Zone1 Why is it not politically correct to be critical of religions other than Christianity?

[Zebra]

You are wrong no matter what you post about. I am as anti-Christian as anyone, but it is fashionable today to criticize Christianity because the left has taken over the microphones. The left loves Hamas and Iran and would never want to live there, and rarely if ever talks about how ridiculous their religion is.

does the left also love the Burka?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

does the left also love the Burka?

The left lives in emotions and feelings and platitudes. It rails over Christians "denying females controlling their own bodies" but says nothing about Muslims making women cover their bodies.

 

[Votto]

From the transcript:

What is the penalty for apostasy? Um before you very well know if it's an Islamic country, then it is very clear apostate is dealt with the death penalty.

Now let's compare this with Christianity, where in the Middle Ages, Catholics ruled the world and created blasphemy laws. When people violated them, they were first tortured and then violently killed. Now, some will say that was then and this is now. Well, now we have tens of millions of people who assert that nonbelievers will find out when they die that the penalty for nonbelief is eternal torture or banishment.

THAT is how you control and indoctrinate humanity.

As I have said before on this thread, Christ separated the Kingdom of God from the political powers of this world, and would never have approved of how the Catholic church conducted itself along with the other kings of the earth.

Fortunately, the age of Christian theocracy has vanished, but unfortunately due to the teachings of Mohammad, theocracy can never be done away with if you are Islam, because politics and Islam are one.

Problem is, human politics is mankind at his worst, which is why Christ on more than on occasion declined others trying to make him a worldly king.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Likely it's because they are afraid some christian group will attack them for it.

If by "attack" you mean as in an exchange of ideas, yes they can expect to be "attacked"

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Likely it's because they are afraid some christian group will attack them for it.

Creepy thinks these people are victims

 

[Paradoxical#1]

As I have said before on this thread, Christ separated the Kingdom of God from the political powers of this world, and would never have approved of how the Catholic church conducted itself along with the other kings of the earth.

Fortunately, the age of Christian theocracy has vanished, but unfortunately due to the teachings of Mohammad, theocracy can never be done away with if you are Islam, because politics and Islam are one.

Problem is, human politics is mankind at his worst, which is why Christ on more than on occasion declined others trying to make him a worldly king.

I really like Christopher Hitchens. He was the Rush Limbaugh of atheism, and never did hold back his disdain for Christianity. I remember he had a debate with some priest who, like many other apologists, used the sleight of hand of debating some vague God entity because he knew Hitchens would eat his lunch and Hitchens called him out on it.

He said even if I granted you the notion of some nebulous, vague creator who you want to call God, you have the monumental task of convincing everyone here that he/it must be the Christian God concept out of all the past and current God concepts ever invented.

I have no issue at all with those who want to believe in some higher power, some spirit or even that they claim to be able to tune in to. But what happened is that devious humans saw a way to tap into the need and desire of humans for a savior type god who loves and protects them and would let them live for all eternity and they used the well known hot button emotional issue of fear and guilt to win followers and believes so they could have a job and some of them could become wealthy on the tithes. Even today that goes on with churches on the honor system and no one knows and the government doesn't care how much they rake in.

 

[Votto]

I really like Christopher Hitchens. He was the Rush Limbaugh of atheism, and never did hold back his disdain for Christianity. I remember he had a debate with some priest who, like many other apologists, used the sleight of hand of debating some vague God entity because he knew Hitchens would eat his lunch and Hitchens called him out on it.

He said even if I granted you the notion of some nebulous, vague creator who you want to call God, you have the monumental task of convincing everyone here that he/it must be the Christian God concept out of all the past and current God concepts ever invented.

I have no issue at all with those who want to believe in some higher power, some spirit or even that they claim to be able to tune in to. But what happened is that devious humans saw a way to tap into the need and desire of humans for a savior type god who loves and protects them and would let them live for all eternity and they used the well known hot button emotional issue of fear and guilt to win followers and believes so they could have a job and some of them could become wealthy on the tithes. Even today that goes on with churches on the honor system and no one knows and the government doesn't care how much they rake in.

I happen to be a Christian but have no obligation to prove anything to anyone. Besides, the Christian faith is not about proving God. If it were, the Bible would not be full of examples where men and women have known without a shadow of a doubt that God existed, but lost faith in him anyway.

I don't even take issue with your point that some use the gospel to control people and get wealthy off them, but just know, that is not everyone.

As for fear and guilt, those can be a good thing. In fact, without them, you probably would not live long on earth. The problem is not fear and guilt; the problem is fearing the wrong things and being guilty about the wrong things or going overboard with them, that is, unless you are into sociopaths and dare devils.

And like you say, Christopher is a very intelligent debater and was spot on about Islam, which is why I used him. Do you have a YouTube of the debate you are speaking of as he debated the Christian apologist? Debate is an art, but winning a debate does not make one the victor of truth, just the debate.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I happen to be a Christian but have no obligation to prove anything to anyone. Besides, the Christian faith is not about proving God. If it were, the Bible would not be full of examples where men and women have known without a shadow of a doubt that God existed, but lost faith in him anyway.

I don't even take issue with your point that some use the gospel to control people and get wealthy off them, but just know, that is not everyone.

As for fear and guilt, those can be a good thing. In fact, without them, you probably would not live long on earth. The problem is not fear and guilt; the problem is fearing the wrong things and being guilty about the wrong things or going overboard with them, that is, unless you are into sociopaths and dare devils.

And like you say, Christopher is a very intelligent debater and was spot on about Islam, which is why I used him. Do you have a YouTube of the debate you are speaking of as he debated the Christian apologist? Debate is an art, but winning a debate does not make one the victor of truth, just the debate.

Votto, whether in a debate or not, I always think about what is more plausible and logical and if possible, is backed up by research or scientific experiment. Being raised in the Catholic religion and taught by extremely nice and devout nuns and an altar boy, I am not someone who just talks. Additionally, I have debated Christianity for decades and for years over at CARM. The owner there is a Calvinist, and that belief system has to be one of the more preposterous notions of many. He has said he wants his site to train people in how to debate Christianity. Some of the people there were very good at it. But it always came down to where I had to accept the bible as the word of "God". I would fall into their trap of arguing bible quotes, the meaning and interpretation of them and when the contradictions were so blatantly obvious, some super expert who memorized the bible and knew Koine Greek (hardly anyone does) would assert that the translation to English was wrong.

The gospel of Thomas was excluded by those who decided what would go into the bible. It was humans who decided that the writings attributed to Thomas would not be a part of the New Testament. These were found in 1941. He preached direct spiritual knowledge. He said that the kingdom of God is already present within and around individuals: “the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you”;
“the kingdom is spread out upon the earth”, accessible now through self-discovery, without waiting for death or relying on intermediaries. Its Gnostic-leaning theology focuses on inner enlightenment over institutional salvation or Jesus’ death and resurrection.

No one knows who wrote that, but no one knows who wrote the other "gospels"either. What is certain is that if people didn't need a savior they didn't need organized religion either and then the church would not have had any power because people would believe that the "kingdom" of heaven is righty here and now and not after you die.

Humans are indoctrinated by other humans in power. It has been this way for centuries and is happening righty now with MSM not reporting on the successes of Trump because that is not their agenda. If someone a hundred years from now only read CNN, MSNBC, The NY Times, etc. because other writings were destroyed they would think Trump was a criminal monster who jailed people for no reason and colluded with Russia and (you get the drift).

THAT is how Christianity came into being. By creating an agenda and excluding all others, and for the usual thing...POWER.

 

[Meriweather]

The gospel of Thomas was excluded

Correct. The books chosen to be Canon were those written by first generation authors, those who had contact with either Jesus or his Apostles. The latest New Testament book was dated about 110, while scholars say the earliest the Gospel of Thomas was written was 135, and more likely closer to 200. Another criteria for books chosen as Canon is that they had to have been read/circulated throughout the main early Christian churches. Finally, the book was not cited by any of the early Church Fathers.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Correct. The books chosen to be Canon were those written by first generation authors, those who had contact with either Jesus or his Apostles. The latest New Testament book was dated about 110, while scholars say the earliest the Gospel of Thomas was written was 135, and more likely closer to 200. Another criteria for books chosen as Canon is that they had to have been read/circulated throughout the main early Christian churches. Finally, the book was not cited by any of the early Church Fathers.

Those writings were attributed to Thomas the same as the other writings were attributed to the other apostles (when they weren't) So, we had writers talking AS IF they were the apostles decades after Jesus died.
Mark -70
Matthew -85
Luke -90
John 95 or early 2nd century

Richard Pervo and Steve Mason argue that Luke was early 2nd century.
A bible scholar named Markus Vinzent says all 4 were written around 140 BC

Some scholars say Thomas was written from -50 to -90 and even predate the Synoptic Gospels. Elaine Pagels suggests before 70CE and Bart Ehrmann gives a really late date estimate of 135 to 200 CE.

So, who knows. I sure don't. Nor does anyone here. When we want to confirm a bias we pick the date that goes along with that bias. But here we have many biblical scholars who disagree and who can say who is right. But certainly if you want people to follow you and be dependent on you and your church, you would most definitely toss out Thomas and contend it was fabricated because his narrative says you don't need any church and in effect, heaven is right here and now and that was what Jesus said and never said it was in some life after death.

 

[Meriweather]

Those writings were attributed to Thomas the same as the other writings were attributed to the other apostles (when they weren't) So, we had writers talking AS IF they were the apostles decades after Jesus died.
Mark -70
Matthew -85
Luke -90
John 95 or early 2nd century

With the possible exception of John, Catholic teaching has been that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not Apostles, so that is old news. However, their books were composed when there was still access to the Twelve Apostles and those who had known Jesus. For example, Luke was a companion of Paul and is mentioned in the Letter to the Colossians (written about 62). Luke notes at the beginning of his Gospel the criteria (used by other historians of his day) in setting forth his Gospel.

Richard Pervo and Steve Mason argue that Luke was early 2nd century.

A bible scholar named Markus Vinzent says all 4 were written around 140 BC

Some scholars say Thomas was written from -50 to -90 and even predate the Synoptic Gospels. Elaine Pagels suggests before 70CE and Bart Ehrmann gives a really late date estimate of 135 to 200 CE.

I suggest also reading not just what some say, but what most say--and why they say it.

So, who knows. I sure don't. Nor does anyone here. When we want to confirm a bias we pick the date that goes along with that bias. But here we have many biblical scholars who disagree and who can say who is right. But certainly if you want people to follow you and be dependent on you and your church, you would most definitely toss out Thomas and contend it was fabricated because his narrative says you don't need any church and in effect, heaven is right here and now and that was what Jesus said and never said it was in some life after death.

Take a look at the studies historians have done and the historical reasons given for their dates. In books their are often comments on events that have already occurred before their script was written because they are commented upon in their own writings.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

With the possible exception of John, Catholic teaching has been that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not Apostles, so that is old news. However, their books were composed when there was still access to the Twelve Apostles and those who had known Jesus. For example, Luke was a companion of Paul and is mentioned in the Letter to the Colossians (written about 62). Luke notes at the beginning of his Gospel the criteria (used by other historians of his day) in setting forth his Gospel.




I suggest also reading not just what some say, but what most say--and why they say it.




Take a look at the studies historians have done and the historical reasons given for their dates. In books their are often comments on events that have already occurred before their script was written because they are commented upon in their own writings.

I'm sorry, but I do not go with popular opinion or popular authority and doing that is the problem in the world today. If I did, I would believe global warming is due mainly to humans, that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes, that Jesus resurrected, etc. When we are dealing with something that happened centuries ago there is no way to know. So, what can be done in those situations? We have to be an agnostic and think of what is more logical. Is it more likely that the writings attributed to Thomas were tossed because that wouldn't allow those seeking power to be heroes of the masses and the money and acclaim that goes with it? Based on everything we know and see in modern times with politicians and TV anchors (who are the apostles of the day (writers) they are not above keeping information and documents and truth from people. Nor are or were the head priests of 1600-1700 years ago.

Soon, Islam will be surpassing Christianity as far as adherents. If and when that happens a Muslim could argue that more experts say the Koran is true and because of that, we should jump on board.

For all anyone knows about the gospels, the dates could be far off. When you have scholars guessing dates that are many decades apart with at least one saying Thomas was written before the others, that tell me that if scholars don't know, how can we say the inventors of Catholicism knew. The writings were kept secret for all until 1946/. You have no way of knowing if the writers ever spoke with the apostles. That is pure speculation, since no one knows who the writers were. Some scholars say the other writings were in the second century, making the original apostles at least 70 years old and probably dead anyway.

 

[Votto]

Votto, whether in a debate or not, I always think about what is more plausible and logical and if possible, is backed up by research or scientific experiment. Being raised in the Catholic religion and taught by extremely nice and devout nuns and an altar boy, I am not someone who just talks. Additionally, I have debated Christianity for decades and for years over at CARM. The owner there is a Calvinist, and that belief system has to be one of the more preposterous notions of many. He has said he wants his site to train people in how to debate Christianity. Some of the people there were very good at it. But it always came down to where I had to accept the bible as the word of "God". I would fall into their trap of arguing bible quotes, the meaning and interpretation of them and when the contradictions were so blatantly obvious, some super expert who memorized the bible and knew Koine Greek (hardly anyone does) would assert that the translation to English was wrong.

The gospel of Thomas was excluded by those who decided what would go into the bible. It was humans who decided that the writings attributed to Thomas would not be a part of the New Testament. These were found in 1941. He preached direct spiritual knowledge. He said that the kingdom of God is already present within and around individuals: “the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you”;
“the kingdom is spread out upon the earth”, accessible now through self-discovery, without waiting for death or relying on intermediaries. Its Gnostic-leaning theology focuses on inner enlightenment over institutional salvation or Jesus’ death and resurrection.

No one knows who wrote that, but no one knows who wrote the other "gospels"either. What is certain is that if people didn't need a savior they didn't need organized religion either and then the church would not have had any power because people would believe that the "kingdom" of heaven is righty here and now and not after you die.

Humans are indoctrinated by other humans in power. It has been this way for centuries and is happening righty now with MSM not reporting on the successes of Trump because that is not their agenda. If someone a hundred years from now only read CNN, MSNBC, The NY Times, etc. because other writings were destroyed they would think Trump was a criminal monster who jailed people for no reason and colluded with Russia and (you get the drift).

THAT is how Christianity came into being. By creating an agenda and excluding all others, and for the usual thing...POWER.

"He said that the kingdom of God is already present within and around individuals: “the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you”;
“the kingdom is spread out upon the earth”, accessible now through self-discovery, without waiting for death or relying on intermediaries. Its Gnostic-leaning theology focuses on inner enlightenment over institutional salvation or Jesus’ death and resurrection."

I would have to read the words to properly assess that interpretation. Naturally, the disciples did not need a church on the corner for the Kingdom of God to come to earth through one Christ Jesus. Jesus continually said that through him, his kingdom had come to earth, but also made it understood that the worldly kingdom around them had to pass away at some point and was not redeemable, which is why he refused to become an earthly king. The notion that the resurrection of Jesus was not needed for salvation seems a bit conspicuous though. Could you provide the verse suggesting this? I have read Thomas and don't recollect any such saying. One of the verses that stuck with me though was an offshoot of the verse, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you. Thomas made the point that unless you are seeking an answer, that answer could be right there in front of you as you will glibly ignore it altogether because you have no real interest. I got to thinking, it applies to other things as well. For example, if you were not searching for the equation linking the micro and macro universe and I gave it to you, you would just ignore it and walk away, not understading any of it. But odds are the more you were seeking it the more it would actually make sense for you to apply it.
I would say that of the writings not in the Bible, the book of Enoch seems the most likely to have been wrongly excluded. Here we do know dates as the early church used it frequently, and copies of it were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, predating Christianity. I speak of the early books of Enoch and not the later ones written that are questionable, however. In addition, the canonized book of Jude makes reference to it. What struck me, however, was the way in which the "Sone of Man" was referenced, sounding almost as if Christians were talking about Jesus himself.

Enoch 48 Furthermore, in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness, which does not become depleted and is surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink and become filled with wisdom. Their dwelling places became holy, righteous, and elct ones. At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, the Before-TIme, even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a nam in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell on earth will fall and worship before him; they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression and all of its wasy of life and it habits. And because they will become saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life. In those days, the kings of the Earth and the mighty shall be humiliated on account of the deeds of their hands. Therefore, on that day of their misery and weariness, they will not be able to save themselves. I shall deliver them into the hands of my elect ones like grass in the fire and like lead in the water, so they will burn before the face of the holy ones and sink before their sight, and no place will be found for them. For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and his Messiah. Blessed be the name of the Lord of Spirits!

For me, this document written before Jesus ever walked the earth is nothing short of astounding as there are many other Messiah references like this, which is why the early church used it frequently as the early church has no New Testament to use aside from this document. But Enoch, as you have read, was very rough on worldly kings and worldly powers as being wicked and oppressive, which is perhaps why someone like Constantine may not have wanted it in the Canonized version of the Bible. For you see, Constantine even had his own wife and son murdered, and continued to worship the pagan gods despite supposedly embracing Christianity, although it is rumored, he converted on his death bed.

Here is where Jude quotes Enoch.

Does Jude quote Enoch?

The blurred boundary between canonical and non-canonical texts.

biblicalhistoricalcontext.com

 

[Paradoxical#1]

"He said that the kingdom of God is already present within and around individuals: “the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you”;
“the kingdom is spread out upon the earth”, accessible now through self-discovery, without waiting for death or relying on intermediaries. Its Gnostic-leaning theology focuses on inner enlightenment over institutional salvation or Jesus’ death and resurrection."

I would have to read the words to properly assess that interpretation. Naturally, the disciples did not need a church on the corner for the Kingdom of God to come to earth through one Christ Jesus. Jesus continually said that through him, his kingdom had come to earth, but also made it understood that the worldly kingdom around them had to pass away at some point and was not redeemable, which is why he refused to become an earthly king. The notion that the resurrection of Jesus was not needed for salvation seems a bit conspicuous though. Could you provide the verse suggesting this? I have read Thomas and don't recollect any such saying. One of the verses that stuck with me though was an offshoot of the verse, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you. Thomas made the point that unless you are seeking an answer, that answer could be right there in front of you as you will glibly ignore it altogether because you have no real interest. I got to thinking, it applies to other things as well. For example, if you were not searching for the equation linking the micro and macro universe and I gave it to you, you would just ignore it and walk away, not understading any of it. But odds are the more you were seeking it the more it would actually make sense for you to apply it.
I would say that of the writings not in the Bible, the book of Enoch seems the most likely to have been wrongly excluded. Here we do know dates as the early church used it frequently, and copies of it were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, predating Christianity. I speak of the early books of Enoch and not the later ones written that are questionable, however. In addition, the canonized book of Jude makes reference to it. What struck me, however, was the way in which the "Sone of Man" was referenced, sounding almost as if Christians were talking about Jesus himself.

Enoch 48 Furthermore, in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness, which does not become depleted and is surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink and become filled with wisdom. Their dwelling places became holy, righteous, and elct ones. At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, the Before-TIme, even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a nam in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell on earth will fall and worship before him; they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression and all of its wasy of life and it habits. And because they will become saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life. In those days, the kings of the Earth and the mighty shall be humiliated on account of the deeds of their hands. Therefore, on that day of their misery and weariness, they will not be able to save themselves. I shall deliver them into the hands of my elect ones like grass in the fire and like lead in the water, so they will burn before the face of the holy ones and sink before their sight, and no place will be found for them. For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and his Messiah. Blessed be the name of the Lord of Spirits!

For me, this document written before Jesus ever walked the earth is nothing short of astounding as there are many other Messiah references like this, which is why the early church used it frequently as the early church has no New Testament to use aside from this document. But Enoch, as you have read, was very rough on worldly kings and worldly powers as being wicked and oppressive, which is perhaps why someone like Constantine may not have wanted it in the Canonized version of the Bible. For you see, Constantine even had his own wife and son murdered, and continued to worship the pagan gods despite supposedly embracing Christianity, although it is rumored, he converted on his death bed.

Here is where Jude quotes Enoch.

Does Jude quote Enoch?

The blurred boundary between canonical and non-canonical texts.

biblicalhistoricalcontext.com

I used the writing of Thomas not because I believed they were god inspired words, but only to show that if they were included in the bible that would call into question the entire premise that we need priests or the church. I do not believe for a minute that even one sentence or period in the bible is inspired. The bible itself doesn't say it is. That powerful leaders convinced the masses that it is and was is the story, but I understand that god inspiration was necessary to make people believe. Some point to the writings of Paul as their "evidence" of god inspiration. Paul was the only individual that there is consensus was an actual writer, and he could not have been referring to the New Testament as it had not yet been written. Even it had, so what? Some guy writes that the bible is inspired or that it comes from God, and we are supposed to believe that?

Again, had the writings of Thomas been included, it would have been a whole new ball game. The Catholic Church wanted to make people dependent, and the way to do that was to have the people think they needed them. They set up priests as go-betweens, and you had to confess to them. I went to confession often and would get the penance of saying rote prayers, which I would do sitting in a pew as my back was aching. Even as a young kid, all that seemed cultish. The entire scene seems like it was out of a horror movie as I look back on it. Black robes, statuary, the horrible smell of incense, quietness, seriousness. Does it not strike anyone here as a con game to get people thinking of and going to church and needing them to get to "God" and of course the donations that are prodded from everyone?

I used Thomas to illustrate my thoughts. Not because I think for a minute that his words were inspired, but because I know why the church didn't want them in their books.

Edit: Since I have time this morning, I wanted to add this. One of the ways to control people is through fear and dependency. Those on the right who are believers bristle when I compare the tactics employed by the left to indoctrinate people with how Catholicism hooked them. You create a problem, and then YOU are the solution to that problem. You create a need for the individual to go to you. This is exactly how the left operates today. They convince people that Conservatives are heartless and mean and are taking things away from them like health care, food, money and keeping them down with their boot on their chest and that YOU, the Democrat, is their solution because you need them (Democrats) to get them out of where they are. This is the ole "We are all sinners game and need to go to God." This is what the 12 Step program for alcohols says and why it is a failure.

If the Church or the liberals were to teach that the power is within the individual, they would be out of a job.

 

[Votto]

I used the writing of Thomas not because I believed they were god inspired words, but only to show that if they were included in the bible that would call into question the entire premise that we need priests or the church. I do not believe for a minute that even one sentence or period in the bible is inspired. The bible itself doesn't say it is. That powerful leaders convinced the masses that it is and was is the story, but I understand that god inspiration was necessary to make people believe. Some point to the writings of Paul as their "evidence" of god inspiration. Paul was the only individual that there is consensus was an actual writer, and he could not have been referring to the New Testament as it had not yet been written. Even it had, so what? Some guy writes that the bible is inspired or that it comes from God, and we are supposed to believe that?

Again, had the writings of Thomas been included, it would have been a whole new ball game. The Catholic Church wanted to make people dependent, and the way to do that was to have the people think they needed them. They set up priests as go-betweens, and you had to confess to them. I went to confession often and would get the penance of saying rote prayers, which I would do sitting in a pew as my back was aching. Even as a young kid, all that seemed cultish. The entire scene seems like it was out of a horror movie as I look back on it. Black robes, statuary, the horrible smell of incense, quietness, seriousness. Does it not strike anyone here as a con game to get people thinking of and going to church and needing them to get to "God" and of course the donations that are prodded from everyone?

I used Thomas to illustrate my thoughts. Not because I think for a minute that his words were inspired, but because I know why the church didn't want them in their books.

Edit: Since I have time this morning, I wanted to add this. One of the ways to control people is through fear and dependency. Those on the right who are believers bristle when I compare the tactics employed by the left to indoctrinate people with how Catholicism hooked them. You create a problem, and then YOU are the solution to that problem. You create a need for the individual to go to you. This is exactly how the left operates today. They convince people that Conservatives are heartless and mean and are taking things away from them like health care, food, money and keeping them down with their boot on their chest and that YOU, the Democrat, is their solution because you need them (Democrats) to get them out of where they are. This is the ole "We are all sinners game and need to go to God." This is what the 12 Step program for alcohols says and why it is a failure.

If the Church or the liberals were to teach that the power is within the individual, they would be out of a job.

You are taking this conversation to opine about the Catholic church as where I am not. I am not Catholic. Sorry about the baggage you seem to have collected from them.

My interest was your assertion that the book of Thomas somehow minimalized the resurrection of Christ.

As for the Bible being God inspired, I have seen enough evidence and experienced enough personally to believe that it is.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

You are taking this conversation to opine about the Catholic church as where I am not. I am not Catholic. Sorry about the baggage you seem to have collected from them.

My interest was your assertion that the book of Thomas somehow minimalized the resurrection of Christ.

As for the Bible being God inspired, I have seen enough evidence and experienced enough personally to believe that it is.

Christianity is just a version of Catholicism without the church as a go between. Your attempts to dismiss what I say as "baggage" falls flat. Also, the resurrection wasn't what I was talking about. We know that was contrived to create the narrative of a God, incidentally repackaged from previous "gods". It was only to show that Jesus never claimed that you needed to follow him, but only to believe eternity and heaven was all around us right NOW and not in some afterlife.

The church leaders couldn't have that. If people knew that, they wouldn't need a church or them.

 

[Votto]

Christianity is just a version of Catholicism without the church as a go between. Your attempts to dismiss what I say as "baggage" falls flat. Also, the resurrection wasn't what I was talking about. We know that was contrived to create the narrative of a God, incidentally repackaged from previous "gods". It was only to show that Jesus never claimed that you needed to follow him, but only to believe eternity and heaven was all around us right NOW and not in some afterlife.

The church leaders couldn't have that. If people knew that, they wouldn't need a church or them.

I am not contriving anything, just reading from scripture. When Jesus said that "I am the way, the truth and the Life", he did not say that he was one path of many that will get you to God and where you need to be. And when his disciples asked him who he was in relation to whom God had sent, only Peter guessed that he was the Christ, after which Jesus forbad them from telling anyone until he said it was Ok, because had they declared it openly that would have prompted them to instantly put him to death for Blasphemy, which later they did for that very declaration. This meant that Jesus was declaring himself God in the flesh. Incidentally, after Peter declared him as the Messiah, Jesus gave him a new name Peter and told him he would build his church upon him. This means that the church was important to Jesus, which went on for hundreds of years in secret in peoples homes until the persecution ceased to where they could come out openly and still be safe without being thrown to the lions. However, as I have said that safety came with a price as the church was then used by Constantine for his own worldly power as well, which led to such travesties as the Inquisision and Jewish Ghettos and Crusades, etc.

I in no way dispute how man has attached himself to the gospel to try and use it for his own selfish worldly power, as Constantine did, but I do dispute your assertion that the origins of Christianity and Jesus did not come from God himself.

Your assertions are blocked with the cross of Jesus. IF he were just a Joel Osteen type who just wanted people to feel better about themselves and better enlightened, he would not have gone to the cross. No, what he had to say offended pretty much the entire planet, which is why even his own disciples ended up deserting him when he went to the cross. And the night before he went to the cross, he sweated drops of blood he was in so much distress begging God that if there were another way to please spare him the cross. His prayers went unanswered.

Isaiah himself predicted Jesus would go to the cross in Isaiah 53. The prophesy which predates Christianity for thousands of years because it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and proved to be untampered with. It predicted that the Messiah would not only be righteous, but that God himself would seek to kill him, which is the only account of God targeting a righteous man for death, and all for the remission of sins.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 ;He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin

It makes zero sense that God would target a righteous man, except under the accounts of the gospels

And the book of Daniel even predicted when the Messiah would come in Daniel 9:24-25. The Jewish religious leaders even took the liberty of calculating it for us as they later admitted it was a calendar to the coming Messiah, but because they rejected their Messiah, as prophesied, they concluded that Jesus delayed his coming because he did not come when Daniel said he would come, which is when Jesus walked the earth. Also, they prohibited any of the "lay people" from calculating the calendar as to "not be misled"

Again, this to me is astounding and I can give you references for my above assertions if interested. But the fact remains that only God could have given man prophesy like this, and with the audacity of even providing a calendar to pinpoint the date of the Messiah coming. And yes, it is proven that these predictions occurred hundreds of years before Jesus walked the earth, making it a true prophesy.

Incidentally, what would make 12 disciples who forsook Jesus on the cross to protect their own skins, circle back around to preach the gospel which led to the same persecution and death that Jesus encountered? All died a martyrs death, except John, but it was not for not putting in the effort to do so. John miraculously survived the attempt to murder him as well, as he later helped write Revelation.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I am not contriving anything, just reading from scripture. When Jesus said that "I am the way, the truth and the Life", he did not say that he was one path of many that will get you to God and where you need to be. And when his disciples asked him who he was in relation to whom God had sent, only Peter guessed that he was the Christ, after which Jesus forbad them from telling anyone until he said it was Ok, because had they declared it openly that would have prompted them to instantly put him to death for Blasphemy, which later they did for that very declaration. This meant that Jesus was declaring himself God in the flesh. Incidentally, after Peter declared him as the Messiah, Jesus gave him a new name Peter and told him he would build his church upon him. This means that the church was important to Jesus, which went on for hundreds of years in secret in peoples homes until the persecution ceased to where they could come out openly and still be safe without being thrown to the lions. However, as I have said that safety came with a price as the church was then used by Constantine for his own worldly power as well, which led to such travesties as the Inquisision and Jewish Ghettos and Crusades, etc.

I in no way dispute how man has attached himself to the gospel to try and use it for his own selfish worldly power, as Constantine did, but I do dispute your assertion that the origins of Christianity and Jesus did not come from God himself.

Your assertions are blocked with the cross of Jesus. IF he were just a Joel Osteen type who just wanted people to feel better about themselves and better enlightened, he would not have gone to the cross. No, what he had to say offended pretty much the entire planet, which is why even his own disciples ended up deserting him when he went to the cross. And the night before he went to the cross, he sweated drops of blood he was in so much distress begging God that if there were another way to please spare him the cross. His prayers went unanswered.

Isaiah himself predicted Jesus would go to the cross in Isaiah 53. The prophesy which predates Christianity for thousands of years because it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and proved to be untampered with. It predicted that the Messiah would not only be righteous, but that God himself would seek to kill him, which is the only account of God targeting a righteous man for death, and all for the remission of sins.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 ;He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin

It makes zero sense that God would target a righteous man, except under the accounts of the gospels

And the book of Daniel even predicted when the Messiah would come in Daniel 9:24-25. The Jewish religious leaders even took the liberty of calculating it for us as they later admitted it was a calendar to the coming Messiah, but because they rejected their Messiah, as prophesied, they concluded that Jesus delayed his coming because he did not come when Daniel said he would come, which is when Jesus walked the earth. Also, they prohibited any of the "lay people" from calculating the calendar as to "not be misled"

Again, this to me is astounding and I can give you references for my above assertions if interested. But the fact remains that only God could have given man prophesy like this, and with the audacity of even providing a calendar to pinpoint the date of the Messiah coming. And yes, it is proven that these predictions occurred hundreds of years before Jesus walked the earth, making it a true prophesy.

Incidentally, what would make 12 disciples who forsook Jesus on the cross to protect their own skins, circle back around to preach the gospel which led to the same persecution and death that Jesus encountered? All died a martyrs death, except John, but it was not for not putting in the effort to do so. John miraculously survived the attempt to murder him as well, as he later helped write Revelation.

There are a lot of things to unpack in your post. I'm not sure if you saw my post about spending years at CARM debating Christians, some of which were bible experts and some not so good. A nonbeliever tends to fall into the trap of debating scripture ad if the scripture is 100% true, cast in stone and not only that, God-inspired" with Christians, myself included. I don't want to do that any more just so the debate can go on. I don't for a second believe any of that and you do.

What Christians have are claims and assertions and, believe me, I have heard them all. When cornered on scripture not having been written until many decades after Jesus side, they will assert that it was memorized out of "oral tradition". Why would that be? Jesus at the time was just a Jewish Rabbi who gained somewhat of a following, like a David Koresh or any one of a number of cult leaders. Does anyone remember verbatim what those guys said? Today people can't remember what someone said last week and without TV and recorders we wouldn't know. Yet, the words were written to form the bible many decades and even over a century latter and they are supposed to be 100% of what was said?? Is this reasonable and logical for one to believe who already doesn't believe? Would a Muslim believe you?

So, in short, I don't believe what the bible says. What now?

 

[Votto]

Edit: Since I have time this morning, I wanted to add this. One of the ways to control people is through fear and dependency. Those on the right who are believers bristle when I compare the tactics employed by the left to indoctrinate people with how Catholicism hooked them. You create a problem, and then YOU are the solution to that problem. You create a need for the individual to go to you. This is exactly how the left operates today. They convince people that Conservatives are heartless and mean and are taking things away from them like health care, food, money and keeping them down with their boot on their chest and that YOU, the Democrat, is their solution because you need them (Democrats) to get them out of where they are. This is the ole "We are all sinners game and need to go to God." This is what the 12 Step program for alcohols says and why it is a failure.

If the Church or the liberals were to teach that the power is within the individual, they would be out of a job.

Speaking of tactics, let's assume for a second that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

If you opposed it, how would you destroy it if the God of the universe wanted it to succeed? You certainly are not going to destroy what God wants to protect, but those that oppose it do so for their own power, or what is left of it. Those that insist on adding or preserving their own power are those who oppose God.

I think the best chance for the gospels to have been stopped once and for all was through the efforts of Paul. Here we had a man who was a zealot for the Jewish religious leaders, who persecuted Christianity at every turn as he would murder those who proclaimed it. He knew them all from the inside out. He was the right man at the right time to snuff out the fledgling religion,.............until he went on the road to Damascus where God himself paid him a visit and converted him. You then had the tactical genius zealot playing for the other team as he later wrote most of the New Testament. Again, opposing the Almighty is futile in the end.

But the persecution did not end. All the disciples were targeted for death no matter where they went in the world as even Paul himself was martyred. Such is the politics of man that felt threatened by the fledging religion no matter the country or government. The church was largely run in houses for hundreds of years in secret as a result. In fact, the harder you persecuted these people, the more their faith spread. It was like trying to throw water on a grease fire to put it out.

So, you change tactics. You then embrace the fledgling religion as your own, and then subvert it's tenants for your own devices.

This is how I view how the church has been targeted ever since in the West that led to the abuses within the Catholic church. There is still a combination of the previous tactics in authoritarian countries like in the Middle East and communist countries that still murder Christians.

As for "the church". For me the church are the followers of Christ. It is not one single organization or political movement, rather, it is a broad coalition of believers who are his. The mistake people make is putting an organization or group of people or even a leader in the place of God and following them instead of God. People who do have entered a cult which can originate pretty much anywhere and at any time no matter your beliefs.

The truth of God's message is called a double-edged sword. Fun fact, the truth offends everyone at some point in your life no matter who you are, because it exposes your weaknesses and short comings. But when you obtain power, whether in government, or in the church, or at work, etc., you have an image to protect to try and maintain that power. That dictates you at some point will more than likely try to suppress the said truth for your own perceived self-interests. But the truth is not meant to condemn us but convict us to repentance. If the truth is used to condemn us, it is there to control us, but if it is there to convict us, it is there to change us. Having said that, don't hate on the truth. The word of God should be used like a scalpel to do surgery and not a sword to kill.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Regarding the claim that Jesus was predicted, this is a claim often made by believers that falls flat.

The main reason is that vague predictions or writings can and are used to shoehorn in whatever a believer wants to. This from one of the better LLMs out there called GROK:

1. Vague Terminology:
   • Mashiach (“Anointed One”) in Hebrew doesn’t always mean “the Messiah.” It can refer to a king, priest, or other anointed figure. In context, it could apply to someone like Cyrus the Great (Isaiah 45:1), Zerubbabel, or a high priest like Joshua (Zechariah 6:11-13).
   • The text doesn’t explicitly say “Messiah” in the eschatological sense Christians often imply.
2. Historical Context:
   • Daniel was likely written in the 2nd century BCE (during the Maccabean period), not the 6th century BCE, per many scholars. This makes it more about events in the author’s time (e.g., Antiochus IV’s persecution) than a distant future.
   • The “decree” is ambiguous. Multiple decrees existed (e.g., Cyrus in 538 BCE, Artaxerxes in 458 or 445 BCE), and pinning down the exact one is speculative.
3. Mathematical Issues:
   • The 490-year timeline doesn’t align perfectly with any historical event without adjustments (e.g., using a 360-day “prophetic year” or choosing a specific decree).
   • The division of 7 + 62 + 1 “sevens” is unclear. Why separate the periods? Calculations often feel forced to fit Jesus’ timeline.
4. Theological Bias:
   • Christian interpretations may read Jesus into the text (eisegesis) rather than letting it speak in its Jewish context. Jewish tradition often sees the “Anointed One” as a figure like a high priest or a historical leader, not a future savior.
   • The passage’s goals (e.g., “everlasting righteousness”) remain unfulfilled in a literal sense, as sin and trouble persist post-Jesus.
5. Textual Ambiguity:
   • The 70th week (Daniel 9:26-27) describes an “anointed one” being “cut off” and a “ruler” causing destruction, which complicates the timeline. Some see this as Antiochus IV or another historical figure, not a messianic prophecy.
   • The text’s poetic and symbolic nature resists precise historical predictions.

Your position that the prophecy doesn’t predict the Messiah’s timing has strong backing. The passage’s language is symbolic, and its historical context likely points to events closer to the 2nd century BCE, not a precise prediction of Jesus or another figure centuries later. The calculations used to align it with Jesus rely on selective starting points and interpretive leaps, like assuming a 360-day year or a specific decree. However, proponents of the messianic view argue the timeline’s alignment with Jesus’ ministry is too close to be coincidental, especially given the term “Anointed One.”Ultimately, the text is open to interpretation, and its meaning depends heavily on one’s theological lens. If you lean toward a historical-critical or Jewish reading, the messianic prediction claim indeed appears unconvincing due to its ambiguity and reliance on retrospective fitting.