African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[Blake]

LOL "judging a book by it's cover..." you literally grabbed my opening phrase and closing phrase from that post and ignored everything else (the actual counter argument).

Just... STOP.

You're such a whiny

[mingus]

It seems you have no interest in answering questions at all. You asked me to be level, I was, and you couldn't answer simple questions then. The obvious conclusion is that you aren't worth bothering with, and are just here to act butthurt when someone says something you don't like.

Let me know when you decide to grow up a little. You seem intelligent enough to be worth talking to, if you would stop pouting and acting like a moody teenager.

I don't purposefully dodge questions. I can humbly admit--as I've done many times before--when I've made errors in reasoning, judgement, interpretation. It's simply that I don't have the time to get to respond to everything as quickly as I'd like, and by the time I have time, other things have grabbed hold of my interest.

If you typed something out directed at me, I must've missed it--can you c&p it? Thanks.

But, before you do, I should say, that this entire topic can never be discussed intelligently & honestly if people cannot do two things (which I'm not [currently] accusing you of): come to semantical agreements on definitions of certain words we use to describe religious (or non-religious) people (i.e. "stupid" or "ignorant"), and stop making sweeping prejudicial, condescending, hateful, deragatory and RELIGIOPHOBIC generalizations (i.e. All Jews/Christians are ______). I mean, it's no way to be civil, and it gets the discussion off-track and turns it into spitballing match. At that point, I'd rather just jerk off, watch t.v, or do something else, tbh. I deal with too many heads daily as it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The NT is a volume of works (27 Books)....

There are several fragments of the individual books that comprise the canon that date as early as the 2nd century (fragments from the Gospel of John from ~125 AD).

That the fragments match, content-wise, what is written in subsequent copies of those works IS my argument.

NOT the quan y of copies available (at least 48 different manuscripts before the 4th century)

NOT the fact that more copies exist after there was a formal establishment to preserve the written works (an obvious task for e enical councils starting in AD 381). Contextually, one would expect to find more copies from a period where Christian beliefs were no longer being persecuted but I guess you don't want to apply logic to that historical context.

Content fidelity HAS BEEN my argument since early in the thread but you keep trying to make it something that it is not. I'm not debating the merits of the content itself - for there I know you plainly reject the gospel message (every day and twice on Sunday). And you are en led to reject said message.

What I am arguing, however, is the merit of your accusation that the content itself was altered to characterize JESUS as something different than what HE himself claimed to be (fortuitously, the oldest known NT manuscript corresponds to the Gospel of John, the very book where JESUS explicitly claimed to be GOD)...

You still have not shown the gospels or the writings of 'Paul' from before the 4th century.

You started off by looking obviously. Your google sophistry gave you the septuagint and the torah so you posted that demonstrating very clearly you barely understand my argument. Now you come back with the fragments of what I assume are the Beatty collection as if that invalidates my point that Constantine and his cronies embellished and excluded when he made the Bible.

I don't deny Jesus existed. I just think the contrivances like the genealogy that the NT starts with are obvious. The context is the actual story of what jesus did without the miracles and who Constantine was and his background over 3.5 centuries later.

You can write multi paragraph diatribes complete with CAPS all you like. Jump up and down. Yell. Until you address my arguments head on you are not persuasive in the least.

[RandomGuy]

Which you are en led to believe, but when you then make sweeping statements that suggest that believers are intellectually handicapped / or intellectually dishonest with themselves, because your position is somehow full-proof and ours is faith-based - THAT is an arrogant argument. Your position requires elements of faith as well due to wholly unprovable 'origins' premises on which your core beliefs are founded.

Respectfully:
"fool-proof", not "full-proof"

[RandomGuy]

Which you are en led to believe, but when you then make sweeping statements that suggest that believers are intellectually handicapped / or intellectually dishonest with themselves, because your position is somehow full-proof and ours is faith-based - THAT is an arrogant argument. Your position requires elements of faith as well due to wholly unprovable 'origins' premises on which your core beliefs are founded.

I am not saying all believers are being intellectually dishonest. You are, but not all believers.

I gave you the chance to speak the truth. You declined every single time, dodging honest, fair questions. Yes, mental anguish is harmful. Yes, drowning babies is, by any reasonable definition, evil. The great flood, if it were a real event would have drowned tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of babies. Ordering your followers to hack children to death is also evil.

You have misrepresented my viewpoint by misstating it repeatedly, despite being corrected.

The principles of intellectual honesty require one to speak the truth when one knows the truth. Either you are being dishonest, or you truly don't know that hacking parents to death in front of their children, then hacking children to death is evil.

I will always be more moral than the God of the bible. Another example, if you really want to get back to the OP I would never say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

The people in the OP appear to be more true to the instructions in the bible than Western Christians. If your only moral guide is the bible, there should be nothing wrong with killing people judged to be witches.

You will now attempt to say "that is not the right interpretation" in some way, as if there is some right interpretation of the words. There are literally thousands of different interpretations of this book, one for each denomination. You choose the one that let's you keep lying to yourself that the thing you worship isn't really evil, and wouldn't really tell people to do morally abhorrent things. Go ahead. Give me the spin.

[Phenomanul]

I am not saying all believers are being intellectually dishonest. You are, but not all believers.

I gave you the chance to speak the truth. You declined every single time, dodging honest, fair questions. Yes, mental anguish is harmful. Yes, drowning babies is, by any reasonable definition, evil. The great flood, if it were a real event would have drowned tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of babies. Ordering your followers to hack children to death is also evil.

You have misrepresented my viewpoint by misstating it repeatedly, despite being corrected.

The principles of intellectual honesty require one to speak the truth when one knows the truth. Either you are being dishonest, or you truly don't know that hacking parents to death in front of their children, then hacking children to death is evil.

I will always be more moral than the God of the bible. Another example, if you really want to get back to the OP I would never say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

The people in the OP appear to be more true to the instructions in the bible than Western Christians. If your only moral guide is the bible, there should be nothing wrong with killing people judged to be witches.

You will now attempt to say "that is not the right interpretation" in some way, as if there is some right interpretation of the words. There are literally thousands of different interpretations of this book, one for each denomination. You choose the one that let's you keep lying to yourself that the thing you worship isn't really evil, and wouldn't really tell people to do morally abhorrent things. Go ahead. Give me the spin.

That is where you err.

You've never wanted to understand the context of covenants (even when I've explained them to you). The old covenant through Mosaic law and the new covenant through JESUS' grace mark a shift in how GOD relates to humanity. AND a shift in how the law applies to us today. But you don't want to hear any of it. It's never suited that entrenched position of yours because you would rather lazily throw out the 'baby with the bathwater' than accept an explanation of any kind.

When your position is that GOD rescuing children from ETERNAL death is evil - despite whatever "mental anguish" is suffered by them (or any of us today when we perish and die)... THEN we've nothing else to discuss. I accepted your position but told you I didn't agree with it. Again, since you don't understand the context of eternity - nor do you wish to, because it is opposite of what you believe THEN it won't ever make any sense to you (and rather than state your position on that front I'll let you refute a simple yes/no question [your favorite kind] - do you believe humans have an eternal spirit..?)

You've entrenched yourself in the position that if the GOD of the Bible exists THEN He is inherently evil - because you don't understand the context of eternity, the context of death, the context of salvation or the context of redemption. Much less, how all that is related to JESUS' work on the cross.

I gave you my position, my viewpoint. We disagree. But for you to suggest that I'm being intellectually dishonest BECAUSE we disagree, is just arrogant and condescending.

AND don't think I'll let it slide. You've stated your atheistic position on this forum on several occasions.
Your belief in Naturalistic origins.
Your belief that there is no need for a Creator.

For you to deflect with:

"I see no good reasons to accept your position. That's it."

- as your position in any 'GOD related' argument... Is nothing more than a redirect. An attempt to suggest that somehow I've mischaracterized you. And because somehow I've mischaracterized you then somehow my understanding of your argument is flawed. It is not. Let me simplify it for you.

I believe in an Eternal GOD

I believe in a Creator (of the universe / time / space / life).

I believe that JESUS is Christ, our redeemer.

I believe that HE has revealed His message of redemption through the preserved works of the Bible.

I believe that JESUS offers redemption by acknowledging Him as the Son of GOD, LORD and Savior.

I believe that JESUS is "the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE," and that no one has access to GOD the Father except through Him.

I believe in eternal life.

YOU DON'T believe any of those clauses.

So again, how have I mischaracterized your position?

You said,

I gave you the chance to speak the truth. You declined every single time[/B], dodging honest, fair questions.

I didn't decline or dodge. I gave you my answers. You simply refused to accept them as such because they are diametrically opposed to your viewpoint.

For you to continue to insist that you are "morally superior to the GOD of the bible" is extremely laughable from my position - but you can go on believing that if you wish.

I stated that such a position is blatantly inconsistent with your do ented position in the defense of abortion. You called it a strawman. But it is relevant. Kind of like Obama shedding crocodile tears for children that die due to "lack of gun control" on one hand but then personally ratifying the practice of late term abortions on the other. It's a glaring inconsistency in philosophy.

IF your stated position was that you'd never "kill any babies... ZERO" then you wouldn't defend the practice of "killing babies" at all... especially when they are at their most vulnerable state. Not a strawman at all. I'm simply showing that your argument of 'superior morality' is full of holes.

Spin that. But yes... Go on living with your finitely superior morality.

[Phenomanul]

Respectfully:
"fool-proof", not "full-proof"

clad-proof is what I had originally written... but ok.

[Blake]

Flip flopping God kills kids. Pretty evil by any standard.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't decline or dodge. I gave you my answers. You simply refused to accept them as such because they are diametrically opposed to your viewpoint.

You did not directly, honestly answer the questions posed to you, and deferred to answering the questions you made up for yourself to answer. That is the definition of disingenuous.

dis·in·gen·u·ous
ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/
adjective
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

[RandomGuy]

When your position is that GOD rescuing children from ETERNAL death is evil - despite whatever "mental anguish" is suffered by them (or any of us today when we perish and die)... THEN we've nothing else to discuss. I accepted your position but told you I didn't agree with it. Again, since you don't understand the context of eternity - nor do you wish to, because it is opposite of what you believe THEN it won't ever make any sense to you (and rather than state your position on that front I'll let you refute a simple yes/no question [your favorite kind] - do you believe humans have an eternal spirit..?)

I fully understand the concept of eternity. That makes your case even worse.

Infinite torture ( ) for a finite sin is a moral abomination. It is punishment out of all scale to the crime. It is akin to skinning someone alive for jaywalking.

You can't point to avoiding infinite torture as a justification for evil and then pretend infinite torture is somehow not itself evil. You don't get to have it both ways.

That you don't seem to grasp the rank hypocrisy of "well, its ok to hack babies to death, because it saves them from infinite torture" sort of shocks the conscience.

How do YOU tell right from wrong?

[RandomGuy]

There is no "except that". You fail to acknowledge even the most rudimentary form of the logic you are attempting to use.

Either the logic operates that way or it doesn't.

X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an recorded event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.

Is this true in all cases? Yes or no will do. A "why or why not" might also be helpful.

The problem with absolutes is that it is devoid of context...

Dodge, non-answer.

[RandomGuy]

Perhaps a re-phrasing is in order.

Is it possible that an account of an event about a real person in a real place can be completely made up? Again yes or no is all that is needed here.

Yes. Its entirely possible.

Not a dodge. I guess I was wrong. You did truthfully answer ONE question at least. My apologies.

[RandomGuy]

For you to continue to insist that you are "morally superior to the GOD of the bible" is extremely laughable from my position - but you can go on believing that if you wish.

I stated that such a position is blatantly inconsistent with your do ented position in the defense of abortion. You called it a strawman. But it is relevant. Kind of like Obama shedding crocodile tears for children that die due to "lack of gun control" on one hand but then personally ratifying the practice of late term abortions on the other. It's a glaring inconsistency in philosophy.

IF your stated position was that you'd never "kill any babies... ZERO" then you wouldn't defend the practice of "killing babies" at all... especially when they are at their most vulnerable state. Not a strawman at all. I'm simply showing that your argument of 'superior morality' is full of holes.

Spin that. But yes... Go on living with your finitely superior morality.

(sighs)

If that is your go-to argument, let's examine that too.

I have never performed an abortion, or asked any woman to have one.
Bible God directly killed babies through drowning, and ordered other to do so.

If you define abortion as "killing babies", and killing babies is evil, who is more moral using your own definition? Who has killed more babies, me or God?

[Phenomanul]

You did not directly, honestly answer the questions posed to you, and deferred to answering the questions you made up for yourself to answer. That is the definition of disingenuous.

That you don't agree with my answers doesn't mean. 1) that I didn't answer them directly or 2) that I didn't answer them honestly.

You assume too much. You twist everything to suit yourself.

[Phenomanul]

I fully understand the concept of eternity. That makes your case even worse.

Infinite torture ( ) for a finite sin is a moral abomination. It is punishment out of all scale to the crime. It is akin to skinning someone alive for jaywalking.

You can't point to avoiding infinite torture as a justification for evil and then pretend infinite torture is somehow not itself evil. You don't get to have it both ways.

That you don't seem to grasp the rank hypocrisy of "well, its ok to hack babies to death, because it saves them from infinite torture" sort of shocks the conscience.

How do YOU tell right from wrong?

Oh please spare me your self-righteous perversion. Deflect yet again.

You know that Christians believe in GOD, you know of GOD, but you don't believe in His existence.

You know that Christians believe in Satan, you know of Satan, but you don't believe in his existence.

Likewise you know Christians believe in the concept of eternity, but you don't believe in eternity.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. (and you didn't directly answer my question - but I don't get all hissy about it like you do).

More importantly you don't believe in any of the other clauses (tenets) I listed in the previous post. So again, how am I mischaracterizing you (specifically as it pertains to 'your atheistic position'?

What part of babies ALL belong to GOD don't you understand?

Let me explain (in the context of eternity):

When children die before they understand the concept of good and evil / right and wrong. Because they belong to GOD, through JESUS' act of redemptive grace, they go to heaven.

When adults die that DO understand the concept of good and evil / right and wrong, THEN their own actions condemns them to an eternity away from GOD. THEY do that themselves. THEY rejected GOD on their own terms.

Some "finite sin" isn't the cause for condemnation to --> rejecting GOD is.

But thanks for showing your ignorance of our beliefs. And then using that ignorance to berate the beliefs themselves. That's what makes this all frustrating. You trying to reinterpret tenets you don't even believe in or subscribe to, but then rejecting explanations of the concepts themselves from ACTUAL adherents.

[Phenomanul]

Dodge, non-answer.

Again, not really an answer. It is indeed a simplification of sorts, but I will assert that it is still useful to outline a general and quite important principle.

Perhaps a re-phrasing is in order.

Is it possible that an account of an event about a real person in a real place can be completely made up? Again yes or no is all that is needed here.

Yes. Its entirely possible.

That's why the multiple - wholly independent references - paint the overarching picture of Jesus' existence - and what he was up to.

Again, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, a Roman elected governor - wrote concerning Jesus and his miraculous acts. It's a secular work, historical annals - completely independent of the authors of the Gospels... yet it supports the basic premise of Jesus' extraordinary life.

The other historical writers witnessed an "unnatural" blacking out of the sun for several hours DESPITE not being present in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. They knew those were very real events that other people had also seen - and no one questioned the events themselves - because they too were witnesses of the phenomena despite not knowing what was causing them.

The catch (the connection to the crucifixion) is that the times match those as written in the Gospels to a "T". From "the 6th to the 9th hour darkness covered all the land."

No astronomical event that we know of is capable of producing this phenomena.

I answered your question. Your methods are tiring.

[Phenomanul]

(sighs)

If that is your go-to argument, let's examine that too.

I have never performed an abortion, or asked any woman to have one.
Bible God directly killed babies through drowning, and ordered other to do so.

If you define abortion as "killing babies", and killing babies is evil, who is more moral using your own definition? Who has killed more babies, me or God?

Such a sophist deduction. Morality is not defined solely or exclusively by what we do (actions) but what we believe in. You defending the practice of abortion is tantamount to performing it yourself. According to JESUS, if I hated you that would be tantamount to murder. If I lusted after someone else's wife that would be tantamount to adultery.

For the last time however, there are no babies in . They are all with GOD.

You've yet to grasp the Christian understanding of death - as you keep wanting to focus on the process itself rather than the doorway it represents.

But go ahead and keep redefining your question. Keep framing it up so that you finally get the answer you want.

"yes you are morally superior to GOD"

Again, believe what you want. No one is stopping you.

[Phenomanul]

We're done RG.

I've no desire to Tango in this years-long pissing match any further... Can't you just leave it at that...? Our world perspectives clash On EVERY freaking issue. We will always disagree... On everything and anything pertaining to the GOD question...

[Blake]

We're done RG.

I've no desire to Tango in this years-long pissing match any further... Can't you just leave it at that...? Our world perspectives clash On EVERY freaking issue. We will always disagree... On everything and anything pertaining to the GOD question...

Lol pussy. You dodged his baby death question.

Bible God says "though shalt not kill" but does it himself over trivial things like calling someone "baldy"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

RandomGuy Just take heart in the fact that Phenomanul ran like a from my argument. He wants you to spend a whole lot of time on your posts.

I like his current excuse that it doesn't matter what God does to babies because he sends them to heaven.

[Quetzal-X]

Will the pedophiles you good christians turn a blind eye to, be enjoying eternal paradise in christian Heaven after repenting? Its alll good according to the rules, yes?

There are so ing many child rapers amongst your followers and undeniably amongst the leadership, why dont the so-called Real/Good christians call them out ?

[Phenomanul]

You still have not shown the gospels or the writings of 'Paul' from before the 4th century.

You started off by looking obviously. Your google sophistry gave you the septuagint and the torah so you posted that demonstrating very clearly you barely understand my argument. Now you come back with the fragments of what I assume are the Beatty collection as if that invalidates my point that Constantine and his cronies embellished and excluded when he made the Bible.

I don't deny Jesus existed. I just think the contrivances like the genealogy that the NT starts with are obvious. The context is the actual story of what jesus did without the miracles and who Constantine was and his background over 3.5 centuries later.

You can write multi paragraph diatribes complete with CAPS all you like. Jump up and down. Yell. Until you address my arguments head on you are not persuasive in the least.

no caps for your enjoyment…

you can deflect all you want but there are at least 48 manuscripts of known nt works written before the 4th century that exist today in multiple collections around the world. if you want to find them look them up yourself or go museum hopping (your argument that unless i provide them to you - then “they don’t exist” is garbage). more of these manuscripts would exist except that prior to constantine’s arrival on the scene, the church was highly persecuted – its believers killed, their writings burned and destroyed. i know you will gloss over that critical dynamic yet again… because it suits you… who is ignorant of context…? who claims to seek only truth…? ummm yeah whatever…

oooooh but wait… your position is a meandering one and you are doing whatever is needed to frame up your position as one of scholarly authority – when it’s anything but:

you started off with a narrative of claims (that you’ve yet to legitimize with any shred of evidence). i’ll place numbers by each or your unsubstantiated claims just to show you how speculative your entire argument was from the get-go.

What does jihadi tradition derive from?

The first Hadith came about in the 8th century well after Mohammed, Abu and the rest were dead. Their prophet forbid it explicitly.

(1) Constantine made christianity into his own image. the first few chapters of the NT.

(2) Joseph was a refugee from Herod. (3) Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo. When Herod dies, they return. (4) Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him and he was a social outcast. He would not have been able to work or marry in his village. (5) He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city. (6) When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.

Now compare and contrast with the version that comes out of Nicaea in the 4th century: Joseph flees because Herod is coming after him. A angel appears and says God knocked mary up. Angel says that he is to return. Nativity story of great men bringing expensive gifts. John declares Jesus leader from the outset of their meeting. Simon and Peter bow down to him immediately.

If you cannot see how that story was contrived to appeal to Thracian dynastic elites then you aren't paying attention.

I don't 'hate' anything other than the people that hurt those I love. I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.

It's the second time I read your simplified (practical) take on Jesus... However, it's a pretty convenient, contrived and twisted narrative that you have to lean on in order to believe all that - just for the sake of rejecting the accepted narrative. But yeah... you read it in a book somewhere so it must be true.

Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

Jesus himself proclaimed himself the Son of Man in the Gospel of John, and even told the masses that it was He whom the prophet Isaiah saw sitting on the throne in his vision of Isaiah 6 (in other words that HE was GOD himself).

It's fine that you believe what you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

you later posted this:

I translate most of the OT in terms of former Egyptian slaves and the slavemaster dynamic that we know existed in Ptolemaic Egypt from which they escaped. The slavemasters were also the priests and the ones who could write. Marking the stalls of slaves for various purposes would have been common and the notion of passover has a much more sinister air. Passover from sacrifice to the Ptolemaic gods would have been a very cathartic experience. Fear of death will do that to you.

I think the priest class simply transplanted the ideals and social controls. You can find much of the flood and creation nonsense in the Ptolemaic scrolls that have been recovered from all over Egypt. Moses being trained by the pharoahs but not really one of them would have been very convenient lie for an escaping priest. Ideas of race and other were almost complete back then as opposed to the enlightenment of today. It puts the story of Abraham and Isaac in a much different light when its not God but instead a priest speaking on the behalf of God in the story. It also makes sense. STring him out and then ultimately relent, oh God is merciful! It also speaks to a priest that feared reprisal and couldn't follow through. Pharoah wasn't there any more.

(7) When Christianity is termed a slave's religion, I mean it literally.

which is filled with more speculative assertions of your opinion – but you keep trying to pass it off as truth – basically saying moses made it all up.

and then this:

'God' is asking Isaac to sacrifice his son for salvation.

(8) Jesus overturns dovecotes and harrangues the pharisees practicing leviticus for demanding sacrifice for salvation.

Aristotle said something along the lines of an enlightened mind can entertain a notion without having to accept it. Your behavior smacks of fear.

(9) You do understand that your Holy Book was put together by men named Constantine, Cyril, and Nestor? Your God did not make that book. Men did.

If you could restate my points and actually argue on merit I wouldn't treat you as I do. You are doing the veritable holding your hands over your ears and screaming. I address your counter narrative of the Holy Spirit driving all this directly. I give you the same respect I ask for.

If you don't want to argue then great but tossing insults at me and only that is not going to presenting the case that you want.

just more assertions after assertion (read as opinion after opinion) with no evidence whatsoever…

I'm aware that new prophets would come along and make a new set of rules. That was the entire point I was making regarding the last prophet according to you christians. You do believe in what jesus preached and tried to do right?

If that is the case outside of the resurrection story and get into heaven free card that you guys like to fixate on the most significant thing he did was overturn the dovecotes and moneychangers table. (10) That is what gave the pharisees probable cause with the romans to go after Jesus. He took off to Galilee and the country side. He preaches a lot is betrayed and captured. (11)It's Roman property law over wrecking the temple that sees him crucified.

(12) That is the story that took over the mediterranean. That and him telling everyone to give up judgment and find absolution through him. He goes on about having to go through a rebirth.

Don't try that context line with me. I actually know the context far better than most. I was raised in a literalist Biblical tradition. I've studied the history, anthropology, sociology and history of the region. I can talk about the political, technological, and scoiological mindset of the times. I've read some of the Giza scrolls. I've read histories of antiquity like herodotus and cicero. I've sifted through archaeological and historical information from Babylon and Persia. All I do is talk about context.

You know about Egyptian history? Pharaoh stayed in Memphis, the north, until about 3000 BC. The ritual sacrifice was a big part of the move. They for example would sacrifice all of pharaohs retainers on his death prior to the move the Thebes. Once in Theebs they would instead build statues terracotta army style. The stuff in the early old testament reads very similar to the stories and laws that they took out of Giza. If the Exodus story has any basis in reality then this is the time period in question. That's why I say 6000 years because that is where these stories originate from.

Also pulled out of Giza were declarations, astrologies, census and laws that read like genesis leviticus deuteronomy and numbers complete with slaving and doomsaying. Now I get as you move on with Daniel and some others that magic and what not is forbidden. I look at it as social progress in that region from about 6000 BC til the time Jesus would have been around. The Egyptian builder/priest class was very methodical though. They kept track of families and who was sacrificed and what body parts.

When I read the story of abraham I cannot help but think of priests declaring that someone had to die for some body part out on the pyramids. What I take from Abrahams story is that god will never ask anything of me like that because he's not an asshole. This is very similar to the ethic I take from Jesus story of not having to pay animal sacrifice or coin for absolution because God is not an asshole. When I read Jesus say to keep the lessons of Abraham and the various covenants as you term it, I hear him saying keep the freedoms we already won before.

I'm not going to get into miracles and whether or not Jesus 'revealed himself' to the two Mary's then his disciples and brother but by the time 'Paul' is on the road seeing him, I'm not buying it. Reading through his and the subjugation, proscriptions for beatings, and all manner of malfeasance I reject those books categorically as trash.

You have studied the early church and the nestorians, aesthetics, and the various factions that emerged? I always respected the guys like Saint Matthew and Augustine who actually tried to live the pure ethic that Jesus preached with his ritual bathing. Not so much the thought police of the Paulines that set themselves up as Bishops in Rome and Alexandria. Notice how there is no book in the Bible to the Alexandrians? That was because you didn't disagree with Cyril, Philip or any of the lectors because they would burn you out.

By the time that Constantine is in the picture, there are churches set up in every mediterranean. They have two councils. The first is to define the nature of Jesus. They deify him completely and then sick Peter the lector and those monks after the guys who disagreed. This began the whole excommunication thing. (13) Then they had the second council where they took the torah, the gospels. a bunch of sales guides from early church leaders whose opinions the Romans liked which are no more valid then what you and I are talking about today then the prophecy that predicted Jesus appearance to corroborate the stuff in John and called it the word of God. You know the lengths they went to in terms of what types of thoughts were allowed back then right? Heresy laws and such?

(14) Much of the New Testament is so contrived as to be upsetting. The genealogy it starts off with irritates me from the go. For the Jesus story to make any sense, he has to be a bas outside the social order of Nazareth. If he's not then he is the son of a builder and goes to work with his father. His disdain for the pharisees actually makes sense if that geneology is not true. Nevermind that God was the one it says knocked up Mary to gloss over any uncertainty.

At least the Gospels have words and acts attributed to Jesus. I like some of the stories of the OT. I even practice many of the ethics contained therein. I just don't believe any of it is divinely inspired. It's been the tool of despots.

more opinions.

btw… moral relativity is the tool of despots too… I’m pretty sure stalin wasn’t a christian… nor mao zedong… nor kim jung-il… but don’t let that stop you from hating and singling out believing christians…

also, a virginal birth for the messiah was foretold in micah hundreds of years before jesus’ birth. so somehow his virginal birth is a fantasy made up by councils operating in the 4th century…? (that you would just say… “oh yeah, god knocked mary up – that’s a tiny problem they had to fix”)

for someone that claims to study history your temporal qualms with the piecing together of ‘the jesus story’ is largely based on detractions that your heart already subscribes to. gnostics and their writings have been around for centuries. your reservations of disbelief in jesus’ deity are no different. you seem to believe only the writings which already affirm your position. to then claim you fact check and seek only truth is baloney. you only validate what justifies your disbelief – anything else - you dismiss, repudiate and throw out the window.

My intent is to uncover the truth. That is why I look to actual written records and the like. Prior to the founding of Jerusalem, the pharaohs could raid and capture slaves with impunity in Canaan as you term it. Jerusalem's founding around 6000 BC would have given cover for escaping slaves. Babylon and Ur are getting conquered every other generation it seems from their records during this time period. Alcohol had spread from the East a couple thousand years before.

You talk of context and how others don't understand. You don't argue any of what I say, I actually fact check myself on this. I'm giving you the real context. Truth. Reality.

Pharaoh is central in the Exodus story. What pharaoh did in reality in 4000 BC is important and back then he was still killing all of his retainers. They built large burial complexes to house them pretty famously. In this context the raised slave to serve the pharaoh has a completely different dynamic.

When I read the account of the passover where Moses marks in blood the houses that will be spared from plague and imagine how the priest class would have chosen out the families that would have to sacrifice a member and how they would have used writing technology for social control. I read their scrolls where they keep track of the family lines and where they live. Which would be more meaningful: marking the houses of those that will be making the sacrifice or those that will be spared. From a social control position marking out the special class for passover just fits perfectly. Isn't god merciful?

The priests were deliberate. They thought different body parts did different things and kept track of it and where it came from. They built a system of dams to hold the nile from memphis then they built wonders that remain to this day. These are the same men that built the pyramids with said slave labor. When the building stopped and they went to do their auguries and such it must have been terrifying to be a slave. Are you going to be the one yanked out and gibbed in front of everyone on the hill over there where pharaoh set up shop? You've heard accounts of slave masters in the 19th century and before in US history. That's your context. Escape meant being chased down by chariots and gibbed. Moses left seeking freedom but he held to slave traditions nonetheless.

As I've pointed out the slavers morality which is Leviticus Deuteronomy and Numbers are of those traditions. Tracking the families for tribute/sacrifice in numbers. Lists of laws that require blood sacrifice and sets conditions for acceptable slavery. Proscriptions about food, sex, and lifestyle. It's all a common factor in those books from the Bible and the pharaohs scrolls pulled out of Giza. It is what it is.

then we get to this:

You do recognize that between 370 and 700 AD there were 7 councils that codified what you are talking about and that were enforced by the Roman Empire in the form of heresy laws? The trinity, the dual wills, the nature of the covenant and all the canon you spout was decided then by men.

E enial councils. Declared infallible and enforced on pain of death. he. Absolution for cash. Bible. Trinity. Banned monotheism for their triumvirate. Excommunication.

Nevermind that they were completely ineffective and almost lost the world to the Ayyubids and Uyyabids. Might as well be catholic if youre going to subscribe to that stuff.

at which point the picture that you wanted to paint that the nt message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the gospel message in higher regard? because it suits you. it’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. your only proof are do ents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said do ents.

so we get to a point where you keep suggesting that the content of the early writings is altered to paint jesus as something other than what he claimed to be, yet you keep moving the goal posts:

i say "early writings in ot point to jesus"

you say "ot writings were also contrived"

i say "but versions that predate jesus say same exact thing today as they did before jesus exist"

you say "ot writings don't matter nt writings were altered by e enical councils throughout the centuries the nt itself was created after the 4th century"

i say “there are nt works from before the 4th century that exist…”

you respond, “editions of the nt surfaced after the 4th century – I can prove it – that’s why the message is contrived…” (paraphrasing)

i say “the works which comprise the nt canon were written before the 4th century – they exist” content fidelity being my point.

your rebuttal: "they're obvious forgeries..." (your next goal post) --> [as if i can go and find them for you... (ahem Rylands collection)].

i say “where’s ur proof of that?”

you answer, “but, but, but… find paul’s writings before the 4th century…”

the gospels affirm jesus’ deity. pauline doctrine isn’t needed to convey the gospel message. again the book of hebrews suffices for that.

your next logical goal post: "but their content is _________..." (i.e. 'but but but...')

clearly... you don't believe in the gospel message. you beat your chest with arrogance and cast derailing accusations left and right any argument that doesn't jive with your position you immediately discard.

you are condescending... why would i even want to continue discussing anything with you?

to then claim i ran off… scoffff! if it makes u feel any better i wont respond to your rebuttal of this post. you can dance and gloat in the victory… much like you did above. go ahead feel smarter, more intelligent. what do i care…? you’ve made it perfectly clear what your motive is in this thread – to feel better about your own position.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can teach children to believe most anything. That is the issue with faith: it's used to prey on the weak and innocent.

The Gospels talks of knowing God through Jesus and the truth setting you free. I get that you have to abandon such principles to make Constantine and the early church's vision of the Bible work but I personally would rather give up the church and make those principles stand. Jesus fought for freedom from the Pharisees who were trading material works for spiritual salvation and was killed for it.

I can learn from that but what I learn has me reject the modern Christian denominations including that early 4th century church. That is what I 'believe.'

[FuzzyLumpkins]

no caps for your enjoyment…

you can deflect all you want but there are at least 48 manuscripts of known nt works written before the 4th century that exist today in multiple collections around the world. if you want to find them look them up yourself or go museum hopping (your argument that unless i provide them to you - then “they don’t exist” is garbage). more of these manuscripts would exist except that prior to constantine’s arrival on the scene, the church was highly persecuted – its believers killed, their writings burned and destroyed. i know you will gloss over that critical dynamic yet again… because it suits you… who is ignorant of context…? who claims to seek only truth…? ummm yeah whatever…

oooooh but wait… your position is a meandering one and you are doing whatever is needed to frame up your position as one of scholarly authority – when it’s anything but:

you started off with a narrative of claims (that you’ve yet to legitimize with any shred of evidence). i’ll place numbers by each or your unsubstantiated claims just to show you how speculative your entire argument was from the get-go.



you later posted this:



which is filled with more speculative assertions of your opinion – but you keep trying to pass it off as truth – basically saying moses made it all up.

and then this:



just more assertions after assertion (read as opinion after opinion) with no evidence whatsoever…



more opinions.

btw… moral relativity is the tool of despots too… I’m pretty sure stalin wasn’t a christian… nor mao Zedong… nor kim jung-il… but don’t let that stop you from hating and singling out believing christians…

also, a virginal birth for the messiah was foretold in micah hundreds of years before jesus’ birth. so somehow his virginal birth is a fantasy made up by councils operating in the 4th century…? (that you would just say… “oh yeah, god knocked mary up – that’s a tiny problem they had to fix”)

for someone that claims to study history your temporal qualms with the piecing together of ‘the jesus story’ is largely based on detractions that your heart already subscribes to. gnostics and their writings have been around for centuries. your reservations of disbelief in jesus’ deity are no different. you seem to believe only the writings which already affirm your position. to then claim you fact check and seek only truth is baloney. you only validate what justifies your disbelief – anything else - you dismiss, repudiate and throw out the window.



then we get to this:



at which point the picture that you wanted to paint that the nt message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the gospel message in higher regard? because it suits you. it’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. your only proof are do ents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said do ents.

so we get to a point where you keep suggesting that the content of the early writings is altered to paint jesus as something other than what he claimed to be, yet you keep moving the goal posts:

i say “there are nt works from before the 4th century that exist…”

you respond, “editions of the nt surfaced after the 4th century – I can prove it – that’s why the message is contrived…” (paraphrasing)

i say “the works which comprise the nt canon were written before the 4th century – they exist” content fidelity being my point.

your rebuttal: "they're obvious forgeries..." (your next goal post) --> [as if i can go and find them for you... (ahem Rylands collection)].

i say “where’s ur proof of that?”

you answer, “but, but, but… find paul’s writings before the 4th century…”

the gospels affirm jesus’ deity. pauline doctrine isn’t needed to convey the gospel message. again the book of hebrews suffices for that.

your next logical goal post: "but their content is _________..." (i.e. 'but but but...')

clearly... you don't believe in the gospel message. you beat your chest with arrogance and cast derailing accusations left and right any argument that doesn't jive with your position you immediately discard.
you are condescending... why would i even want to continue discussing anything with you?

to then claim i ran off… scoffff! if it makes u feel any better i wont respond to your rebuttal of this post. you can dance and gloat in the victory… much like you did above. go ahead feel smarter, more intelligent. what do i care…? you’ve made it perfectly clear what your motive is in this thread – to feel better about your own position.

I never said it was entirely contrived. You never directly address anything I say. You claim it's an assertion and move on. Absolute certainty is a waste of time in holistic analysis. Your inability to deny is what is telling. I don't think like you but I can anticipate your 'mind.' You repeat it enough ad nauseum.

You don't want to answer it because then we would actually have to look at the source of the earlier texts, how the differ from and what the include/don't include as opposed to the Constantine Bible. I imagine your google sophistry took you places you didn't want to see.

You also should acknowledge the book burnings and behaviors of the lectors following Christianity being made a state religion. That is important context to what their policy and motive was. The burning of the library at Alexandria and the book burnings in Rome. Heresy laws that required compliance to the Bible that lasted until Aquinas and his concept of natural law as opposed to divine law following the Reconquista near 1000 years later.

[Quetzal-X]

Will the pedophiles you good christians turn a blind eye to, be enjoying eternal paradise in christian Heaven after repenting? Its alll good according to the rules, yes?

There are so ing many child rapers amongst your followers and undeniably amongst the leadership, why dont the so-called Real/Good christians call them out ?