Who causes christian adversity ?

[Twilight Hue]

I believe the gospels have kernels of truth among theological fiction as I believe Jesus was a real man. The one main thing historical Jesus scholars agree on is that he was crucified and crucifixion is a Roman punishment, alongside the fact that the Jews had no Sanhedrin at that time and couldn't put anyone to death, especially not by crucifixion as it's not a halachic method of capital punishment.

Actually Jesus's crucifixion was most likely a fabrication as it does not match real historical accounts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

My question is this:

Has today's clergy class absolved themselves from the crimes of their predecessors, or have they continued their iniquity albeit in a more covert manner, thus deserving Christs accusation at Jo 8:44 ?

Do the clergy rightfully wear their high sounding titles due to their piety, great righteousness and God's approval, or rather have today's clergy exalted themselves, as the clergy of Jesus days have done ?

I think of myself as the #1 critic of clerical positions, however its not the fault of clergy specifically. It is a communal problem. One of the primary causes appears to be the desegregation of men and women, but this desegregation is installed in order to fix a worse and previous problem. When churches don't run smoothly people grasp for the nearest solution.

What's needed? Two things I think not one. Churches need a re-segregation of men and women in church. They also need to remove the current pastor-centric arrangment, moving back to rule by elders. This may, yes, introduce a few new problems as solutions always do, but its going to fix a lot of the worst issues. Its not going to be a panacea, but its better than rule by one person.

Additionally massive hierarchies have turned out to be a very unstable approach. I'm against organizations such as the missionary societies sending pastors to churches, don't think muchof bishoprics and top-down organization which promises much but resolves little. Common sense among elders should be the prime way that decisions are made, and those elders should be chosen by experience and personal reputation among the members. Churches should stop looking outside of their local congregations for leaders. Its just asking for trouble.

 

[Rival]

Actually Jesus's crucifixion was most likely a fabrication as it does not match real historical accounts.

Certainly the gospel accounts of it strike me as suspect, but they were writing at least 40 years after the fact, so I expect them to read like that as none were written by witnesses.

 

[MNoBody]

But blaming the Jews isn't racism?

none of it is racism, technically speaking such are only displaying their own personal prejudice

 

[pearl]

The Sanhedrin was in Jerusalem till the time of the rebellion around 70AD.

Its important to realize that the Pharisees had no place at the Sanhedrin.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

none of it is racism, technically speaking such are only displaying their own personal prejudice

Go tell the person I was responding to that.

 

[MNoBody]

Go tell the person I was responding to that.

since it was typed out, they could read it for themselves...no?
racism is a policy of prejudicial positions embraced by a collective
personal prejudice is another matter.
at least that is the explanation I heard [from the horses mouth so to speak], do you define it differently?
just curious m8.

 

[firedragon]

History shows that "real" Christian have never been popular with the world, and have been counted as the off-scouring among men, even or especially from those who have placed themselves as the guardians of Christian truth- the clergy of Christendom-.

Some might say: That's quite a accusation! My humble, serene and pious local priest a persecutor of Christians ? Well... maybe not, but think about this:

Those that persecuted and killed Jesus were the Scribes, Pharisees, Saducees and Levitical Priests, together they made up the clergy of that time.

But, surely after that they would have changed, right ?
We would think that the ecclesiastical body would undergo a change of attitude, especially since they eventually seemingly accepted the Lord Jesus as their savior?

Well No! They didn't, because it was only a political ploy to fuse pagan and christian beliefs into a state controlled religion under Pontius Maximus(Constantine). This religious leader then decreed a host of unscriptural beliefs based on philosophies, metaphysics and pagan mythology instead of the Holy scriptures and the teachings of Christ. Many witch, by the way, are still embraced by Christendom today.

This later bred to a state controlled faith under Papal control, where any dissenting opinion, even or specifically based on the bible was declared heresy.
What then followed was a mock court who always ruled that the heretic was to be mercilessly tortured and burned at the stake along with his/her bible, (preferably slowly). The mignons to do the work were know as the Dominican Priests (The dogs of God) who specialized in flagellation, and viewed torture as a form of art.

Organized religious bodies that protested the Papal autocracy behaved no better, for instance John Calvin also burned Christians that did not agree with his so-called orthodox doctrines.

My question is this:

Has today's clergy class absolved themselves from the crimes of their predecessors, or have they continued their iniquity albeit in a more covert manner, thus deserving Christs accusation at Jo 8:44 ?

Do the clergy rightfully wear their high sounding titles due to their piety, great righteousness and God's approval, or rather have today's clergy exalted themselves, as the clergy of Jesus days have done ?

Its a very difficult question to answer because when you are quoting some atrocities it was also political. The Pope was basically king. Calvin was a head of a big political movement. So was Martin Luther. So its difficult to say they were just clergy and discuss with a comparison to the current day clergy since they dont have the power.

 

[viole]

History shows that "real" Christian have never been popular with the world, and have been counted as the off-scouring among men, even or especially from those who have placed themselves as the guardians of Christian truth- the clergy of Christendom-.

Some might say: That's quite a accusation! My humble, serene and pious local priest a persecutor of Christians ? Well... maybe not, but think about this:

Those that persecuted and killed Jesus were the Scribes, Pharisees, Saducees and Levitical Priests, together they made up the clergy of that time.

But, surely after that they would have changed, right ?
We would think that the ecclesiastical body would undergo a change of attitude, especially since they eventually seemingly accepted the Lord Jesus as their savior?

Well No! They didn't, because it was only a political ploy to fuse pagan and christian beliefs into a state controlled religion under Pontius Maximus(Constantine). This religious leader then decreed a host of unscriptural beliefs based on philosophies, metaphysics and pagan mythology instead of the Holy scriptures and the teachings of Christ. Many witch, by the way, are still embraced by Christendom today.

This later bred to a state controlled faith under Papal control, where any dissenting opinion, even or specifically based on the bible was declared heresy.
What then followed was a mock court who always ruled that the heretic was to be mercilessly tortured and burned at the stake along with his/her bible, (preferably slowly). The mignons to do the work were know as the Dominican Priests (The dogs of God) who specialized in flagellation, and viewed torture as a form of art.

Organized religious bodies that protested the Papal autocracy behaved no better, for instance John Calvin also burned Christians that did not agree with his so-called orthodox doctrines.

My question is this:

Has today's clergy class absolved themselves from the crimes of their predecessors, or have they continued their iniquity albeit in a more covert manner, thus deserving Christs accusation at Jo 8:44 ?

Do the clergy rightfully wear their high sounding titles due to their piety, great righteousness and God's approval, or rather have today's clergy exalted themselves, as the clergy of Jesus days have done ?

From a metaphysical point of view, my aversion to Christ is comparable to my aversion to Mother Goose, since they are both equally plausible. Ergo, believing in Jesus is as rational as believing in Mother Goose. Not a real reason to be against any of them.

My main aversion to Christianity, from a not metaphysical point of view, is its morality. I personally find Jesus the anti pattern of what morality should be. In other words, a negative role model of how humans should behave. I am totally on Nietzsche's side on his critique of Christianity.

To make an example: according to Christian doctrine, and its excessive obsession of preserving biological human life at any cost, I would not be allowed to receive help to terminate my life if I desire so. For instance, when I am terminally ill. Same when I decide to terminate a pregnancy because I desire to do so.

And it is exactly what is making us weak and helpless, when the need arises to show strength and determination. Like in these days, where misery and despair of 99% are preferred to the biological loss of 1%.

On top of that, while Christianity insisted to preserve life when not required, it extinguished it without showing no shame nor remorse. After reading Deschner's "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums" (the criminal history of christianity), nobody could escape the feeling that Christianity has probably been the gravest calamity that Europe ever experienced.
And something that we should toss into the trash bin of history as soon as possible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MNoBody]

the medieval times were rife with theocratically inspired institutional discrimination, which seems to be an ongoing embroilment.
hmmm
such fun.....not.

 

[Kenny]

Those that persecuted and killed Jesus were the Scribes, Pharisees, Saducees and Levitical Priests, together they made up the clergy of that time.

I don't agree on three accounts...

1) It was the Romans that executed him
2) It was my sins that killed him.
3) No one really took his life... he gave it freely. He could have stopped it if he wanted.

My question is this:

Has today's clergy class absolved themselves from the crimes of their predecessors, or have they continued their iniquity albeit in a more covert manner, thus deserving Christs accusation at Jo 8:44 ?

Do the clergy rightfully wear their high sounding titles due to their piety, great righteousness and God's approval, or rather have today's clergy exalted themselves, as the clergy of Jesus days have done ?

There will always be wolves in sheep clothing.

Hopefully, I will be found faithful in living a life of love

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think Christians come across now as being more predatory than charitable.

 

[Vee]

My question is this:

Has today's clergy class absolved themselves from the crimes of their predecessors, or have they continued their iniquity albeit in a more covert manner, thus deserving Christs accusation at Jo 8:44 ?

Since we can't go back in time, the clergy class will never be able to "make up" for what was done in the past. The people who were unfairly tortured and killed, are still going to be dead. Today's clergy can't be blamed for what happened in the past either. They had nothing to do with what happed before they were even born.
Did they learn from past mistakes and try to do better? Are they doing everything they can to clean the reputation of their organizations and be deserving of bearing Christ's name? If we follow the principle of judging a tree by the quality of it's fruits, I would say not really.
I don't want to put everyone in the same basket though. I'm sure that there are some clergy who genuinely care about others. Things like this are never just black and white.

 

[Clara Tea]

NEUROPTERON SAID:



" Those that persecuted and killed Jesus were the Scribes, Pharisees, Saducees and Levitical Priests"



CORRECTING NEUROPTERON'S FALSEHOOD:



Blaming Jews for killing Christ? Can't Christians tell the truth about this? An article entitled "Blame Pilate, Not the Jews, April 25, 2000, Page A23 of the Washington Post said that John Paul II rose from his sickbed to apologize "for teaching that Jews killed Christ."



March 2, 2011, an article in the Atlantic magazine is entitled "Pope Benedict Reiterates that Jews Didn't Kill Christ."



Roads leading to Rome were littered with unfortunate people nailed to crosses. Christians, later, were fed to hungry lions as a spectator sport in the Colliseum of Rome.



Romans blamed others for their brutality. They would threaten to horribly torture and murder bystanders (and kin) if they didn't agree that their brutality was good. Dissenting wouldn't stop the brutality, but it would torture and murder loved ones.



Romans had asked a crowd of people (not necessarily Jews) if Christ should be crucified. Rightly, the crowd was scared to death to say no.



NEUROPTERON:



[Rome's adoption of Christianity is a] "political ploy to fuse pagan and christian beliefs into a state controlled religion under Pontius Maximus(Constantine)"



ANSWER:



There doesn't seem to be evidence that the Roman emperor was or was not a true Christian. It certainly could be true that it was a power play, or perhaps not. It seems as though the brutality of Rome decreased, though unprovoked wars (land grabs) and subjugation of other nations continued.



NEUROPTERON:



[Rome] "decreed a host of unscriptural beliefs."



ANSWER:



Yes, and Rome was not the only political power to have altered the bible. This is why many passages of the bible must be highly scrutinized. It is better to read ancient manuscripts (typically in Latin or Hebrew, but sometimes in Greek or Arabic) to understand the earliest version of the highly redacted bible(s) that we use today. Of course, the many versions of the bible, today, also indicate that the holy word of God was rewritten on numerous occasions. The myth is that it was always with divine inspiration, and that the bible is perfect and correct (though the various versions disagree, and there are numerous conflicting statements in the bible). For example, Genesis 1:25 disagrees with Genesis 2:18 about the issue of mankind coming before animals, or vice versa.



NEUROPTERON:



"dissenting opinion"....."declared heresy"



ANSWER:



That continued through the Dark Ages of Europe, where scientists were burned at the stake for suggesting that meteors fell from the sky (God's perfect heavens). Even today, the teaching of evolution in schools is thought to be pushing the "religion of science" down the throats of theists and indoctrinating innocent kids who have not had the opportunity and experience to forge firm religious ideas.



NEUROPTERON:



"Organized religious bodies that protested the Papal autocracy behaved no better, for instance John Calvin also burned Christians."



ANSWER:



Following the one of the most peace-loving leaders that the world ever saw, mankind distorted the Christian message thinking that God would be pleased. Even in modern times, the US attacked Iraq and didn't even wait to see if there was any sign of terrorism (saying that once we defeat Iraq, we'll have proof....yet no proof was ever found). Revelation (a chapter of the bible) says that two demons from the bottomless pit of hell (dragon and beast, who were father and son) would rise to the leadership of the most powerful nation in the world and attack Iraq, causing God's wrath (Revelation 15 (seven plagues)). Obviously we can't even recognize the path of Christ today (thou shalt not kill).



NEUROPTERON:



"Has today's clergy class absolved themselves from the crimes of their predecessors...?"



ANSWER:



We are not responsible for those who went before us. But, when donning the same robes of authority, one must apologize for sins of the past. Thus, if one is to wear the garb of the Ku Klux Klan (a very Christian group, by the way), one must apologize for the lynched Blacks, torture of burning on crosses, the injustice of killing innocents, and the sneaky way of hiding faces while doing so. We cannot let our position exhalt past actions.



NEUROPTERON:



"Do the clergy rightfully wear their high sounding titles due to their piety, great righteousness and God's approval, or rather have today's clergy exalted themselves, as the clergy of Jesus days have done?"



ANSWER: Texans say "all hat, no cattle." We respect the vast education of preachers, noting that they have dedicated their lives to the study of religion, and that universities have bestowed degrees, denoting their proclivity in divine matters. Yet, when the bible (Revelation) says that an attack of Iraq is specifically against the orders of God, and will incur God's wrath, and when one considers "thou shalt not kill," it seems that rashly attacking and blackballing an entire nation, without proof, is religiously and morally wrong. Yet, Reverend Hagee insisted that we would win the war (or do better) if we were closer to Jesus. No, Hagee was (and is) wrong, despite his vast education, and he should not be respected. Education, alone, doesn't teach the heart of religion. Dick Cheney was highly educated, and smart, but evil all the way down to the core of his soul. Education doesn't make one the mouthpiece of God.

 

[Kenny]

I think Christians come across now as being more predatory than charitable.

It is all in one's personal perspective.

I don't see it that way.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

since it was typed out, they could read it for themselves...no?
racism is a policy of prejudicial positions embraced by a collective
personal prejudice is another matter.
at least that is the explanation I heard [from the horses mouth so to speak], do you define it differently?
just curious m8.

I believe what @Saint Frankenstein was getting at is that the person he responded to was the one who first misused the word "racism," and @Saint Frankenstein's reply was therefore in-keeping with the original poster's mistaken sense of the word when he made his reply. Basically, using the same "logic" the original poster used in order to make the point that that original poster was caught being the pot and calling the kettle black. It honestly doesn't matter that the word "racism" was being used incorrectly to that ultimate point.

 

[Neuropteron]

From the spelling errors ("witch", "Pontius Maximus", "mignons" *) and the historical nonsense (Constantine was not a religious leader and did not, himself, introduce doctrines into the church), I am wondering whether you may be a Jehovah's Witness.

* At least you did not speak of burning people at the "steak", which I suppose is something.

Thank's for pointing out my spelling mistakes. I share your view that proper spelling is important.

 

[rational experiences]

The human reasons. PHARISEE he says. Scientific occultism owned ancient symbolism as its owned artificial language. Not any truth. Truth is consciousness, the ability to idealise information as the status, I am consciousness.

If you however quote that AI...artificial intelligence is the truth just because you designed/Temples to pyramid occult science, named philosophy of the stone, being gold trans mutation gain, as the trade/economy of the past, then human greed is involved alongside of technology. The exact same civilization status that occurs in civilization.

Therefore telling a human truth is a variant to scientific artificial design being correct because it works. Seeing the Designer is builder/owner and operator as the control of his designs as thought in self male human head.

Hence if a human says, the ancient science themes, thesis about creation quote, Jesus was harmed by the PHARISEE, the secret information for science thesis is the PHI RA SEE. Artificial sun time/false thesis review information about PHI.

Ra the Sun term and the eye/ancient Ark themes...the convening stone products
PHI of course is scientific human inferred and applied mathematical calculus.
See.

Secret scientific symbolic language.

Truth.....we are knowingly all first original to self, a human and our owned equal living life status is both human and natural human. No one can argue about using truth.

Then there is personal choice, human chosen artificial cause.....science.

If you quote that the rich and the elite today like in the past as humans did not pay any heed to life in its stigmata sacrifices. A similar modern irradiation effect ebola, unnatural blood and cellular human changes. Humans complain constantly of dream like phenomena chemical changed body life attacks. Seen/witnessed animal death in phenomena. Then you would ask a question as a natural human.

What changed that hurt us. Science, not natural caused natural to change. Yet we are natural first and quote natural did it. Instead the real reason science by artificial causes forced natural to change. The human truth. Greed, self status and ignorance was why Jesus was ignored, a human trait.

 

[blü 2]

History shows that "real" Christian have never been popular with the world

It's not at all clear from your post what you mean by a "real" Christian. Isn't a real Christian someone who accepts Jesus as his or her savior? What test are you using to determine whether a Christian is a "real" Christian or not?

Those that persecuted and killed Jesus were the Scribes, Pharisees, Saducees and Levitical Priests

First, that's not what the bible says.

Second, even if it did, they weren't Christians but practicising Jews.

Third, the Romans, not the Jews, were the only ones who could have crucified Jesus.

Fourth, that's only correct if there was an historical Jesus at all ─ no contemporary record says there was, or mentions his execution. None of the authors of the bible ever met an historical Jesus. The only purported biography of Jesus is Mark's, written some 45 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion, and Mark's author knows so little about the death of Jesus that he has to copy his trial scene from Josephus' report of the trial of Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus, also called Jesus of Jerusalem, while the other gospel authors copied from, and edited to taste, what Mark's author wrote.

But, surely after that they would have changed, right ?
We would think that the ecclesiastical body would undergo a change of attitude, especially since they eventually seemingly accepted the Lord Jesus as their savior?

Why would the Jews think Jesus was their savior? Their God was their savior. Jesus was not a military, civil or religious leader of the Jews and was never anointed by the priesthood (and 'anointed' is what 'messiah' and 'christ' mean), so on what basis would they think Jesus was a messiah?

Well No! They didn't, because it was only a political ploy to fuse pagan and christian beliefs into a state controlled religion under Pontius Maximus(Constantine).

Do you mean 'Pontifex Maximus'? If so, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that a title for emperors, then popes, ruling from Rome, not Constantinople?

This later bred to a state controlled faith under Papal control

This brings us back to the question I asked before : what test are you offering to determine whether someone is a "true Christian" or not?

Is a "true Christian" simply someone who agrees with you, for example? If not, what?

Has today's clergy class absolved themselves from the crimes of their predecessors, or have they continued their iniquity albeit in a more covert manner, thus deserving Christs accusation at Jo 8:44 ?

Assuming that's Job 8:44, Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh, which was written by Jews who by the time of Isaiah were monotheists.

Do the clergy rightfully wear their high sounding titles due to their piety, great righteousness and God's approval, or rather have today's clergy exalted themselves, as the clergy of Jesus days have done ?

I ask again ─ what test will tell us whether someone's a "true Christian" or not, since your question can't be answered without knowing that.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Those that persecuted and killed Jesus were the Scribes, Pharisees, Saducees and Levitical Priests, together they made up the clergy of that time.

I stopped reading when Jews are blamed what Romans did.