Ignorance and the Bible

[Based Chad]

but captain, crime does not compute.

stfu, Spock.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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 reason many of us atheists focus on the OT is because that represents the ORIGIN of God. It represents the BASELINE of God. Given that Christianity does NOT allow one to ignore the OT (that is heresy) it means that the God of the OT has to be dealt with in any discussion of Christianity.

Personally I would recommend to Christians that they revisit Marcion and consider evolving the faith to be more focused on the NT and totally disavow the God of the OT. The God of the OT represents most of the bad intentions many modern Christians carry. Whether it is their homophobia (based on Leviticus) or their eschatology (wanting the return of Jesus via the Holy Land which is "supernaturally" given to one group etc.)

I personally love the teachings of Jesus for the most part. They are brilliant and I can definitely see the makings of a great religion that would be a net benefit to the world. Which it finally seems capable of being. It had a rocky adolescence with a lot of murdery stuff and intolerance.

I like the fact that modern Christians are evolving the faith away from the fire and brimstone stuff, but the fire and brimstone stuff still rides along far too much for my comfort.





That's good because I've not seen anyone except Hume call Christians as many names as you imagine in your posts that they are being called.

In reality most of these conversations have been quite pleasant overall. I don't see anyone really attacking Christians on this thread. But I also get the sense that some posters get really upset when anyone so much as points out a theologically problematic part of Christianity.



Again, no one on this side has said that.

So basically - you, as a superior Christophobic Atheist Bigot, appoint yourself as the supreme judge of all Christians and are alone empowered to dictate the beliefs of others..

Just like every single other fuckwad atheist on earth....

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

When Communism comes first - you're not a real Christian.

 

[domer76]

The earliest extant account of Jesus' death and resurrection comes from Paul. Long before the canonical gospels were written. The creed cited in Corinthians shows that Christians believed in the resurrection very early on, it wasn't a later legendary fabrication.

Correct, he did not write a biographical account of Jesus, and biography wasn't even the intent of his letters. He was responding to questions from churches he founded about proper doctrine and practice.

But the death and resurrection of Jesus is central to Paul's letters in terms of theology and doctrine.

I don't see anything wrong with that, he never claimed to be doing anything other than spreading the Gospel. Which is what Jesus asked the apostles to do. Paul obviously wasn't seeking wealth, luxury, or glory. He lived a difficult life and persisted onward though shipwrecks, pirates, beatings, and imprisonment.

No doubt the resurrection myth was circulating almost immediately. Paul was what, 4 years later?

I don’t think Jesus was keen on spreading the word to non-circumcised gentiles. He was all for keeping the law

 

[Based Chad]

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 reason many of us atheists focus on the OT is because that represents the ORIGIN of God. It represents the BASELINE of God. Given that Christianity does NOT allow one to ignore the OT (that is heresy) it means that the God of the OT has to be dealt with in any discussion of Christianity.

Personally I would recommend to Christians that they revisit Marcion and consider evolving the faith to be more focused on the NT and totally disavow the God of the OT. The God of the OT represents most of the bad intentions many modern Christians carry. Whether it is their homophobia (based on Leviticus) or their eschatology (wanting the return of Jesus via the Holy Land which is "supernaturally" given to one group etc.)

I personally love the teachings of Jesus for the most part. They are brilliant and I can definitely see the makings of a great religion that would be a net benefit to the world. Which it finally seems capable of being. It had a rocky adolescence with a lot of murdery stuff and intolerance.

I like the fact that modern Christians are evolving the faith away from the fire and brimstone stuff, but the fire and brimstone stuff still rides along far too much for my comfort.





That's good because I've not seen anyone except Hume call Christians as many names as you imagine in your posts that they are being called.

In reality most of these conversations have been quite pleasant overall. I don't see anyone really attacking Christians on this thread. But I also get the sense that some posters get really upset when anyone so much as points out a theologically problematic part of Christianity.



Again, no one on this side has said that.

actually Christianity says to ignore the OT.

read my sig.

Galatians 5
6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

14For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

[Based Chad]

I actually find that atheists mostly have a litany of jokes and complaints about the Old Testament, but they almost never mock, deride, or complain about Jesus.

but which is worse christians nationalism or Zionism?

 

[Based Chad]

No doubt the resurrection myth was circulating almost immediately. Paul was what, 4 years later?

I don’t think Jesus was keen on spreading the word to non-circumcised gentiles. He was all for keeping the law

he said empathy replaced the law and the ot laws no longer mattered.

 

[Cypress]

No doubt the resurrection myth was circulating almost immediately. Paul was what, 4 years later?

I don’t think Jesus was keen on spreading the word to non-circumcised gentiles. He was all for keeping the law

The creed cited in 1 Corinthians is thought to originate from the earliest days of the Jerusalem Church, shortly after the crucifixion. 1 Corinthians itself is written two to three decades before the canonical Gospels.

Even atheist scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges that the balance of evidence is that the apostles genuinely believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. People aren't willing to risk death for something they know to be a lie

The only question is whether these people were hallucinating or afflicted with mental illness.


Agreed. Jesus makes clear in the gospel accounts he wants the apostles to take the good news to the world, which obviously includes gentiles

 

[domer76]

he said empathy replaced the law and the ot laws no longer mattered.

Sorry pally boy. That OT is still part of your Bible whether you like it or not. In fact, you thumpers LOVE to quote the parts that you think damns homosexuality. Jesus never said the OT was replaced and no longer mattered. His main message? Follow the law.

Your holy book is OT and NT. Bummer, huh?

 

[domer76]

The creed cited in 1 Corinthians is thought to originate from the earliest days of the Jerusalem Church, shortly after the crucifixion. 1 Corinthians itself is written two to three decades before the canonical Gospels.

Even atheist scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges that the balance of evidence is that the apostles genuinely believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. People aren't willing to risk death for something they know to be a lie

The only question is whether these people were hallucinating or afflicted with mental illness.


Agreed. Jesus makes clear in the gospel accounts he wants the apostles to take the good news to the world, which obviously includes gentiles

I don’t doubt they genuinely thought they saw him. Joseph Smith also had witnesses. I’ve had very vivid dreams of deceased family members. 2000 years ago they were called “visions”.

I believe Jesus merely meant the Hebrew world. His message was directed there.

 

[Based Chad]

Sorry pally boy. That OT is still part of your Bible whether you like it or not. In fact, you thumpers LOVE to quote the parts that you think damns homosexuality. Jesus never said the OT was replaced and no longer mattered. His main message? Follow the law.

Your holy book is OT and NT. Bummer, huh?

I don't care about homosexuality honestly.

he did say the ot was replaced.

check galatians 5.

Judaism is a different religion and that's fine.

what do you care, because you're a Zionist who just wants more senseless death?

 

[domer76]

I don't care about homosexuality honestly.

he did say the ot was replaced.

check galatians 5.

Judaism is a different religion and that's fine.

what do you care, because you're a Zionist who just wants more senseless death?

Galatians. That’s Paul’s letter, isn’t it? Paul, who never saw Jesus, heard Jesus, talked to Jesus or knew Jesus. Paul was the recruiter of gentiles, not Jesus.

Nope. No go, dude.

 

[Based Chad]

Galatians. That’s Paul’s letter, isn’t it? Paul, who never saw Jesus, heard Jesus, talked to Jesus or knew Jesus. Paul was the recruiter of gentiles, not Jesus.

Nope. No go, dude.

it is a go.

what does "entire law fulfilled in one command" mean to you?

 

[Cypress]

I don’t doubt they genuinely thought they saw him.

Very few reputable scholars will say that the apostles collectively conspired to fabricate the story.

Peter and James were willing to die for their belief. And they did.

Psychologists will tell you that people won't die for something they know is a lie.

Even the great atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges the apostles genuinely came to believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. Ehrman is agnostic as to the reason they believed that.

Joseph Smith also had witnesses.

What did they see? Golden plates? How hard is that to fabricate?
Joseph Smith was known to be a petty criminal. Joseph Smith's witnesses weren't willing to die for what they claimed to have seen. Finally, a lot of Smith's witnesses ultimately abandoned him, calling into question the credibility of the whole story.

I’ve had very vivid dreams of deceased family members. 2000 years ago they were called “visions”.

People in the Roman Empire weren't idiots. They knew the difference between hallucination and reality. If you read the gospel accounts, the disciples were initially skeptical and incredulous about rumours of a risen Christ.

If hallucinations are going to be the explanation, we will have to accept that all the disciples, the woman followers, and Jesus' brother all had the same hallucination. Possible. But a hard sell.

The most rational theory is that Jesus was gravely wounded and comatose on the cross, but didn't expire.

I believe Jesus merely meant the Hebrew world. His message was directed there.

Jesus' closest Jewish follower Peter agreed with Paul that the gospel was meant to be taken to the gentiles. The only debate was whether or not gentiles would have to be circumcised and be required to follow the ritual requirements and holiness codes of The Law.

 

[Based Chad]

Very few reputable scholars will say that the apostles collectively conspired to fabricate the story.

Peter and James were willing to die for their belief. And they did.

Psychologists will tell you that people won't die for something they know is a lie.

Even the great atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges the apostles genuinely came to believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. Ehrman is agnostic as to the reason they believed that.


What did they see? Golden plates? How hard is that to fabricate?
Joseph Smith was known to be a petty criminal. Joseph Smith's witnesses weren't willing to die for what they claimed to have seen. Finally, a lot of Smith's witnesses ultimately abandoned him, calling into question the credibility of the whole story.


People in the Roman Empire weren't idiots. They knew the difference between hallucination and reality. If you read the gospel accounts, the disciples were initially skeptical and incredulous about rumours of a risen Christ.

If hallucinations are going to be the explanation, we will have to accept that all the disciples, the woman followers, and Jesus' brother all had the same hallucination. Possible. But a hard sell.


Jesus' closest Jewish follower Peter agreed with Paul that the gospel was meant to be taken to the gentiles. The only debate was whether or not gentiles would have to be circumcised and be required to follow the ritual requirements and holiness codes of The Law.

it's not debatable.

read my sig.

galatians 5.

circumcision does not matter.

in fact. none of the Jew shit matters anymore except the one thing.

"be good" -- E.T. The extra terrestrial.

 

[domer76]

it is a go.

what does "entire law fulfilled in one command" mean to you?

Back to Galatians, huh? Paul’s words, not Christ’s.

You see, Paul preached an entirely different religion than Jesus. Paul’s was about the acceptance of the death and resurrection of Jesus as the means of salvation. Obviously, that wasn’t the religion of Jesus.

So, you’re trying to reference the religion ABOUT Jesus, not the religion OF Jesus.

 

[Based Chad]

Back to Galatians, huh? Paul’s words, not Christ’s.

You see, Paul preached an entirely different religion than Jesus. Paul’s was about the acceptance of the death and resurrection of Jesus as the means of salvation. Obviously, that wasn’t the religion of Jesus.

So, you’re trying to reference the religion ABOUT Jesus, not the religion OF Jesus.

don't we have to trust the disciples on all of this?

do you have the tapes?

The CHrist tapes?

is trump in them?

 

[Based Chad]

well know we all know domer is a big dumb Jew.

 

[domer76]

Very few reputable scholars will say that the apostles collectively conspired to fabricate the story.

Peter and James were willing to die for their belief. And they did.

Psychologists will tell you that people won't die for something they know is a lie.

Even the great atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman acknowledges the apostles genuinely came to believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. Ehrman is agnostic as to the reason they believed that.


What did they see? Golden plates? How hard is that to fabricate?
Joseph Smith was known to be a petty criminal. Joseph Smith's witnesses weren't willing to die for what they claimed to have seen. Finally, a lot of Smith's witnesses ultimately abandoned him, calling into question the credibility of the whole story.


People in the Roman Empire weren't idiots. They knew the difference between hallucination and reality. If you read the gospel accounts, the disciples were initially skeptical and incredulous about rumours of a risen Christ.

If hallucinations are going to be the explanation, we will have to accept that all the disciples, the woman followers, and Jesus' brother all had the same hallucination. Possible. But a hard sell.

The most rational theory is that Jesus was gravely wounded and comatose on the cross, but didn't expire.


Jesus' closest Jewish follower Peter agreed with Paul that the gospel was meant to be taken to the gentiles. The only debate was whether or not gentiles would have to be circumcised and be required to follow the ritual requirements and holiness codes of The Law.

I never claimed there was a conspiracy. Nor hallucinations. Too bad Peter and James had to die on an impossibility. Many people have visions that they can’t differentiate from reality. Not uncommon at all. Their willingness, or not, to die is no proof of the truthfullness of the event whatsoever.

That he was comatose and not dead after being crucified then speared only to survive and walk out of his tomb has ZERO rationality to it. The most rational is that the stories are merely not true.

Jesus never preached that his message was for the salvation of gentiles. He was an apocalyptic Jew. Period.

 

[domer76]

don't we have to trust the disciples on all of this?

do you have the tapes?

The CHrist tapes?

is trump in them?

Once again, Paul never saw Jesus, heard Jesus, met Jesus or talked with Jesus. “Because Paul said so” just doesn’t make the grade.