The portrayal of the Apostles as stupid men who never understood anything is in sharp contrast...

[Blackrook]

...to the portrayal of historical figures in every secular context.

The Communist leaders were portrayed by their propaganda as heroic men who never made a mistake.

The Nazis portrayed their leaders as something like Norse gods.

Even the American founding fathers are portrayed in a positive light by our historians, who gloss over the unpleasant bits.

But the Apostles are portrayed as simple and stupid men, never understanding Jesus' words, often angering him off with their cowardice and lack of faith, and ultimately all but one of them abandoned him on the day he was crucified, and their leader Peter denied Jesus three times.

After Christ rose from the dead, the Apostles still hid like cowards, afraid to face the Jews. Thomas declared he didn't believe in the Resurrection, until he came and proved it.

Now some may argue that the whole point of the exercise is to boost up Jesus by making the men around him look bad.

But the Apostles knew that this portrayal of them would be what was remembered about them, and they allowed it when they could have done otherwise. They told the truth about their stupidity and cowardice, and because of that we see them as the imperfect humans they were.

What am I trying to say?

I'm saying, the Gospels are unvarnished truth. Nobody made the effort to make the Apostles look like heroes, when they weren't. They were chosen to found Christ's new Church, but they were, at first, woefully inadequate for the task. Only after the Pentecost, when they were filled with the Holy Spirit, did they start acting like men and go out into the world to preach the good news.

And -- this is important, every Apostle but John died rather than renounce his faith. Each of them could have saved himself -- saying -- it was all a lie. But they did not save themselves. The believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and they died rather than renounce that truth.

What it means is even the most craven coward can be turned into a hero, if filled with faith and hope for salvation.

All of us Christians face tests in our own lives. Our choice is less stark, we will not die if we hold to our faith. But the test of this world is to hold to faith when all the distractions and luxuries of our world make us believe that faith is not all that important. We have things too good -- and that is a test more challenging than the threat of death.

 

[sparky]

What am I trying to say?

I'm saying, the Gospels are unvarnished truth. Nobody made the effort to make the Apostles look like heroes, when they weren't. They were chosen to found Christ's new Church, but they were, at first, woefully inadequate for the task. Only after the Pentecost, when they were filled with the Holy Spirit, did they start acting like men and go out into the world to preach the good news.

they had to hoof it>>>

~S~

 

[JoeB131]

...to the portrayal of historical figures in every secular context.

The Communist leaders were portrayed by their propaganda as heroic men who never made a mistake.

The Nazis portrayed their leaders as something like Norse gods.

Even the American founding fathers are portrayed in a positive light by our historians, who gloss over the unpleasant bits.

Um, yeah, consider that a bit. People make shit up to serve their agenda. For instance, Trotsky was lionized early in the revolution, but was demonized after Stalin won their power struggle. Stalin and Mao regularly erased people from the historical record (or tried to) when they no longer served a purpose.

But the Apostles are portrayed as simple and stupid men, never understanding Jesus' words, often angering him off with their cowardice and lack of faith, and ultimately all but one of them abandoned him on the day he was crucified, and their leader Peter denied Jesus three times.

Which is what makes the stories less than believable. These same guys who keep watching Jesus perform Miracle after Miracle STILL doubt him. That makes them come off more as literary devices than actual people.

And -- this is important, every Apostle but John died rather than renounce his faith. Each of them could have saved himself -- saying -- it was all a lie. But they did not save themselves. The believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and they died rather than renounce that truth.

Actually, that's not true, either. In fact, the Bible only records the deaths of two apostles. Judas, who killed himself, and James, who was executed by Herod Agrippa for sedition, not for having the wrong faith.

The "Martyrdom" stories for the other 10 aren't canonical. They are more Church Traditions that vary from Church to Church.

Also- final point. The Gospels themselves can't even agree on who the apostles were.

The Synaptic Gospels mention Thaddeus and Bartholomew, while the Gospel of John (the one responsible for most of the anti-Semitism that survives to this very day) mention Jude and Nathaniel. The Church does some fancy footwork to claim these are the same guys. Matthew and Luke disagree if Matthew was named Levi or Matthew.

John, in fact, only names 7 Apostles, and two of those names disagree with the names in Luke and Matthew.

Also, if Matthew (the Gospel writer) was one of the original 12, why did he have to copy so much from Mark, who never met Jesus.... I mean, he was there, right?

I'm saying, the Gospels are unvarnished truth.

Then why do they contradict each other on so many key points? The names of the apostles, when Jesus was born, who was there when they found the empty tomb, Matthews crazy stories about the saints coming back to life that no one else mentioned. (Seriously, an outbreak of Zombies would have been remembered!)

 

[Blackrook]

Joe, read four newspaper stories about the same event and all of them will have different details emphasized.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, read four newspaper stories about the same event and all of them will have different details emphasized.

Yes, they will. Which means that at least THREE of them would be incorrect.

What I've often found with news accounts is that just one reporter writes the stories and everyone else cribs off of him. There's often a lot of lazy writing where the same material on a story is repeated over and over when there isn't enough new information to fill a whole article.

So how does this apply to the Gospels. Well, what we know is that Mark (who never met Jesus) was written first. 97% of Mark is repeated in Luke or Matthew. Matthew was written for a Jewish Audience, and he corrects Mark's mistakes about Jewish Law and Judean geography. He also shoe-horns in a lot of Old Testament prophecy where he either lies about scripture or just plain makes shit up. Luke was written for a Greek Audience. Hence he has a lot more emphasis on dates and events.

Now, Mark never bothered to tell the Jesus Nativity story. It just wasn't important to him. Luke and Matthew tell completely different stories, that we often see cobbled together in Christmas plays, but they are in fact diametrically opposed AND take place ten years apart.

Matthew version- Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth. Jesus is born. Some wise men come looking for him because a Star pointed out the right house. Herod Freaks out, and kills all the babies in Bethlehem, but Joseph gets the heads up and flees to Egypt. Then they come back and settle in Nazareth after Herod dies. Herod died in about 4 BCE, for those playing along at home.

Luke Version - Cyrenneus (the Greek name for Publius Sulpicius Quirinius ) conducts a Census of Judea, which has just been made a Roman Province. For some bizarre reason, people from Nazareth (which was in Galilee, which was STILL an independent Kingdom at that point) were required to report back to their ancestral towns. For the record, the Romans didn't do Censuses this way. Of course, there's no room at the Bethlehem Hotel Six, so Jesus has to be born in a barn and put in a manger. Quirinius wasn't appointed governor until 6 AD. Ten years after Herod kicked the bucket.

Now BOTH of these stories had a purpose, which was to somehow put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem when he was born. Because part of the prophecy was supposedly the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So some fancy footwork was needed to get Jesus there.

You know, kind of like you wingnuts all come up with fancy stories to claim Obama was born in Kenya.

 

[BULLDOG]

Joe, read four newspaper stories about the same event and all of them will have different details emphasized.

Only if the papers are published by Breitbart, or Alex Jones.

 

[Blackrook]

Joe, read four newspaper stories about the same event and all of them will have different details emphasized.

Yes, they will. Which means that at least THREE of them would be incorrect.

What I've often found with news accounts is that just one reporter writes the stories and everyone else cribs off of him. There's often a lot of lazy writing where the same material on a story is repeated over and over when there isn't enough new information to fill a whole article.

So how does this apply to the Gospels. Well, what we know is that Mark (who never met Jesus) was written first. 97% of Mark is repeated in Luke or Matthew. Matthew was written for a Jewish Audience, and he corrects Mark's mistakes about Jewish Law and Judean geography. He also shoe-horns in a lot of Old Testament prophecy where he either lies about scripture or just plain makes shit up. Luke was written for a Greek Audience. Hence he has a lot more emphasis on dates and events.

Now, Mark never bothered to tell the Jesus Nativity story. It just wasn't important to him. Luke and Matthew tell completely different stories, that we often see cobbled together in Christmas plays, but they are in fact diametrically opposed AND take place ten years apart.

Matthew version- Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth. Jesus is born. Some wise men come looking for him because a Star pointed out the right house. Herod Freaks out, and kills all the babies in Bethlehem, but Joseph gets the heads up and flees to Egypt. Then they come back and settle in Nazareth after Herod dies. Herod died in about 4 BCE, for those playing along at home.

Luke Version - Cyrenneus (the Greek name for Publius Sulpicius Quirinius ) conducts a Census of Judea, which has just been made a Roman Province. For some bizarre reason, people from Nazareth (which was in Galilee, which was STILL an independent Kingdom at that point) were required to report back to their ancestral towns. For the record, the Romans didn't do Censuses this way. Of course, there's no room at the Bethlehem Hotel Six, so Jesus has to be born in a barn and put in a manger. Quirinius wasn't appointed governor until 6 AD. Ten years after Herod kicked the bucket.

Now BOTH of these stories had a purpose, which was to somehow put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem when he was born. Because part of the prophecy was supposedly the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So some fancy footwork was needed to get Jesus there.

You know, kind of like you wingnuts all come up with fancy stories to claim Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama WAS born in Kenya numb nuts, his publisher said so.

 

[BULLDOG]

Joe, read four newspaper stories about the same event and all of them will have different details emphasized.

Yes, they will. Which means that at least THREE of them would be incorrect.

What I've often found with news accounts is that just one reporter writes the stories and everyone else cribs off of him. There's often a lot of lazy writing where the same material on a story is repeated over and over when there isn't enough new information to fill a whole article.

So how does this apply to the Gospels. Well, what we know is that Mark (who never met Jesus) was written first. 97% of Mark is repeated in Luke or Matthew. Matthew was written for a Jewish Audience, and he corrects Mark's mistakes about Jewish Law and Judean geography. He also shoe-horns in a lot of Old Testament prophecy where he either lies about scripture or just plain makes shit up. Luke was written for a Greek Audience. Hence he has a lot more emphasis on dates and events.

Now, Mark never bothered to tell the Jesus Nativity story. It just wasn't important to him. Luke and Matthew tell completely different stories, that we often see cobbled together in Christmas plays, but they are in fact diametrically opposed AND take place ten years apart.

Matthew version- Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth. Jesus is born. Some wise men come looking for him because a Star pointed out the right house. Herod Freaks out, and kills all the babies in Bethlehem, but Joseph gets the heads up and flees to Egypt. Then they come back and settle in Nazareth after Herod dies. Herod died in about 4 BCE, for those playing along at home.

Luke Version - Cyrenneus (the Greek name for Publius Sulpicius Quirinius ) conducts a Census of Judea, which has just been made a Roman Province. For some bizarre reason, people from Nazareth (which was in Galilee, which was STILL an independent Kingdom at that point) were required to report back to their ancestral towns. For the record, the Romans didn't do Censuses this way. Of course, there's no room at the Bethlehem Hotel Six, so Jesus has to be born in a barn and put in a manger. Quirinius wasn't appointed governor until 6 AD. Ten years after Herod kicked the bucket.

Now BOTH of these stories had a purpose, which was to somehow put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem when he was born. Because part of the prophecy was supposedly the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So some fancy footwork was needed to get Jesus there.

You know, kind of like you wingnuts all come up with fancy stories to claim Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama WAS born in Kenya numb nuts, his publisher said so.

Yep. You're still nuts.

 

[Blackrook]

Joe, read four newspaper stories about the same event and all of them will have different details emphasized.

Yes, they will. Which means that at least THREE of them would be incorrect.

What I've often found with news accounts is that just one reporter writes the stories and everyone else cribs off of him. There's often a lot of lazy writing where the same material on a story is repeated over and over when there isn't enough new information to fill a whole article.

So how does this apply to the Gospels. Well, what we know is that Mark (who never met Jesus) was written first. 97% of Mark is repeated in Luke or Matthew. Matthew was written for a Jewish Audience, and he corrects Mark's mistakes about Jewish Law and Judean geography. He also shoe-horns in a lot of Old Testament prophecy where he either lies about scripture or just plain makes shit up. Luke was written for a Greek Audience. Hence he has a lot more emphasis on dates and events.

Now, Mark never bothered to tell the Jesus Nativity story. It just wasn't important to him. Luke and Matthew tell completely different stories, that we often see cobbled together in Christmas plays, but they are in fact diametrically opposed AND take place ten years apart.

Matthew version- Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth. Jesus is born. Some wise men come looking for him because a Star pointed out the right house. Herod Freaks out, and kills all the babies in Bethlehem, but Joseph gets the heads up and flees to Egypt. Then they come back and settle in Nazareth after Herod dies. Herod died in about 4 BCE, for those playing along at home.

Luke Version - Cyrenneus (the Greek name for Publius Sulpicius Quirinius ) conducts a Census of Judea, which has just been made a Roman Province. For some bizarre reason, people from Nazareth (which was in Galilee, which was STILL an independent Kingdom at that point) were required to report back to their ancestral towns. For the record, the Romans didn't do Censuses this way. Of course, there's no room at the Bethlehem Hotel Six, so Jesus has to be born in a barn and put in a manger. Quirinius wasn't appointed governor until 6 AD. Ten years after Herod kicked the bucket.

Now BOTH of these stories had a purpose, which was to somehow put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem when he was born. Because part of the prophecy was supposedly the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So some fancy footwork was needed to get Jesus there.

You know, kind of like you wingnuts all come up with fancy stories to claim Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama WAS born in Kenya numb nuts, his publisher said so.

Yep. You're still nuts.

And yet, you can't contradict what I said. Obama's publisher said in his bio that he was born in Kenya. Why would they say that if it wasn't true?

 

[BULLDOG]

Joe, read four newspaper stories about the same event and all of them will have different details emphasized.

Yes, they will. Which means that at least THREE of them would be incorrect.

What I've often found with news accounts is that just one reporter writes the stories and everyone else cribs off of him. There's often a lot of lazy writing where the same material on a story is repeated over and over when there isn't enough new information to fill a whole article.

So how does this apply to the Gospels. Well, what we know is that Mark (who never met Jesus) was written first. 97% of Mark is repeated in Luke or Matthew. Matthew was written for a Jewish Audience, and he corrects Mark's mistakes about Jewish Law and Judean geography. He also shoe-horns in a lot of Old Testament prophecy where he either lies about scripture or just plain makes shit up. Luke was written for a Greek Audience. Hence he has a lot more emphasis on dates and events.

Now, Mark never bothered to tell the Jesus Nativity story. It just wasn't important to him. Luke and Matthew tell completely different stories, that we often see cobbled together in Christmas plays, but they are in fact diametrically opposed AND take place ten years apart.

Matthew version- Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth. Jesus is born. Some wise men come looking for him because a Star pointed out the right house. Herod Freaks out, and kills all the babies in Bethlehem, but Joseph gets the heads up and flees to Egypt. Then they come back and settle in Nazareth after Herod dies. Herod died in about 4 BCE, for those playing along at home.

Luke Version - Cyrenneus (the Greek name for Publius Sulpicius Quirinius ) conducts a Census of Judea, which has just been made a Roman Province. For some bizarre reason, people from Nazareth (which was in Galilee, which was STILL an independent Kingdom at that point) were required to report back to their ancestral towns. For the record, the Romans didn't do Censuses this way. Of course, there's no room at the Bethlehem Hotel Six, so Jesus has to be born in a barn and put in a manger. Quirinius wasn't appointed governor until 6 AD. Ten years after Herod kicked the bucket.

Now BOTH of these stories had a purpose, which was to somehow put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem when he was born. Because part of the prophecy was supposedly the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So some fancy footwork was needed to get Jesus there.

You know, kind of like you wingnuts all come up with fancy stories to claim Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama WAS born in Kenya numb nuts, his publisher said so.

Yep. You're still nuts.

And yet, you can't contradict what I said. Obama's publisher said in his bio that he was born in Kenya. Why would they say that if it wasn't true?

Any sane person can contradict what you said. I won't bother to do it this time because that has already been proven so many times, and you are too nuts to accept reality anyway.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...to the portrayal of historical figures in every secular context.

The Communist leaders were portrayed by their propaganda as heroic men who never made a mistake.

The Nazis portrayed their leaders as something like Norse gods.

Even the American founding fathers are portrayed in a positive light by our historians, who gloss over the unpleasant bits.

Um, yeah, consider that a bit. People make shit up to serve their agenda. For instance, Trotsky was lionized early in the revolution, but was demonized after Stalin won their power struggle. Stalin and Mao regularly erased people from the historical record (or tried to) when they no longer served a purpose.

But the Apostles are portrayed as simple and stupid men, never understanding Jesus' words, often angering him off with their cowardice and lack of faith, and ultimately all but one of them abandoned him on the day he was crucified, and their leader Peter denied Jesus three times.

Which is what makes the stories less than believable. These same guys who keep watching Jesus perform Miracle after Miracle STILL doubt him. That makes them come off more as literary devices than actual people.

And -- this is important, every Apostle but John died rather than renounce his faith. Each of them could have saved himself -- saying -- it was all a lie. But they did not save themselves. The believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and they died rather than renounce that truth.

Actually, that's not true, either. In fact, the Bible only records the deaths of two apostles. Judas, who killed himself, and James, who was executed by Herod Agrippa for sedition, not for having the wrong faith.

The "Martyrdom" stories for the other 10 aren't canonical. They are more Church Traditions that vary from Church to Church.

Also- final point. The Gospels themselves can't even agree on who the apostles were.

The Synaptic Gospels mention Thaddeus and Bartholomew, while the Gospel of John (the one responsible for most of the anti-Semitism that survives to this very day) mention Jude and Nathaniel. The Church does some fancy footwork to claim these are the same guys. Matthew and Luke disagree if Matthew was named Levi or Matthew.

John, in fact, only names 7 Apostles, and two of those names disagree with the names in Luke and Matthew.

Also, if Matthew (the Gospel writer) was one of the original 12, why did he have to copy so much from Mark, who never met Jesus.... I mean, he was there, right?

I'm saying, the Gospels are unvarnished truth.

Then why do they contradict each other on so many key points? The names of the apostles, when Jesus was born, who was there when they found the empty tomb, Matthews crazy stories about the saints coming back to life that no one else mentioned. (Seriously, an outbreak of Zombies would have been remembered!)

Curious. While discussing religion you go first to Stalin

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Joe, read four newspaper stories about the same event and all of them will have different details emphasized.

Yes, they will. Which means that at least THREE of them would be incorrect.

What I've often found with news accounts is that just one reporter writes the stories and everyone else cribs off of him. There's often a lot of lazy writing where the same material on a story is repeated over and over when there isn't enough new information to fill a whole article.

So how does this apply to the Gospels. Well, what we know is that Mark (who never met Jesus) was written first. 97% of Mark is repeated in Luke or Matthew. Matthew was written for a Jewish Audience, and he corrects Mark's mistakes about Jewish Law and Judean geography. He also shoe-horns in a lot of Old Testament prophecy where he either lies about scripture or just plain makes shit up. Luke was written for a Greek Audience. Hence he has a lot more emphasis on dates and events.

Now, Mark never bothered to tell the Jesus Nativity story. It just wasn't important to him. Luke and Matthew tell completely different stories, that we often see cobbled together in Christmas plays, but they are in fact diametrically opposed AND take place ten years apart.

Matthew version- Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth. Jesus is born. Some wise men come looking for him because a Star pointed out the right house. Herod Freaks out, and kills all the babies in Bethlehem, but Joseph gets the heads up and flees to Egypt. Then they come back and settle in Nazareth after Herod dies. Herod died in about 4 BCE, for those playing along at home.

Luke Version - Cyrenneus (the Greek name for Publius Sulpicius Quirinius ) conducts a Census of Judea, which has just been made a Roman Province. For some bizarre reason, people from Nazareth (which was in Galilee, which was STILL an independent Kingdom at that point) were required to report back to their ancestral towns. For the record, the Romans didn't do Censuses this way. Of course, there's no room at the Bethlehem Hotel Six, so Jesus has to be born in a barn and put in a manger. Quirinius wasn't appointed governor until 6 AD. Ten years after Herod kicked the bucket.

Now BOTH of these stories had a purpose, which was to somehow put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem when he was born. Because part of the prophecy was supposedly the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So some fancy footwork was needed to get Jesus there.

You know, kind of like you wingnuts all come up with fancy stories to claim Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama WAS born in Kenya numb nuts, his publisher said so.

Yep. You're still nuts.

And yet, you can't contradict what I said. Obama's publisher said in his bio that he was born in Kenya. Why would they say that if it wasn't true?

/thread

 

[JoeB131]

Obama WAS born in Kenya numb nuts, his publisher said so.

You're proving my point.

There is a birth certificate and newspaper announcements from 1960 saying he was born in Hawaii...

Compared to a publisher from the 1990's who admitted her research was incorrect.

But they can't both be true. Just like both Matthew and Luke can't both be right.

 

[JoeB131]

And yet, you can't contradict what I said. Obama's publisher said in his bio that he was born in Kenya. Why would they say that if it wasn't true?

Because they didn't do their research properly, which is what they later admitted.

NOW- we have a contemporary figure, where you have TWO different stories about where he was born. We have fantastic record keeping abilities, but this kind of shit can STILL happen today!!!

So when you have two Gospel Writers, writing decades after the fact, with poor record keeping, who are trying to affirm their own beliefs, and they manage to tell contradictory accounts, what does that tell you?

 

[Blackrook]

And yet, you can't contradict what I said. Obama's publisher said in his bio that he was born in Kenya. Why would they say that if it wasn't true?

Because they didn't do their research properly, which is what they later admitted.

NOW- we have a contemporary figure, where you have TWO different stories about where he was born. We have fantastic record keeping abilities, but this kind of shit can STILL happen today!!!

So when you have two Gospel Writers, writing decades after the fact, with poor record keeping, who are trying to affirm their own beliefs, and they manage to tell contradictory accounts, what does that tell you?

The inconsistencies in dates, names, and places are details that don't impact the truth of the Gospels.

You're looking for reasons to disbelieve to avoid the horrible consequences to you if you ever did believe:

You would have to repent your sins and reform your life -- a very painful process that many people don't want to experience.

 

[there4eyeM]

The failure of the Apostles to understand their Teacher was passed on to later times, especially most of the denominations present today. It is nearly "universal".

 

[JoeB131]

The inconsistencies in dates, names, and places are details that don't impact the truth of the Gospels.

Yeah, they kind of do. Especially since those dates and places are meant to contribute to his legitimacy. Now, if Jesus was just a philosopher, then those things wouldn't matter. But you guys claim that he was the SON OF GOD!!! And where he was born was prophesied by God.

You're looking for reasons to disbelieve to avoid the horrible consequences to you if you ever did believe:

You would have to repent your sins and reform your life -- a very painful process that many people don't want to experience.

Well, no. I have a lot of regrets about my life... but the only person I have to answer to for those are myself and MAYBE some of the people I've wronged. (Although most of those fuckers had it coming).

If what Jesus said was so right, so good and so sensible, why does he have to threaten eternal punishment if you don't do those things? Seems like a bit of overkill, sending someone to Hell for all eternity for eating a Beef Jerky during Lent.

Now, here's the thing. Most of what has been attributed to Jesus in terms of philosophy, I kind of agree with. You should care about the poor, you should treat people the way you want to be treated, you should try to forgive those who have wronged you. You know, stuff that is largely lost on the "Christian Right" who thinks the central message of Christianity is hating Gays and Mexicans, just like Jesus did.

But it doesn't make him any less fictional.

 

[BULLDOG]

And yet, you can't contradict what I said. Obama's publisher said in his bio that he was born in Kenya. Why would they say that if it wasn't true?

Because they didn't do their research properly, which is what they later admitted.

NOW- we have a contemporary figure, where you have TWO different stories about where he was born. We have fantastic record keeping abilities, but this kind of shit can STILL happen today!!!

So when you have two Gospel Writers, writing decades after the fact, with poor record keeping, who are trying to affirm their own beliefs, and they manage to tell contradictory accounts, what does that tell you?

The inconsistencies in dates, names, and places are details that don't impact the truth of the Gospels.

You're looking for reasons to disbelieve to avoid the horrible consequences to you if you ever did believe:

You would have to repent your sins and reform your life -- a very painful process that many people don't want to experience.

If you have to have a religion to force you to repent and reform from wrong doing, you're a pretty pathetic person. Decent people aspire to that without having to be afraid of some Sky Zombie who will send them to hell.

 

[JoeB131]

 

[PoliticalChic]

...to the portrayal of historical figures in every secular context.

The Communist leaders were portrayed by their propaganda as heroic men who never made a mistake.

The Nazis portrayed their leaders as something like Norse gods.

Even the American founding fathers are portrayed in a positive light by our historians, who gloss over the unpleasant bits.

Um, yeah, consider that a bit. People make shit up to serve their agenda. For instance, Trotsky was lionized early in the revolution, but was demonized after Stalin won their power struggle. Stalin and Mao regularly erased people from the historical record (or tried to) when they no longer served a purpose.

But the Apostles are portrayed as simple and stupid men, never understanding Jesus' words, often angering him off with their cowardice and lack of faith, and ultimately all but one of them abandoned him on the day he was crucified, and their leader Peter denied Jesus three times.

Which is what makes the stories less than believable. These same guys who keep watching Jesus perform Miracle after Miracle STILL doubt him. That makes them come off more as literary devices than actual people.

And -- this is important, every Apostle but John died rather than renounce his faith. Each of them could have saved himself -- saying -- it was all a lie. But they did not save themselves. The believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and they died rather than renounce that truth.

Actually, that's not true, either. In fact, the Bible only records the deaths of two apostles. Judas, who killed himself, and James, who was executed by Herod Agrippa for sedition, not for having the wrong faith.

The "Martyrdom" stories for the other 10 aren't canonical. They are more Church Traditions that vary from Church to Church.

Also- final point. The Gospels themselves can't even agree on who the apostles were.

The Synaptic Gospels mention Thaddeus and Bartholomew, while the Gospel of John (the one responsible for most of the anti-Semitism that survives to this very day) mention Jude and Nathaniel. The Church does some fancy footwork to claim these are the same guys. Matthew and Luke disagree if Matthew was named Levi or Matthew.

John, in fact, only names 7 Apostles, and two of those names disagree with the names in Luke and Matthew.

Also, if Matthew (the Gospel writer) was one of the original 12, why did he have to copy so much from Mark, who never met Jesus.... I mean, he was there, right?

I'm saying, the Gospels are unvarnished truth.

Then why do they contradict each other on so many key points? The names of the apostles, when Jesus was born, who was there when they found the empty tomb, Matthews crazy stories about the saints coming back to life that no one else mentioned. (Seriously, an outbreak of Zombies would have been remembered!)

Curious. While discussing religion you go first to Stalin

I need a 'thank you' button.