Ignorance and the Bible

[Cypress]

Obviously much of Genesis is allegorical. But are the "history" books also supposedly allegorical?

I know you don't like standard Christianity which integrates both the OT and the NT but we are stuck with a God in the NT that is, per every single line of the NT, the same God as the OT.

The epistles of Paul are the roadmap and foundational texts for Christian belief, Christian practice, Christian theology, Christian ethics.

Pretty much the only importance of the Hebrew Bible in Paul's epistles is as prophecy and reference material.

You are welcome to stress about the Old Testament as much as you want. I'm sure if you read it as literally as a conservative Southern Baptists do, you can pick apart and mock many of the Jewish stories in the OT.
I'm convinced setting up strawmen like that is precisely the agenda atheists have, because 99 percent of the complaints they have about Christianity are about the Old Testament.

As far as my understanding goes, the Old Testament is important for prophecy and background reference.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on Osteen and televangelists. I'd include carnival barkers and snake-oil salesmen in that subset of human depravity. People who are legal, mostly, but totally lacking in common virtues.

Jesus went out of his way to warn about false prophets misrepresenting him, and Joel Osteen and the carnival barker televangelists are certainly in that vein.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Jesus went out of his way to warn about false prophets misrepresenting him, and Joel Osteen and the carnival barker televangelists are certainly in that vein.

Agreed the Bible mentions false prophets. It's one of my favorite scriptures to bring up to MAGAts and other mammon worshipers.

 

[domer76]

Bullshit. What you wrote was, 'There is no “God of the gaps”.' (Your post #234)

No sense to bullshit...the words are right here for all to read.


I've already said what I have to say about the word "supernatural."

This is what I said, Frank. “Unlike the Bible myths, atheism doesn’t claim to know the origin of life. A simple “we don’t know” is sufficient. There is no “God of the gaps”.” Yep. I said there is no God of the gaps for atheists. Try some reading comprehension.

 

[gmark77]

The epistles of Paul are the roadmap and foundational texts for Christian belief, Christian practice, Christian theology, Christian ethics.

Pretty much the only importance of the Hebrew Bible in Paul's epistles is as prophecy and reference material.

You are welcome to stress about the Old Testament as much as you want. I'm sure if you read it as literally as a conservative Southern Baptists do, you can pick apart and mock many of the Jewish stories in the OT.
I'm convinced setting up strawmen like that is precisely the agenda atheists have, because 99 percent of the complaints they have about Christianity are about the Old Testament.

As far as my understanding goes, the Old Testament is important for prophecy and background reference.

I must ask you about this God. Do you not see any possible theological problems with a God concept wherein the God concept changes from being OK with mass slaughter to one of love of all people?

You keep wanting run away from the OT but that isn't cricket. That is not allowed in this game.

Unless you want to make up your own religion. If that's the case then we can talk about your new made-up faith. But for now we are talking about Christianity qua Christianity. The OT is still holy writ.

Humans evolve God into some form that makes them happy.

I don't blame you. I don't like the god who is OK with genocide either. If I were a believer I would tap dance around that harder than anything else. I would probably want to disavow the OT as well.

Just remember: that if you are going to defend Christianity you should stick with the rules first.

That is the same God.

And so I ask a simple question: Do you not see any problem with an eternal all-powerful God who changes aspect over time?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And so I ask a simple question: Do you not see any problem with an eternal all-powerful God who changes aspect over time?

Unless you truly believe God handed the Bible down from Heaven, then you should know as most sane, educated and intelligent people know that it was written by man....several of them.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the discrepancies between the four Gospels much less the Night and Day change between the OT and the NT.

Notice it's the MAGAts and the Evangelistas who use the OT all the time and rarely, if ever, quote the NT much less Jesus.

 

[gmark77]

Unless you truly believe God handed the Bible down from Heaven, then you should know as most sane, educated and intelligent people know that it was written by man....several of them.

First off there are two parallel paths to the discussion: one of "internal" questioning and one of "external" questioning. Obviously I'm an atheist so I fully understand the Bible is wholly made up by humans. That's an "External" question.

The "internal" question is: assuming God is real, is the God of Christianity a logical god?

That's my question.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

First off there are two parallel paths to the discussion: one of "internal" questioning and one of "external" questioning. Obviously I'm an atheist so I fully understand the Bible is wholly made up by humans. That's an "External" question.

The "internal" question is: assuming God is real, is the God of Christianity a logical god?

That's my question.

The God of Christianity is a human perception of a god. The Christian version is no more valid than the Lakota or Hindu versions.

If you want to see the face of God, look at the similarities between all major religions, not their differences.

You seem to enjoy creating strawman arguments so you can knock them down. That's pretty common among young atheists.

 

[Cypress]

I must ask you about this God. Do you not see any possible theological problems with a God concept wherein the God concept changes from being OK with mass slaughter to one of love of all people?

Easy. God didn't write the Old Testament. God didn't even dictate the Old Testament. It is a compilation of works written and edited by many different men. Men with different Bronze Age perspectives. Men who wrote in many different literary genres, on the topics involving the divine, on history, on values, on rituals, rules and laws.

You keep wanting run away from the OT but that isn't cricket. That is not allowed in this game!

So an atheist has appointed himself judge and arbitor on what is allowed in Christian belief and practice, lol.

There are ultimately only three things you need to believe to be Christian: the life, death, resurrection and saving grace of Christ. Anyone who has read the epistles of Paul understands that. You don't need to believe in talking snakes or six 24-hour days of creation.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There are ultimately only three things you need to believe to be Christian: the life, death, resurrection and saving grace of Christ. Anyone who has read the epistles of Paul understands that. You don't need to believe in talking snakes or six 24-hour days of creation.

Which is where I part ways with "modern" Christians. There are 27 books in the New Testament, most of them selected about 300 years after the Crucifixion. Only four have Jesus in them. The rest are thoughts about it. The greatest Apostle may very well have been Mary Magdelene, but those who came after turned her into a minor figure and, later, a whore.

Mary Magdalene - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Gnostic writings, Mary Magdalene is depicted as Jesus's closest disciple who uniquely understood his teachings, causing tension with Peter, and is honored as the "apostle to the apostles".

Mary Magdalene was a historical figure, possibly from Magdala. She was a prominent follower of Jesus who was believed to have been healed by him, supported his ministry financially, and was present at his crucifixion and burial. She played a key role among his female disciples....

...Because she was the first to witness Jesus's resurrection, Mary Magdalene is known in some Christian traditions as the "apostle to the apostles". She is a central figure in Gnostic Christian writings, including the Dialogue of the Savior, the Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary. These texts portray her as an apostle, as Jesus's closest and most beloved disciple and the only one who truly understood his teachings. In the Gnostic texts, or Gnostic gospels, Mary's closeness to Jesus results in tension with another disciple, Peter, due to her gender and Peter's envy of the special teachings given to her.

 

[domer76]

Easy. God didn't write the Old Testament. God didn't even dictate the Old Testament. It is a compilation of works written and edited by many different men. Men with different Bronze Age perspectives. Men who wrote in many different literary genres, on the topics involving the divine, on history, on values, on rituals, rules and laws.

So an atheist has appointed himself judge and arbitor on what is allowed in Christian belief and practice, lol.

There are ultimately only three things you need to believe to be Christian: the life, death, resurrection and saving grace of Christ. Anyone who has read the epistles of Paul understands that. You don't need to believe in talking snakes or six 24-hour days of creation.

So, Paul appointed himself judge and arbiter, huh? Paul thought so little of Jesus that what he actually said about him in all those letters, one could place them on a small post card.

Don’t forget the Trinity as a requirement. Jesus needs to be deified, but Christians can have only one deity, so they invented that Trinity thing. More theological gymnastics.

 

[Cypress]

Which is where I part ways with "modern" Christians. There are 27 books in the New Testament, most of them selected about 300 years after the Crucifixion. Only four have Jesus in them. The rest are thoughts about it. The greatest Apostle may very well have been Mary Magdelene, but those who came after turned her into a minor figure and, later, a whore.

Mary Magdalene - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Gnostic writings, Mary Magdalene is depicted as Jesus's closest disciple who uniquely understood his teachings, causing tension with Peter, and is honored as the "apostle to the apostles".

Mary Magdalene was a historical figure, possibly from Magdala. She was a prominent follower of Jesus who was believed to have been healed by him, supported his ministry financially, and was present at his crucifixion and burial. She played a key role among his female disciples....

...Because she was the first to witness Jesus's resurrection, Mary Magdalene is known in some Christian traditions as the "apostle to the apostles". She is a central figure in Gnostic Christian writings, including the Dialogue of the Savior, the Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary. These texts portray her as an apostle, as Jesus's closest and most beloved disciple and the only one who truly understood his teachings. In the Gnostic texts, or Gnostic gospels, Mary's closeness to Jesus results in tension with another disciple, Peter, due to her gender and Peter's envy of the special teachings given to her.

My perspective is a little different than yours.

I think the selection of the 27 books of the New Testament speaks pretty well of the Bishops and Church fathers.

They had a good, logical system of criteria for which books would make it into the canon.

The works had to be either written by people who knew the eyewitnesses, or early enough that people who knew the eyewitnesses were still alive.​

​

The works had to be widely accepted and used around the Mediterranean world.​

​

There had to be reasonable assurance the works weren't forgeries, or apocryphal literature written long after the eyewitnesses and people who knew the eyewitness were gone.​

​

They made some mistakes - a few of Paul's epistles may not have been written by him - but given the complex task at hand, they did pretty well.​

The Gospel of Mary, the Gnostic gospels, and all the apocryphal stories were all written well into the second or third centuries, long after the eyewitnesses and anyone who knew them were gone. Things like the Gospel of Phillip were obvious forgeries.

On balance, a diligent effort was made to keep forgeries and apocrypha out of the New Testament, and to limit the collection to works that were widely accepted and seem to have been written by people who knew the eyewitnesses.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So, Paul appointed himself judge and arbiter, huh? Paul thought so little of Jesus that what he actually said about him in all those letters, one could place them on a small post card.

Don’t forget the Trinity as a requirement. Jesus needs to be deified, but Christians can have only one deity, so they invented that Trinity thing. More theological gymnastics.

Kind of but since Paul died over 300 years before the Bible was canonized and, since Christian leaders had a motive to push the religion in a particular direction under Constantine the Great, I doubt all the other writers were given a fair shake. Paul was pushed for a reason that satisfied both Constantine and Christian leaders.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

My perspective is a little different than yours.

I think the selection of the 27 books of the New Testament speaks pretty well of the Bishops and Church fathers.

They had a good, logical system of criteria for which books would make it into the canon.

The works had to be either written by people who knew the eyewitnesses, or early enough that people who knew the eyewitnesses were still alive.​

​

The works had to be widely accepted and used around the Mediterranean world.​

​

There had to be reasonable assurance the works weren't forgeries, or apocryphal literature written long after the eyewitnesses and people who knew the eyewitness were gone.​

​

They made some mistakes - a few of Paul's epistles may not have been written by him - but given the complex task at hand, they did pretty well.​

The Gospel of Mary, the Gnostic gospels, and all the apocryphal stories were all written well into the second or third centuries, long after the eyewitnesses and anyone who knew them were gone. Things like the Gospel of Phillip were obvious forgeries.

On balance, a diligent effort was made to keep forgeries and apocrypha out of the New Testament, and to limit the collection to works that were widely accepted and seem to have been written by people who knew the eyewitnesses.

Since I only know a few of the other books that were passed up, I can't say what is the truest picture of Jesus and his ministry.

Still, it all looks like cherry-picking to me. Not much different than what Trump is doing with both the Smithsonian and military history.

 

[Cypress]

Since I only know a few of the other books that were passed up, I can't say what is the truest picture of Jesus and his ministry.

Still, it all looks like cherry-picking to me. Not much different than what Trump is doing with both the Smithsonian and military history.

First and early second century church bishops like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius are known to have quoted or referenced Paul and the gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, John. So even before the New Testament was finalized in the fourth century, Paul and the four canonical gospel writers were thought to be authoritative and widely known from very early on.

Gospel of Mary and the apocryphal gospels are not mentioned by the earliest church bishops, and they seem to have actually been written well into second and third centuries, long after the eyewitnesses and earliest church fathers were gone.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

First and early second century church bishops like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius are known to have quoted or referenced Paul and the gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, John. So even before the New Testament was finalized in the fourth century, Paul and the four canonical gospel writers were thought to be authoritative and widely known from very early on.

Gospel of Mary and the apocryphal gospels are not mentioned by the earliest church bishops, and they seem to have actually been written well into second and third centuries, long after the eyewitnesses and earliest church fathers were gone.

...and they killed off anyone who disagreed. LOL

Since all the Gospels appear to have been written a generation or two after the Crucifixion, I'm skeptical of the veracity of the commonly told tale.

 

[Margot]

Adam's only flaw was that he was pussy whipped into eating the Forbidden Fruit.

Why do you say Christian Nationalists are not Christians> Can't one be both loyal to God and also Country? I'd say yes.

As for the rest of the post, lots of opinionated gargon. A-men.

When MAGA comes first ,you're not a real Christian!

 

[Margot]

First and early second century church bishops like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius are known to have quoted or referenced Paul and the gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke, John. So even before the New Testament was finalized in the fourth century, Paul and the four canonical gospel writers were thought to be authoritative and widely known from very early on.

Gospel of Mary and the apocryphal gospels are not mentioned by the earliest church bishops, and they seem to have actually been written well into second and third centuries, long after the eyewitnesses and earliest church fathers were gone.

That doesn't apply to all Books that didn't make it into the Bible!
Recently I have been studying the Gospel of Thomas, which some experts feel might have predated the 4 Gospels

 

[Margot]

Atheists insist on reading the Bible as strict literalists in the way Southern Baptists and Pentecostals do.

I just disagree with the premise that all Christians are superstitious and irrational fools, and the underlying implication that atheists in contrast are educated and enlightened.

I occasionally visit Episcopalian service down the street from me... The Pew polling organization found that Episcopalians by a wide margin were more likely to be college educated than atheists. The entire leadership of this Episcopalian Church is female. The laity is at least 50 percent female. The head Vicar is a lesbian.

Polling consistently shows that atheists are overwhelmingly white, male, and young. So the argument could be made that while they fancy themselves super-enlightened, atheists actually seem to have a problem with inclusivity, and gender and racial bias.

Atheists, at least the ones I know, are obsessed with Jesus!

 

[Margot]

The epistles of Paul are the roadmap and foundational texts for Christian belief, Christian practice, Christian theology, Christian ethics.

Pretty much the only importance of the Hebrew Bible in Paul's epistles is as prophecy and reference material.

You are welcome to stress about the Old Testament as much as you want. I'm sure if you read it as literally as a conservative Southern Baptists do, you can pick apart and mock many of the Jewish stories in the OT.
I'm convinced setting up strawmen like that is precisely the agenda atheists have, because 99 percent of the complaints they have about Christianity are about the Old Testament.

As far as my understanding goes, the Old Testament is important for prophecy and background reference.

On May 15 1948 , The New Testament took a back seat to the Old Testament ,as with the Miracle return of Jews to Israel, Old Testament prophecies could be fulfilled again.