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

[Paradoxical#1]

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. 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 world of God should be used like a scalpel to do surgery and not a sword to kill.

Paul never met Jesus and claimed a vision at a time in history where religious claims were running amok and people were very superstitious and tended to believe claims of visions, like today where people claim their horoscope said such and such and it happened.

Did any verify Paul's claims of a vision? No. No one who was on that road to Damascus wrote that Paul told them personally what Jesus said or that the even saw him talking to Jesus or some mirage or just talking to the wind. IF it happened, the people with him would have blasted it all over town and they didn't.

Paul made it all up because he wanted to start a new religion that was less restrictive and mean. It was ONLY Paul who said the law died on the cross.

 

[Votto]

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.

Naturally, I have a bias as well as you, based on our beliefs. We then both take in data in such a way to line up with those beliefs. It's just natural to do so. What would then be impressive is for someone to have a bias that opposed my beliefs who agree with me on this topic, especially if they are well educated in that field, right?

In the 12th century AD Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides), who is probably THE most respected of all rabbis since Moses himself walked the earth said, "Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise have barred the calculation of the days of the Messiah's coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah" This is in the Talmud Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p.24.

We also have Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi saying, "I have examined and searched all the Holy scriptures and have not found the time for the coming of the Messiah clearly fixed, except in the words of Gabrial to the prophet Daniel, which are written in the 9th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel" This came from "The Messiah of the Targums, Talmuds and Rabbinical Writers 1971.

Now these were two men who remained Jewish and were not Christians verifying the very point I am making. Why would they do such a thing?

Leopold Cohn, who was also a Jewish rabbi in Europe in the 1800's, was always puzzled by part of the devotions he was taught to say every day which included, "I believe with a perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah and, though he Tarry, yet will I wait daily for his coming". He started to inquire as to why the Messiah tarried, so his superiors referred him back to the writings of Rabbi Moses. He was basically told to leave well enough alone and move on, or find another profession as to why God has changed his mind about the time he said he would send the Messiah adding that he delayed his coming because of the sinfulness of the Hebrew people. But why would God change his mind? Did he not really know the future after all? The truth of the matter meant more to him than all the years of training as a rabbi as well as what that meant for him earning money as a profession. At the end of the day, he forsook all that educational and economic power he had built up for himself as a rabbi and forsook it all for the truth of the truth of the gospels. He then traveled to America where he tried to regroup his life and started the Jews for Jesus movement.

 

[Votto]

Paul never met Jesus and claimed a vision at a time in history where religious claims were running amok and people were very superstitious and tended to believe claims of visions, like today where people claim their horoscope said such and such and it happened.

Did any verify Paul's claims of a vision? No. No one who was on that road to Damascus wrote that Paul told them personally what Jesus said or that the even saw him talking to Jesus or some mirage or just talking to the wind. IF it happened, the people with him would have blasted it all over town and they didn't.

Paul made it all up because he wanted to start a new religion that was less restrictive and mean. It was ONLY Paul who said the law died on the cross.

Really? What sources are you using outside the Bible to have so much knowledge about Paul?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Naturally, I have a bias as well as you, based on our beliefs. We then both take in data in such a way to line up with those beliefs. It's just natural to do so. What would then be impressive is for someone to have a bias that opposed my beliefs who agree with me on this topic, especially if they are well educated in that field, right?

In the 12th century AD Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides), who is probably THE most respected of all rabbis since Moses himself walked the earth said, "Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise have barred the calculation of the days of the Messiah's coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah" This is in the Talmud Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p.24.

We also have Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi saying, "I have examined and searched all the Holy scriptures and have not found the time for the coming of the Messiah clearly fixed, except in the words of Gabrial to the prophet Daniel, which are written in the 9th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel" This came from "The Messiah of the Targums, Talmuds and Rabbinical Writers 1971.

Now these were two men who remained Jewish and were not Christians verifying the very point I am making. Why would they do such a thing?

Leopold Cohn, who was also a Jewish rabbi in Europe in the 1800's, was always puzzled by part of the devotions he was taught to say every day which included, "I believe with a perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah and, though he Tarry, yet will I wait daily for his coming". He started to inquire as to why the Messiah tarried, so his superiors referred him back to the writings of Rabbi Moses. He was basically told to leave well enough alone and move on, or find another profession as to why God has changed his mind about the time he said he would send the Messiah adding that he delayed his coming because of the sinfulness of the Hebrew people. But why would God change his mind? Did he not really know the future after all? The truth of the matter meant more to him than all the years of training as a rabbi as well as what that meant for him earning money as a profession. At the end of the day, he forsook all that educational and economic power he had built up for himself as a rabbi and forsook it all for the truth of the truth of the gospels. He then traveled to America where he tried to regroup his life and started the Jews for Jesus movement.

Are you suggesting I should believe what a Rabbi said?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Really? What sources are you using outside the Bible to have so much knowledge about Paul?

Then refute what I say. Give me the writings of the people he was with on this alleged trip.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Moving on to the ALLEGED sacrifice and that Jesus had any choice in the matter: Again from GROK:

Your argument is historically grounded: Jesus’ trial was likely a foregone conclusion driven by the Sanhedrin’s political maneuvering, using the sedition charge to leverage Roman power. The money changers incident probably sparked elite hostility, and crucifixion for sedition aligns with Roman practice, leaving Jesus with little to no control.

The sacrificial narrative, while central to Christian theology, is a later interpretation, developed decades after the event to find meaning in a brutal execution. Your analogy of a wrongly executed person being falsely labeled a “sacrifice” effectively highlights the disconnect between historical reality and theological claims. The dominance of Christian sources does skew the data toward apologetic views, but the political and economic dynamics you highlight are plausible based on the Gospels and historical context.

 

[Votto]

Then refute what I say. Give me the writings of the people he was with on this alleged trip.

My point is, you are getting all your information about Paul from the Bible, and then commenting on how that was not true without other sources to back you up. At best, your comments are pure conjecture..

 

[Votto]

Naturally, I have a bias as well as you, based on our beliefs. We then both take in data in such a way to line up with those beliefs. It's just natural to do so. What would then be impressive is for someone to have a bias that opposed my beliefs who agree with me on this topic, especially if they are well educated in that field, right?

Are you suggesting I should believe what a Rabbi said?

I am suggesting that when an "expert" gives an educated opinoin on something, especially when they have no motive of their own to do so, you should respect that to some degree.

I assume you do the same by going to a doctor for medical problems and not a lawyer.

That is not to say that the doctor is always right, though.

 

[Votto]

Moving on to the ALLEGED sacrifice and that Jesus had any choice in the matter: Again from GROK:

Your argument is historically grounded: Jesus’ trial was likely a foregone conclusion driven by the Sanhedrin’s political maneuvering, using the sedition charge to leverage Roman power. The money changers incident probably sparked elite hostility, and crucifixion for sedition aligns with Roman practice, leaving Jesus with little to no control.

The sacrificial narrative, while central to Christian theology, is a later interpretation, developed decades after the event to find meaning in a brutal execution. Your analogy of a wrongly executed person being falsely labeled a “sacrifice” effectively highlights the disconnect between historical reality and theological claims. The dominance of Christian sources does skew the data toward apologetic views, but the political and economic dynamics you highlight are plausible based on the Gospels and historical context.

How do you even know that the money changer incident happened? You cling to that but throw out the rest?

Interesting.

Hitler also loved the money changer story and said that this was his favorite part of the Bible and the only one that was true, only because he hated Jews and believed them all to be thieves.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

and where fallacy is used as truth ...

all three desert religions have the same preamble written in their bibles - false commandments claimed by the liar moses that were destroyed before ever being witnessed or exist for verification making all three desert bibles forgeries as well enabling false witness to the heavens.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

My point is, you are getting all your information about Paul from the Bible, and then commenting on how that was not true without other sources to back you up. At best, your comments are pure conjecture..

What?? Who could have written anything about Paul's alleged vision when they weren't there since they would be "outside the bible"? Even if there were people not in the bible that he supposedly told about this vision of Jesus, so what? That would be third party accounts of people who weren't there. The ones who supposedly were with him never wrote about it. Isn't it illogical that if two people were with him on his trip believed he had an audience with Jesus because they were there that they would have gone all over town talking about it? An event of that importance some 3–7 years after Jesus died, and none of the people who were on that trip either wrote about it or told it to the townspeople in excited tones?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I am suggesting that when an "expert" gives an educated opinoin on something, especially when they have no motive of their own to do so, you should respect that to some degree.

I assume you do the same by going to a doctor for medical problems and not a lawyer.

That is not to say that the doctor is always right, though.

No. What you are doing is what many Christians and liberals do is to quote authority figures as if they either aren't lying, fabricating, mistaken or just flat out wrong. What you are doing is what leftists do by taking what a Republican politician said in the past or said now and holding that up as proof of what you want tomake a case for. It's like a Democrat coming to me and saying "Ronald Reagan, your hero said this, so you are obliged to think of it as true.

It's called argument from authority, and the GW nutsos use scientists to shut naysayers up.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

How do you even know that the money changer incident happened? You cling to that but throw out the rest?

Interesting.

Hitler also loved the money changer story and said that this was his favorite part of the Bible and the only one that was true, only because he hated Jews and believed them all to be thieves.

Look, if you want to use the bible, use ALL of it. Not cherry-picking what you agree with.

 

[Meriweather]

Then refute what I say. Give me the writings of the people he was with on this alleged trip.

Luke, a companion of Paul's wrote about the event on the road to Damascus in Acts. Paul, himself, mentions it in three of his letters.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Luke, a companion of Paul's wrote about the event on the road to Damascus in Acts. Paul, himself, mentions it in three of his letters.

Luke is getting that from Paul, and Luke was not with him at the time. Paul mentioning it is like saying Adam Schiff confirmed Trump colluded with Russia.

 

[Meriweather]

The sacrificial narrative, while central to Christian theology, is a later interpretation, developed decades after the event to find meaning in a brutal execution.

Could this be a conclusion you formed to fit your own conviction?

The Gospels relate the conflicts Jesus had with the religious authorities of his time for announcing to various people, "Your sins are forgiven" and proclaiming, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins." While John's Gospel and Revelation were written in the late first century, John introduces Jesus in his Gospel with John-the-Baptist greeting him with these words: Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In the book of Revelation, John refers to Jesus as the lamb twenty-seven times.

1 Peter (written before the mid-60s) also refers to Jesus as the lamb without blemish.

The Passover Lamb lent God's protection to the Israelites on their escape from slavery. A sacrificial lamb sometimes could be used as a sin offering, where the penitent placed its hands on the lamb, confessed his sins, and the lamb, with the confessed sins upon it, was sacrificed as an atonement for sins.

Jesus is also quoted as saying, "I am the living bread come down from heaven...." In Jewish history, manna from God was bread that came down from heaven. There was also the Bread of the Living Presence (shewbread) that was in the Tabernacle where God was present during the Exodus. Only priests were allowed to eat this bread of the Presence. Jesus gave the bread of his Presence--body, blood, soul, and divinity--for all to eat.

For Christians, Jesus blood is his protection and escape from the slavery of sin--he redeemed the world. His body, blood, soul, and divinity (the Bread of Life come down from heaven) and those who eat of it have salvation--eternal life.

Through Christ's life, death, and resurrection we have a vivid picture of God's (down through history and into the present day) presence among us. His people (those who have faith in this) is the great assembly known as his Church.

Those outside the Church, including you Paradoxical#1 , have no business and no right to tell those inside the Church what we are "really" doing. You seem to see your mother as one who was entrapped by the Church, or trapped inside the Church, but your version of her experience is far from being the experience of all. For most of us, it is the most freeing experience of living that can be experienced in this lifetime. Apparently this was not so for your mother, and it certainly is not true for you as you seemed trapped in you own weaving of an entirely different story around both history and Church.

 

[Meriweather]

Luke is getting that from Paul, and Luke was not with him at the time. Paul mentioning it is like saying Adam Schiff confirmed Trump colluded with Russia.

Did Adam Schiff talk with President Trump about this collusion with Russia? He did not, so this is a false equivalence. Let's try Major Henry Rathbone instead. Major Rathbone was in the booth with President Lincoln when the President was shot. He told his story. People heard it and it was written down. Luke was a companion of Paul's and heard his story which he put in writing. Just like with any event witnessed by several people, not all accounts were precisely the same, but despite the differences we do have a general idea of what happened that night--not from Lincoln--and not directly from any of the eye-witnesses, but from those who heard the account from the eye-witnesses.

Luke, as a companion of Paul's, heard the story directly from him.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Could this be a conclusion you formed to fit your own conviction?

The Gospels relate the conflicts Jesus had with the religious authorities of his time for announcing to various people, "Your sins are forgiven" and proclaiming, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins." While John's Gospel and Revelation were written in the late first century, John introduces Jesus in his Gospel with John-the-Baptist greeting him with these words: Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In the book of Revelation, John refers to Jesus as the lamb twenty-seven times.

1 Peter (written before the mid-60s) also refers to Jesus as the lamb without blemish.

The Passover Lamb lent God's protection to the Israelites on their escape from slavery. A sacrificial lamb sometimes could be used as a sin offering, where the penitent placed its hands on the lamb, confessed his sins, and the lamb, with the confessed sins upon it, was sacrificed as an atonement for sins.

Jesus is also quoted as saying, "I am the living bread come down from heaven...." In Jewish history, manna from God was bread that came down from heaven. There was also the Bread of the Living Presence (shewbread) that was in the Tabernacle where God was present during the Exodus. Only priests were allowed to eat this bread of the Presence. Jesus gave the bread of his Presence--body, blood, soul, and divinity--for all to eat.

For Christians, Jesus blood is his protection and escape from the slavery of sin--he redeemed the world. His body, blood, soul, and divinity (the Bread of Life come down from heaven) and those who eat of it have salvation--eternal life.

Through Christ's life, death, and resurrection we have a vivid picture of God's (down through history and into the present day) presence among us. His people (those who have faith in this) is the great assembly known as his Church.

Those outside the Church, including you Paradoxical#1 , have no business and no right to tell those inside the Church what we are "really" doing. You seem to see your mother as one who was entrapped by the Church, or trapped inside the Church, but your version of her experience is far from being the experience of all. For most of us, it is the most freeing experience of living that can be experienced in this lifetime. Apparently this was not so for your mother, and it certainly is not true for you as you seemed trapped in you own weaving of an entirely different story around both history and Church.

You choose to ignore what anyone says so that you can keep your beliefs. Instead of refuting what I say, you engage in diversions intended to steer the topic away from what I was saying. What Jesus said to his alleged apostles that was written decades later, by the way and no one knows what he said, is irrelevant. IF the story of the money changers is true, then it is logical the Jews wanted him gone. He was tried for sedition because the Romans were told he was a threat to their authority. You know this. Why do you ignore it. Sedition was a hanging offense.

To create a religion, people concocted a story that he sacrificed for us and rose from the dead, none of which there is any evidence of outside the bible.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Did Adam Schiff talk with President Trump about this collusion with Russia? He did not, so this is a false equivalence. Let's try Major Henry Rathbone instead. Major Rathbone was in the booth with President Lincoln when the President was shot. He told his story. People heard it and it was written down. Luke was a companion of Paul's and heard his story which he put in writing. Just like with any event witnessed by several people, not all accounts were precisely the same, but despite the differences we do have a general idea of what happened that night--not from Lincoln--and not directly from any of the eye-witnesses, but from those who heard the account from the eye-witnesses.

Luke, as a companion of Paul's, heard the story directly from him.

Paul lied. Like Schiff. I don't have to prove he lied. The story is preposterous. A vision of Jesus. Yeah, rigggghhht.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Could this be a conclusion you formed to fit your own conviction?

The Gospels relate the conflicts Jesus had with the religious authorities of his time for announcing to various people, "Your sins are forgiven" and proclaiming, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins." While John's Gospel and Revelation were written in the late first century, John introduces Jesus in his Gospel with John-the-Baptist greeting him with these words: Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In the book of Revelation, John refers to Jesus as the lamb twenty-seven times.

1 Peter (written before the mid-60s) also refers to Jesus as the lamb without blemish.

The Passover Lamb lent God's protection to the Israelites on their escape from slavery. A sacrificial lamb sometimes could be used as a sin offering, where the penitent placed its hands on the lamb, confessed his sins, and the lamb, with the confessed sins upon it, was sacrificed as an atonement for sins.

Jesus is also quoted as saying, "I am the living bread come down from heaven...." In Jewish history, manna from God was bread that came down from heaven. There was also the Bread of the Living Presence (shewbread) that was in the Tabernacle where God was present during the Exodus. Only priests were allowed to eat this bread of the Presence. Jesus gave the bread of his Presence--body, blood, soul, and divinity--for all to eat.

For Christians, Jesus blood is his protection and escape from the slavery of sin--he redeemed the world. His body, blood, soul, and divinity (the Bread of Life come down from heaven) and those who eat of it have salvation--eternal life.

Through Christ's life, death, and resurrection we have a vivid picture of God's (down through history and into the present day) presence among us. His people (those who have faith in this) is the great assembly known as his Church.

Those outside the Church, including you Paradoxical#1 , have no business and no right to tell those inside the Church what we are "really" doing. You seem to see your mother as one who was entrapped by the Church, or trapped inside the Church, but your version of her experience is far from being the experience of all. For most of us, it is the most freeing experience of living that can be experienced in this lifetime. Apparently this was not so for your mother, and it certainly is not true for you as you seemed trapped in you own weaving of an entirely different story around both history and Church.

Had to come back because one of your comments is annoying, which is to use the abuse my mother took from my father and you apparently think this is what made me rebel. That wasn't it at all. It was the fact that the story itself is preposterous beyond belief. Rising humans, a sacrifice that isn't, heaven, hell, the devil, the church as a go between, robes, incense, candles, statuary and the fact that Christianity plagiarized all religions before it to make a god badder and more powerful and then commanded people to not believe in any other god before him.

To me, it's a very bad and contrived novel written by controlling white males to keep women and the populace under their collective thumbs. My parents were just following the edicts of the church which you now ignore because now after centuries they say "Oh, just forget all that stuff about slavery, homosexuals, women are inferior and property. We reached a deeper understanding now that we are losing people right and left. The beliefs and morals of secular people are cool with us now.