Exegesis, Time, Judgment, St. Paul - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15080677
As each Gospel was created, we see Pilate’s role in the crucifixion reduced, and the Jews are increasingly portrayed as the actual killers of Christ.

This is a good example of how the early church ingratiated itself with Rome.
#15080896
ingliz wrote:On divorce.

At the beginning the Creator made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

[...]

The person who can marry should accept this teaching about marriage.


Those who can marry...


But that is not what Christ is specifically replying to. After what he had said about divorce -- that it is only legitimate for a man to initiate a divorce of his wife if it is for adultery, and he cannot set her aside for any reason (Matthew 19:4), which is the far stricter interpretation than those of the prominent Jews of the time, saying:

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9)


Right now we have all literally moved to the topic of sexuality, correct? The teaching is now clearly that men can only initiate a divorce of their wife for their wive's infidelity, and cannot set her aside for petty reasons. The only reason why Moses originally allowed this was because it was a concession to the hardness of the heart of the Hebrews.

His disciples say, thinking about sex and divorce, say:

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (Matthew 19:10)


They say this because they think that it sounds like the institution of marriage itself seems too strict, too burdensome. Perhaps it is better not to marry.

To which Christ, staying on this topic, replies with

11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matthew 19:11-12)


He is saying let the one who is able to receive a difficult lifestyle of having no wife (or husband), receive it.

This is the traditional interpretation of both the Catholics and the Orthodox, and this is how early Christians practiced monasticism. I'll quote the catechism in a minute...

But for Orthodoxy's sake, I'll quote the Saint who I admire most as the one who sets the standard for our theology -- St. John Chrysostom:

But wherefore does He set forth this parable in the person of the virgins, and does not merely suppose any person whatever? Great things had He spoken of virginity, saying, There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven's sake; and, He that is able to receive, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12). He knew also that the generality of men would have a great opinion of it. For indeed the work is by nature great, and is shown so by this, that neither under the old dispensation was it fulfilled by these ancient and holy men, nor under the new was it brought under the compulsion of the law. For He did not command this, but left it to the choice of his hearers. Wherefore Paul also said Now, concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:25). For though I praise him that attains thereto, yet I constrain not him that is not willing, neither do I make the thing an injunction


Homily 78

Jewish tradition forbids marriage to a man who has been forcibly emasculated but it is not prohibited for men who were born without visible testicles (conditions including cryptorchidism), or without a visible penis (conditions including hermaphroditism*).

If a man who can marry reaches twenty and has not married, he is considered cursed by God.

* Catholicism follows Jewish practice.


Catholicism does not follow Jewish practices on this:

1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social. 113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming. 114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." 115

1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away. 116


[url=https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?recnum=4784]CatholicCulture.org[/uirl]

Orthodoxy & Catholicism affirm monasticism. There are even Protestants who think highly of it.

This is how the Bible was read for the first fifteen hundred years, and this is how those who promulgated the Word to the world interpreted the first half of Matthew 19 as speakers of the humble Koinic Greek that it was written in.

As far as sex & swear words...

Sure, man, I am happy for your life. Believe it or not, I am not being stung or wounded by your words because I am such a sheltered little Church boy. I am not impressed by the strange combination of vulgarity and poetry with which you talk about it -- I used to talk about it this way all the time, right in Gorkiy park, reveling in my shame.

It's cool.

I have also not chosen the road of being a monk... and I affirm that it is a beautiful act in marriage. I would also not describe the act in marriage as lustful, because it is not a disordered desire.

I think your positions are a very novel reading for novelty's sake, or because of an investment in denial of Christianity at its root, and that is not the best way to approach any religion. To deny it because you believe in conspiracies that pin St. Paul as having implemented some nefarious reforms that corrupt everything is really putting a lot of stock into something without any proof that flies in the face of the Church histories that were handed down.

And for what?

It's better to just not believe at all than to turn the Gospel into a circus.
#15080899
Pants-of-dog wrote:As each Gospel was created, we see Pilate’s role in the crucifixion reduced, and the Jews are increasingly portrayed as the actual killers of Christ.

This is a good example of how the early church ingratiated itself with Rome.


If you believe the history itself, the Jews persecuted the Christians, hence the Christians wrote about themselves being persecuted by the Jews, and as the Christians could not influence Rome in any way about this for a very long time, saying that the hated Christians endeared themselves to the Romans by hating Jews (who received an exemption), is nonsense.

It falls very much away from common interpretations.

From then on, practicing Jews paid the tax while Christians did not, providing hard evidence of an official distinction.[28] Part of the Roman disdain for Christianity, then, arose in large part from the sense that it was bad for society. In the 3rd century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote:

How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters against God?[29]

Once distinguished from Judaism, Christianity was no longer seen as simply a bizarre sect of an old and venerable religion; it was a superstitio.[16]:


Wikipeida

Your statements just sound like a stab in the dark toward Christians.
#15080928
Verv wrote:Catholicism does not follow Jewish practices on this

If you look closely, you will see that the '*' was placed beside the word "hermaphroditism", not "cursed by God".

eunuchs who have been so from birth... [In practice with caveats*] Catholicism follows Jewish practice.

'Eunuch' is a bit of a misnomer.

Intersex marriage:

Some, but not all, intersex adults are infertile thus such a union can be said to remain open to the possibility of life and is valid *as long as the marriage can be consummated in a human fashion*.

The Church does not demand chastity.

This is not because of any moral theology. When it comes to intersex sex, the Church chooses not to recognise it exists.

your positions are a very novel

I am not alone.

Luther objected to the over-emphasis placed on chastity as the perfect path to God for it not only separated faith from human love, but also demonised human desires God ordained thus simultaneously debasing the sacrament of marriage through which they may be lawfully expressed.

original sin

I am with the Pelagian heretics on this.

There is no gap in the fabric of my being. Mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid or assistance.

turn[ing] the Gospel into a circus.

Weird or what?

Mithras was 'born' some fourteen hundred years before Jesus.

But here is where it gets weird...

Mithras was born of a virgin who was given the title of "Mother of God"

Mithras was born on December 25.

Mithras was born in a cave (stable), and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.

Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

Mithras had 12 companions or disciples.

Mithras performed miracles.

Mithras' followers were baptized.

Mithras suffered to bring salvation to a sin-cursed humankind.

Mithras was buried in a tomb and rose after three days.

Mithras' resurrection was celebrated every year.

Mithras ascended into heaven after finishing his deeds.

Mithras' followers were promised immortality.

Mithras was called “the good shepherd” and identified with both the lamb and the lion.

Mithras was called the “way, the truth and the light,” " logos,” "word," “redeemer,” “savior” and “messiah.”

On the Judgment Day, Mithras would use the keys of heaven to unlock the gates of Paradise to receive the faithful. All the unbaptized living and dead would perish.

Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, called the “Lord’s day”.

Mithras had his principal festival on the day that was later to become Easter for Christians.

Mithras' religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithras said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”

On a final day of judgment, the dead would resurrect and in a final conflict, the existing order would be destroyed and light would triumph over darkness.

And, although you could be forgiven for thinking this is Jesus, the details about Mithra's and Jesus's life are eerily similar; this Jesus is nowhere to be found in the earliest sources.

Perhaps a clue as to how this was allowed to happen can be found in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

"I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some."

Paul's attitude seeming to be 'Who gives a damn about the truth when the Apocalypse is upon us. Give them what they know. Even if it's complete bollocks, they only have to say I believe and they are saved'.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 03 Apr 2020 08:41, edited 11 times in total.
#15080980
Verv wrote:If you believe the history itself, the Jews persecuted the Christians, hence the Christians wrote about themselves being persecuted by the Jews, and as the Christians could not influence Rome in any way about this for a very long time, saying that the hated Christians endeared themselves to the Romans by hating Jews (who received an exemption), is nonsense.

It falls very much away from common interpretations.


No. The Jews did not persecute the Christians. That is simply incorrect.

Wikipeida

Your statements just sound like a stab in the dark toward Christians.


If you think that was evidence of Jewish persecution of Christians, you are wrong.
#15081136
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The Jews did not persecute the Christians. That is simply incorrect.


St. Paul claims to have persecuted Christians himself. This is something everyone acknowledges.

Moreover, you can see in places like Acts 14 that Jews and Romans worked together to persecute Christians in Iconium, with the Jews specifically leading the charge:

14 At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed. 2 But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.

Acts 14


And what of the stoning of St. Stephen the Protomartyr by the Jews?

51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 7


I am not an expert in these accounts, but I am pretty sure that these sorts of accusations and records continue on.

If you think that was evidence of Jewish persecution of Christians, you are wrong.


It was intended to be evidence that the Romans specifically despised Christians and considered them separate, and that your unsubstantiated narrative which you gave no historical basis to is further wrong.

Do you want to present some evidence to the contrary?
#15081185
Verv wrote:St. Paul claims to have persecuted Christians himself. This is something everyone acknowledges.


You mean, when he was a Roman citizen?

Moreover, you can see in places like Acts 14 that Jews and Romans worked together to persecute Christians in Iconium, with the Jews specifically leading the charge:


Your definition of oppression seems very flexible. All the horrific acts committed by Christians against LGBTQ people is not oppression, but some Jews saying bad things is oppression of Christians.

Do you see your own double standard here?

And what of the stoning of St. Stephen the Protomartyr by the Jews?


Thank you for providing another example of how the Jews are portrayed as the villains, and the Romans are let off the hook.

It is as if the author wanted to ingratiate his religion with the ruling authority by making the Jews look like a common enemy.

I am not an expert in these accounts, but I am pretty sure that these sorts of accusations and records continue on.


No. Not about St. Stephen anyway. There is no record that he ever existed except in this story.

It was intended to be evidence that the Romans specifically despised Christians and considered them separate, and that your unsubstantiated narrative which you gave no historical basis to is further wrong.

Do you want to present some evidence to the contrary?


How does it prove me wrong?
#15081259
Pants-of-dog wrote:You mean, when he was a Roman citizen?


He was both, correct. However, he persecuted them as a private citizen because he was Jewish.

Your definition of oppression seems very flexible. All the horrific acts committed by Christians against LGBTQ people is not oppression, but some Jews saying bad things is oppression of Christians.


(a) What horrific acts?
(b) They stoned St. Stephen to death and tried to get other Christians stoned to death. This isn't about 'saying bad things.'

Thank you for providing another example of how the Jews are portrayed as the villains, and the Romans are let off the hook.


The Romans were initially disinterested because, during the ministry of Christ, He largely did come off as a Jew, and this as a Jewish religious issue. This is also how the Bible portrays it.

23 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.”

3 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

5 But they insisted, “He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.”

6 On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. 7 When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.


He sends him to the local ethnarch because he does not consider it part of his problem. This is an attitude of general indifference, is i tnot?

It is as if the author wanted to ingratiate his religion with the ruling authority by making the Jews look like a common enemy.


How so? Pontius Pilate literally sent their Messiah to the ethnarch to be killed. That isn't particularly good.

Moreover, St. Paul is imprisoned, and over the next centuries, many Christians die at the hands of the ROman government during Roman persecution...

No. Not about St. Stephen anyway. There is no record that he ever existed except in this story.


It is not very conceivable that the early happenings of a minor religion in its infancy in the classical world would be recorded extensively by outside sources that would then survive.

It's irrational to expect more.

How does it prove me wrong?


Alright, so you have no evidence that the texts were altered to ingratiate Christians to Rome, right?
#15081262
Verv wrote:he persecuted them as a private citizen because he was Jewish.

According to wiki, it all depends on which side of the argument you were on at the time.

First century Jews would say they were being disciplined not persecuted.

Early Christianity began as a sect among Second Temple Jews... Jews did not see Christians as clearly separate from their own community until at least the middle of the second century. Thus, acts of Jewish persecution of Christians [from a Jewish perspective] fall within the boundaries of synagogue discipline.


:)
#15081265
ingliz wrote:According to wiki, it all depends on which side of the argument you were on at the time.

First century Jews would say they were being disciplined not persecuted.

Early Christianity began as a sect among Second Temple Jews... Jews did not see Christians as clearly separate from their own community until at least the middle of the second century. Thus, acts of Jewish persecution of Christians [from a Jewish perspective] fall within the boundaries of synagogue discipline.


:)


Stoning St. Stephen is synagogue discipline?

Encouraging other violent executions is synagogue discipline?

Your post is rather short and I feel does not do justice to the topic being discussed.
#15081275
Verv wrote:synagogue discipline? This isn't about 'saying bad things.'

There must also be heresies among you so that the righteous can be known (1 Corinthians 11:19).

One can see you are not a true believer.

All the Abrahamic religions agree that...

This world is just a passageway, and the life hereafter is the eternal abode.

— Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib, fourth of the “rightly guided” caliphs

Orthodox Jews...

Surely, if you truly believe you are saving a soul from damnation, from eternal torment in Gehenna, the lake of fire, any persecution/discipline is justified?

Heretical Christians...

For the heretical true believer isn't the disciplinarian is doing you a favour? It is a ticket to heaven (Matt. 16:25). Even if you are not baptised, it is Catholic doctrine that the Baptism of Blood blots out Original Sin, and all actual sin, together with the punishment due to it.

The early Christians rejoiced when one of their number was faithful unto death.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 04 Apr 2020 09:50, edited 5 times in total.
#15081307
Verv wrote:He was both, correct. However, he persecuted them as a private citizen because he was Jewish.


Provide evidence for this claim.

(a) What horrific acts?
(b) They stoned St. Stephen to death and tried to get other Christians stoned to death. This isn't about 'saying bad things.'


Not in the passage you quoted.

And the death of St. Stephen is mythical. We are discussing historical facts.

The Romans were initially disinterested because, during the ministry of Christ, He largely did come off as a Jew, and this as a Jewish religious issue. This is also how the Bible portrays it.

He sends him to the local ethnarch because he does not consider it part of his problem. This is an attitude of general indifference, is i tnot?


Sure.

This does not contradict the point that the author of this legend was trying to make the Jews look bad to ingratiate himself and other Christians with the Romans.

How so? Pontius Pilate literally sent their Messiah to the ethnarch to be killed. That isn't particularly good.


In the Christian myths, Pilate literally washes his hands of this, and the Jews are blamed.

It is one of the main theological reasons for Christian persecution of Jews.

Moreover, St. Paul is imprisoned, and over the next centuries, many Christians die at the hands of the ROman government during Roman persecution...


Yes, and this is one of the reasons why the Christians felt the need to ingratiate themselves with the Romans.

And the fact that the Xina religion becomes the official religion shortly thereafter shows that the early Christians were successful in ingratiating themselves.

It is not very conceivable that the early happenings of a minor religion in its infancy in the classical world would be recorded extensively by outside sources that would then survive.

It's irrational to expect more.


It is irrational to believe in the Christian myths, to believe that Christians did not oppress LGBtQ people, and to believe that early Christians were not materially affected by their political situation.

Alright, so you have no evidence that the texts were altered to ingratiate Christians to Rome, right?


I never claimed that any writings were altered. The oral stories were almost certainly altered, and certain written texts were simply removed in their entirety.
#15081607
@Verv

The early Christians rejoiced when one of their number was faithful unto death.

Like the over-zealous self-castrators mentioned earlier in the thread, the over-zealous self-denouncing became a problem for the Church.

So much so that the young Tertullian felt the need to gently chide the glory seeking would-be martyrs for their vanity.

if we consider that the world itself rather is a prison... let us compare the life of the world and of the prison, and see if the spirit does not gain more in the prison than the flesh loses.

— Tertullian Ad Martyras
Last edited by ingliz on 05 Apr 2020 12:33, edited 2 times in total.
#15081611
2 Corinthinans 11 wrote:Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews,

As expected our Cultural Marxists want to defend this disgusting behaviour by the Jews. The Jewish radicals that rose up against the Romans were not nice people. They were murderous theocrats. Not only the Pagans but many moderate Judaists chose to side with the Roman Empire against the Jewish terrorists despite the very obvious and terrible injustices of the Roman state.
#15081624
@Rich

I am not defending anyone.

Just pointing out that where there are heretics there must be an orthodoxy.

Nobody questions that the Inquisition believed they were doing God's work, so why is it so difficult for you to accept that first century Jews believed the same.

Why must the Jews be held to a different standard?

The heretics weren't complaining, either.

Crucify us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice is the proof that we are innocent... Nor does your cruelty, however exquisite, avail you; it is, rather, an incitement to us. The more often we are mown down by you, the more we grow in number: the blood of Christians is the seed.

Tertullian Apologeticus

p.s. To emphasise a point made in my previous post...

Although the heretics were happy to die for their beliefs, so happy most died with a smile on their face, don't come away on reading that last quote thinking that denouncing oneself to the authorities was looked upon with favour.

Christians were not permitted to seek martyrdom.

The rule being...

it is mere rashness to seek death, but it is cowardly to refuse it.

— St. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus Orat. xlii, 5, 6
#15082057
ingliz wrote:There must also be heresies among you so that the righteous can be known (1 Corinthians 11:19).

One can see you are not a true believer.

All the Abrahamic religions agree that...

This world is just a passageway, and the life hereafter is the eternal abode.

— Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib, fourth of the “rightly guided” caliphs

Orthodox Jews...

Surely, if you truly believe you are saving a soul from damnation, from eternal torment in Gehenna, the lake of fire, any persecution/discipline is justified?


The thing I was taught was in Luke 12, that those who do not know and have had barriers to their understanding will be judged by a different standard. So, we shouldn't be converting people by the sword and murdering heretics.

This is a common position.

Like, I think you are just making this sophist argument without really believing it. Given an option between myself and others killing you for being a bad influence on our community or living in a society where we believe only in peace and free conscience, you would choose the latter, right?

This is also sort of the basis of Matthew 7:1: we have no right to cast a judgment on that level.

It is also the basis of John 18:36: my kingdom is not of this world. It does not seek expansion through violence or temporal submission of others. Of course, people have done that before, but this is not based in authentic Christian understanding.

Heretical Christians...

For the heretical true believer isn't the disciplinarian is doing you a favour? It is a ticket to heaven (Matt. 16:25). Even if you are not baptised, it is Catholic doctrine that the Baptism of Blood blots out Original Sin, and all actual sin, together with the punishment due to it.

The early Christians rejoiced when one of their number was faithful unto death.


:)


That's right. We rejoice that people perservere to the end, and that martyrs of the faith have a special place.

Are you suggesting the Christian goal should be creating some environment where we ourselves are hunted and persecuted..? This is a sophist's argument, again.
#15082062
Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence for this claim.


Christians were persecuted by Jews because they were known to Jews as a departure from religious orthodoxy, and the Romans did not care about internal Jewish squabbles. The average Roman would not have known how to distinguish the two necessarily until later. It was also common for Romans to participate in cults that originate din the East.

Moreover, St. Paul signifies this is the case:

9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem

Acts 9:1-2


St. Paul was seeking out permission from the High Priest to persecute Christians. No Roman authority involved.

Not in the passage you quoted.

And the death of St. Stephen is mythical. We are discussing historical facts.


The Bible couns as historical record for this. You can reject this historical record, sure, but then we are talking about a period of history that has little to no information about it, and you are the one gorssly speculating.

I haven't seen you back up any of your claims with a reasonable source.

You did not even know enough about St. Paul to see that in his own recorded words he persecuted Christians on behalf of the Jews.

Sure.

This does not contradict the point that the author of this legend was trying to make the Jews look bad to ingratiate himself and other Christians with the Romans.


What's your evidence he was doing that and not relaying the truth of the occurrences?

In the Christian myths, Pilate literally washes his hands of this, and the Jews are blamed.

It is one of the main theological reasons for Christian persecution of Jews.


Your reason is now getting circular:

We know that what happened was a myth; so it was composed to please the Romans... And we know that it was composed to please the Romans because the account couldn't have been true, it'd have been a myth! A myth that took into consideration how to please the Romans.

The Romans who, of course, would go on to persecute Christians for centuries.

Yes, and this is one of the reasons why the Christians felt the need to ingratiate themselves with the Romans.

And the fact that the Xina religion becomes the official religion shortly thereafter shows that the early Christians were successful in ingratiating themselves.


People were willing to die and be martyred in part by Romans for a couple centuries because they had faith in the long-game that "We intentionally portrayed Pontius Pilate well and the imprisonment of Paul was downplayed, so, we got this, guys; we'll win this in a couple centuries..." ?

It is irrational to believe in the Christian myths, to believe that Christians did not oppress LGBtQ people, and to believe that early Christians were not materially affected by their political situation.


Where did Christians oppress LGBTQ people?

Christians do not believe that being materially affected was important -- just ask Ingliz, we are supposed to seek out martyrodm.

Moreover:

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 6


I never claimed that any writings were altered. The oral stories were almost certainly altered, and certain written texts were simply removed in their entirety.


You should check out Wendy Doniger on this:

There are no variant readings of the Rig Veda, no critical editions or textual apparatus. Just the Rig Veda. So much for the fluidity of orally transmitted texts. Correspondingly, the expected fixity of written texts dissolves when we look at the history of the reception and transmission of the Mahabharata, another enormous Sanskrit text, but one that was preserved both orally and in manuscript. In contrast with the Rig Veda, this text changed constantly; it is so extremely fluid that there is no single Mahabharata; there are hundreds of Mahabharatas, hundreds of different manuscripts and innumerable oral versions. So much for the fixity of written texts.

Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus (p. 33). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


The oral text of the Rig Veda was therefore memorized in such a way that no physical traces of it could be found, much as a coded espionage message would be memorized and then destroyed (eaten, perhaps—orally destroyed) before it could fall into the hands of the enemy. Its exclusively oral preservation ensured that the Rig Veda could not be misused even in the right hands: you couldn’t take the Rig Veda down off the shelf in a library, for you had to read it in the company of a wise teacher or guru, who would make sure that you understood its application in your life. Thus the Veda was usually passed down from father to son, and the lineages of the schools or “branches” (shakhas) that passed down commentaries “from one to another” (param-para) were often also family lineages, patriarchal lineages (gotras). Those who taught and learned the Rig Veda were therefore invariably male Brahmins in this early period, though later other classes too may have supplied teachers, and from the start those who composed the poems may well have been more miscellaneous, even perhaps including some women, to whom some poems are attributed.

Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus (pp. 105-106). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


Now, one might suppose that a text preserved orally in this way would be subject to steadily encroaching inaccuracy and unreliability, that the message would become increasingly garbled like the message in a game of telephone, but one would be wrong. For the very same sacredness that made it necessary to preserve the Rig Veda orally rather than in writing also demanded that it be preserved with meticulous accuracy. People regarded the Rig Veda as a revealed text, and one does not play fast and loose with revelation. It was memorized in a number of mutually reinforcing ways, including matching physical movements (such as nodding the head) with particular sounds and chanting in a group, which does much to obviate individual slippage.

Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus (p. 106). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


Point being, if the Gospels and Epistles were largely committed to memory and transmitted orally over vast areas, this would likely serve to solidify them.

If no one has memorized the 20 line poem that I wrote, but all depend on the minimal written texts that are available... I can entirely change the record by destroying the texts and replacing them.

If they have been memorized by a dozen people in a dozen places, it is impossible to change the record unless you can coordiante with them and they agree to do so.

Moreover, because these are the epistles of Paul, we know they were originally written in addition to being memorized. Same with the Gospels.
#15082092
Verv wrote:Christians were persecuted by Jews because they were known to Jews as a departure from religious orthodoxy, and the Romans did not care about internal Jewish squabbles. The average Roman would not have known how to distinguish the two necessarily until later. It was also common for Romans to participate in cults that originate din the East.


This does not show that Jews persecuted Christians. It shows that Saul did. And he seems to have various reasons to have done so.

At the time, not all Jews were antipathetic to Christians. While the Pharisees (like Saul) and others may have had differences with Christians, this does not mean all Jews did.

Moreover, St. Paul signifies this is the case:

St. Paul was seeking out permission from the High Priest to persecute Christians. No Roman authority involved.


No. Read more carefully.

He asked for letters, or papers, so that he could travel to Damascus. He needed these because it was not under Roman rule at the time and so he could not just walk in.

The Bible couns as historical record for this. You can reject this historical record, sure, but then we are talking about a period of history that has little to no information about it, and you are the one gorssly speculating.

I haven't seen you back up any of your claims with a reasonable source.

You did not even know enough about St. Paul to see that in his own recorded words he persecuted Christians on behalf of the Jews.


I know he persecuted Christians. I was questioning your claim that he did it because he was a Jew, which is not supported by your texts so far.

And since we are discussing whether or not the Bible myths were modified for political reasons, you cannot claim that one of your premises is that it has not changed.

What's your evidence he was doing that and not relaying the truth of the occurrences?


The fact that these words were not written until decades after it supposedly happened.

The fact that each gospel tells it slightly differently.

The fact that each gospel progressively makes Pilate looks less culpable and the Jews look worse.

The fact that shortly after these gospels came out, Christianity became the ruling religion of the empire.

Your reason is now getting circular:

We know that what happened was a myth; so it was composed to please the Romans... And we know that it was composed to please the Romans because the account couldn't have been true, it'd have been a myth! A myth that took into consideration how to please the Romans.

The Romans who, of course, would go on to persecute Christians for centuries.


No. I never claimed it was wrong because it was a myth.

You were initially arguing that Pilate was indifferent, while simultaneously arguing that Romans were persecuting Christians. I replied by pointing out that the indifference portrayed in the Bible was also used as a theological justification for pogroms and other discrimination against Jews.

You seem to have confirmed this with your firm belief that Jews persecuted Christians instead.

People were willing to die and be martyred in part by Romans for a couple centuries because they had faith in the long-game that "We intentionally portrayed Pontius Pilate well and the imprisonment of Paul was downplayed, so, we got this, guys; we'll win this in a couple centuries..." ?


No.

They were saying things like “oh crap these romans are here to rape and torture us again. We need to get some political power to stop this. Oh Jeez, that hurts. I have no faith that god will get us out of this. Tell then what they want to hear. Tell them we think they are the good guys and this is all the fault of the Jews. Oh hod, why do they always sodomise us?”

Et cetera.

Where did Christians oppress LGBTQ people?


Everywhere Christians went.

Christians do not believe that being materially affected was important -- just ask Ingliz, we are supposed to seek out martyrodm.

Moreover:


Yes, and Christians are still just as greedy and just as good as hoarding up treasures as the rest of us.

And it is still going on. You do not see those television evangelists giving away their money, do you? No. Quite the opposite. Quite the opposite.

You should check out Wendy Doniger on this:


Did she never play “telephone” in school?

Point being, if the Gospels and Epistles were largely committed to memory and transmitted orally over vast areas, this would likely serve to solidify them.

If no one has memorized the 20 line poem that I wrote, but all depend on the minimal written texts that are available... I can entirely change the record by destroying the texts and replacing them.

If they have been memorized by a dozen people in a dozen places, it is impossible to change the record unless you can coordiante with them and they agree to do so.

Moreover, because these are the epistles of Paul, we know they were originally written in addition to being memorized. Same with the Gospels.


It is actually very easy to change the record once you have given yourself the power to decide which version is the right one.
#15082097
EDIT: my response became garbled because of mismatched quote tags and another quote that did not paste, and I could not figure out why before lunch time, so I am effectively deleting it and will fix it after lunch.

Sorry!
#15082105
Verv wrote:EDIT: my response became garbled because of mismatched quote tags and another quote that did not paste, and I could not figure out why before lunch time, so I am effectively deleting it and will fix it after lunch.

Sorry!


I have had the exact same problem more than once. I often end up requoting the other person’s post, and slowly cutting and pasting my responses into this second reply.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 19

This is simply another way of saying that we live[…]

Am I racist in your opinion?

Denial is not a river in Egypt. Why are you so a[…]

I am calling for law and order to be enforced whi[…]

June 7, Saturday There is little time for Jacks[…]