote them!!' But for over 2000 years, EVERYONE knows who wrote them, from the careful scholarship, evidence, and history of the records.

Doubt or disbelieve the gospel accounts all you want. Ridicule Jesus, Paul, Matthew, or any and all of the persons in the nt records. But enough with this phony revisionism! History, textual criticism, and sound scholarship SUPPORTS and AFFIRMS the historical validity of the manuscripts. It is only anti-christian lies and smears that claims otherwise.

 

[sooda]

Immaterial, even if this were true. But both Luke and John clearly relate themselves as the authors.

This is an attempt to smear the gospel accounts with innuendo.. 'nobody really knows who wrote them!!' But for over 2000 years, EVERYONE knows who wrote them, from the careful scholarship, evidence, and history of the records.

Doubt or disbelieve the gospel accounts all you want. Ridicule Jesus, Paul, Matthew, or any and all of the persons in the nt records. But enough with this phony revisionism! History, textual criticism, and sound scholarship SUPPORTS and AFFIRMS the historical validity of the manuscripts. It is only anti-christian lies and smears that claims otherwise.

Early Christians were not stupid.. They knew that the gospels were anonymous as early as 200 AD.