Christian Truths or Not?

[Hope1960]

LateCatholic

6d

deMontfort:

<<<<<<<<<< The arguments he’s been making in this thread indicate that he’s pretty much an atheist who’s completely apostate from any orthodox form of Christianity.

Can’t deny that. The more I learn about institutional Christianity the harder it becomes to stay a Christian. Especially a Catholic.

Read scholarly articles about the veracity of the gospels. For example, not a single, contemporary historical mention of Jesus. Not one. (Josephus - the only one worth discussing - is widely thought to be an interpolation).

Read scholarly articles about the veracity of the Old Testament. We all know about Genesis, but read about Exodus and the true history of King David. The most damaging research being done by Jewish historians.

Read about the history of the virgin birth and the mistranslated prophecy, and how the earliest texts about Jesus don’t even mention a virgin birth.

This isn’t Catholic, but read about the disgraceful history of Mormonism and the blatant, exposed lie that is the Book of Abraham.

Read about the complete disgrace that is the sex abuse scandal. Read about the Vatican Bank and the Mafia. Read about the history of WW2, Hitler, Mussolini, and the Pope and the Slovakian SS priests that ran concentration camps.

I could go on and on. Like I said, i was raised a Catholic. But as I learned and was exposed to facts, and I researched more myself, it became very difficult to defend institutional Christianity. I wouldn’t say I’m an atheist. And I still believe in Christ’s message. But you better believe I am down on institutional Christianity. Way down.>>>>>>>>>>>

This is a post from another thread. Are these assertions true or false?

 

[LateCatholic]

Greetings - I was the one that posted the quoted items. Please be aware that I am not saying we should stray from Christ’s message. Far from it, I think we should focus on the message and NOT the history, which is prone to exaggerations, interpolations, and flat-out lies.

The more I learn, the more I realize INSTITUTIONAL Christianity is a a scam - or at least a good portion of it. How can you deny this? The sex abuse scandal alone justifies my point. However, there are far more examples than just this. If you read about the above points, you will realize there really isn’t much argument against them. For instance, regarding the virgin Mary:

Face to faith | Geza Vermes | The Guardian

This article doesn’t even discuss how the prophecy of a virgin birth was the result of a mistranslation. The correct term is not “virgin” but “young maiden”. How can May be “ever-virgin”? The Bible itself clearly states Jesus had 4 brothers and many sisters. If you want to worship Mary, that is great. I pray to her all the time. However, I think we need to be seekers of truth. If Mary was not a virgin, big deal. It doesn’t affect my faith. I’d rather just know the truth. And i the Church is hiding something from us, perhaps they are wrong about other things as well.

The point was not to question the basic premise of Jesus’ message, but I DO think we need to question the Church leadership and the institutional policies. Let’s embrace the truth, not hide from it.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

There are a lot of justifications for believing that Mary was an ever virgin and I don’t trust secular news for these types of things. As for the brothers and sisters it could be argued that the term is less inclusive in the original language could refer to other close relatives.

 

[Lee1]

If my cruise ship sinks I expect a lifeboat but if I’m offered a space on a raft of logs would I refuse it?
Man is flawed but God is perfect and I’m happy on His raft.

 

[BoomerangToo]

.The more I learn about institutional Christianity the harder it becomes to stay a Christian. Especially a Catholic.

Without “institutional” Christianity, who will give you the sacraments? Who will keep the traditions without hopelessly altering them?

Read scholarly articles about the veracity of the gospels. For example, not a single, contemporary historical mention of Jesus. Not one.

There are virtually no contemporary written accounts of anyone in the ancient world. Nothing new here.

Read scholarly articles about the veracity of the Old Testament.

I have. Every respected archaeological find just confirms the events of the OT. I’m not aware of any well-done research by a competent authority that proves anything else.

Read about the history of the virgin birth and the mistranslated prophecy, and how the earliest texts about Jesus don’t even mention a virgin birth.

The Septuagint, written about 250-300 BC, predicts the virgin birth. The later Masoretic text says “young woman.”

This isn’t Catholic, but read about the disgraceful history of Mormonism

You’re right. It’s not Catholic.

Read about the complete disgrace that is the sex abuse scandal. Read about the Vatican Bank and the Mafia. Read about the history of WW2, Hitler, Mussolini, and the Pope and the Slovakian SS priests that ran concentration camps.

So you conclude that atheists, protestants, Hindus, Muslims and pagans never sin? Sinning is strictly confined to Catholics?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

LOL I wouldn’t trust The Guardian or any mainstream media for theology.
The MSM has their own agenda—they sow the seeds of doubt among believers, because they want you to believe in them.

And what exactly is the scam here?
“Scam” implies tricking people into giving up money and property, and looking around, I’m not seeing that happening.

 

[midori]

This article doesn’t even discuss how the prophecy of a virgin birth was the result of a mistranslation. The correct term is not “virgin” but “young maiden”.

Okay, so where did that come from? Let’s look at our Isaiah—

Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign,whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also?14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

So, God said, “You’re not going to ask me for a sign? OK, I’ll give you a sign! This is your sign!”

If God was saying, “The young girl shall conceive and bear a son–” that’s pretty ordinary. Young girls have kids all the time, especially in the Middle East of that time period, when it was common to marry girls off at 12/13/14 years old. He might as well have said, “The dog shall bark!” or “The fish shall swim!” or “The birds shall fly!” if you’re going to trot out the translation argument.

How can May be “ever-virgin”?

So, that’s a mystery, sort of like trying to explain the concept of the Trinity, or the Incarnation. In this case, the analogy is usually along the lines of, “As sunlight penetrates through glass without breaking it–” sort of thing.

The Bible itself clearly states Jesus had 4 brothers and many sisters.

You’ve read texts from Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern countries, right? If you’re linguistic enough to make the “virgin” vs “young girl” argument, you’re also linguistic enough to have been exposed to the concept of “members of my tribe/clan/extended family” being addressed as “brothers and sisters”, rather than breaking it down into things like “first cousin twice removed”, “maternal aunts”, or “my father’s sister’s husband”. They didn’t define family relationships in the same way we define family relationships. You even see men calling their wives “sister”. That may have been literally true for some Egyptian pharaohs— but for the most part, we prefer to make a distinction in our culture.

 

[midori]

If you want to worship Mary, that is great. I pray to her all the time.

However, I think we need to be seekers of truth.

Lucifer knew the Truth— how was it not sufficient? What else is necessary for salvation?

The Church is divided into three groups: the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant. You’re wanting to skip over the Church Militant and go straight to the Church Triumphant-- but we’re not able to skip over that inconvenient stuff in the middle. But just because some people, even leaders, are lousy on the battlefield doesn’t mean that the army gets to disband. If you’re in the army because you like the middle management, you’re going to be disappointed.

We’re in the army because we know God wins in the end. Things get ugly in the middle, because that’s how war is, especially when waged against an enemy that wants you to fail. Humans are weak. Some of them are outright malicious. And some predators deliberately put themselves into positions of trust and respect.

But ultimately, I can’t do other people’s jobs for them. I’m ultimately responsible to God for one person, me, and the people to whom he has entrusted in my care. And I pray for the people who have taken on leadership positions and misused their power and authority-- because you couldn’t pay me to be in their shoes at their judgment.

Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, “All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.

 

[Hope1960]

Greetings - I was the one that posted the quoted items. Please be aware that I am not saying we should stray from Christ’s message. Far from it, I think we should focus on the message and NOT the history, which is prone to exaggerations, interpolations, and flat-out lies.

The more I learn, the more I realize INSTITUTIONAL Christianity is a a scam - or at least a good portion of it. How can you deny this? The sex abuse scandal alone justifies my point. However, there are far more examples than just this. If you read about the above points, you will realize there really isn’t much argument against them. For instance, regarding the virgin Mary:

the Guardian – 16 Dec 06

Mary was probably not a virgin in the modern sense of the word, says Geza Vermes​

Mary was probably not a virgin in the modern sense of the word, says Geza Vermes.

This article doesn’t even discuss how the prophecy of a virgin birth was the result of a mistranslation. The correct term is not “virgin” but “young maiden”. How can May be “ever-virgin”? The Bible itself clearly states Jesus had 4 brothers and many sisters. If you want to worship Mary, that is great. I pray to her all the time. However, I think we need to be seekers of truth. If Mary was not a virgin, big deal. It doesn’t affect my faith. I’d rather just know the truth. And i the Church is hiding something from us, perhaps they are wrong about other things as well.

The point was not to question the basic premise of Jesus’ message, but I DO think we need to question the Church leadership and the institutional policies. Let’s embrace the truth, not hide from it.

I wanted to start this new thread so I didn’t hijack the other one.

 

[adf417]

In the early church when there were many books being called NT scripture, that in fact weren’t, and being used in the liturgy, and no body could agree what was NT scripture, where was The Guardian?

Peace!!!

 

[LateCatholic]

The Church is divided into three groups: the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant. You’re wanting to skip over the Church Militant and go straight to the Church Triumphant-- but we’re not able to skip over that inconvenient stuff in the middle. But just because some people, even leaders, are lousy on the battlefield doesn’t mean that the army gets to disband.

So why can’t we expose the lies (or honest mistakes) and be seekers of truth?
Are you saying we should not question the Church’s position on anything?

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

You haven’t responded to the refutations of your objections. I’m curious to see how you would respond to them considering the contextual evidence they have.

 

[midori]

So why can’t we expose the lies (or honest mistakes) and be seekers of truth?
Are you saying we should not question the Church’s position on anything?

I’ll wait while you point out where I said that…

Because you know I didn’t.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

I noticed that too.

 

[Hope1960]

You haven’t responded to the refutations of your objections. I’m curious to see how you would respond to them considering the contextual evidence they have.

I’d really like a reply, too.

 

[LateCatholic]

If God was saying, “The young girl shall conceive and bear a son–” that’s pretty ordinary.

You cannot argue with the text. The text literally says “young girl”, NOT “virgin”. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew was using a mis-translation (this is fact - it was noted by contemporary historians). Matthew quotes the prophecy, and copies the error. It is really, really hard to argue this. There is solid evidence.

you’re also linguistic enough to have been exposed to the concept of “members of my tribe/clan/extended family” being addressed as “brothers and sisters”, rather than breaking it down into things like “first cousin twice removed”, “maternal aunts”, or “my father’s sister’s husband”.

This is a common argument made in defense of the obvious evidence that THROUGHOUT the Bible - as in multiple places - Jesus has siblings. The argument goes that SOME Middle East translations use words in SOME spots that could be interpreted as cousin. However, this argument is completely obliterated when you look at the original Greek, which states Jesus had actual brothers and sisters, and Mary was their mother. In fact, it relies on this, because the Bible defines Jesus’ genealogy as being descended from David.

 

[KJW5551]

No contemporary references to Jesus? @LateCatholic please read this article, written by an atheist, which destroys that weak argument:

Jesus Mythicism 3: "No Contemporary References to Jesus" - History for Atheists

 

[njlisa]

The Greek word for virgin is used the Septuagint. The word is parthenos. The Parthenon in Greece is dedicated to Athena, the virgin goddess. The Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures was written by Jewish scholars. They had no reason to “create” the idea of a virgin birth.

 

[midori]

You cannot argue with the text. The text literally says “young girl”, NOT “virgin”.

Write the word in the correct characters, please. Give me the whole sentence.

The oldest almost-complete copy of Matthew that we can lay our hands on is 4th century. You’re arguing that there was no contemporary evidence for Jesus, and at the same time, you’re citing contemporary criticism of Matthew as not knowing his Isaiah?

However, this argument is completely obliterated when you look at the original Greek, which states Jesus had actual brothers and sisters, and Mary was their mother.

Okay, let’s look at the original Greek. ἀδελφὸς and ἀδελφαὶ.

What’s the Big Picture in this whole scene? It’s not the biological blood ties that are important, but the spiritual ties. That’s why early Christians called each other “brethren”, because they were connected spiritually into one big family, adopted children of God, brothers in Christ, even if they weren’t biologically related to each other.

What’s Acts full of? ἀδελφοί . What do you get in Galatians? ψευδαδέλφους . What did the early Christians call each other, even after the term “Christian” was coined in Antioch? ἀδελφοί . It appears over 300 times in the New Testament alone.

Are you arguing that every single instance is talking about blood relatives? It’s demonstrably not.

And you’re certainly not arguing that Jesus’ genealogy (either Luke or Matthew) makes any mention of siblings. But the genealogy is a whole 'nuther discussion…

 

[LateCatholic]

you’re citing contemporary criticism of Matthew as not knowing his Isaiah?

The scholarly consensus is that when Matthew quoted Isaiah’s prophecy - which he quoted almost exactly - he used a mistranslation. We know this because the same mistranslation was common in the time period. However, we have OLDER manuscripts which do not have this error. So we know he made this mistake. Also, we have critics of Matthew in the second and third century calling this out. They knew almost at the time Matthew wrote the Gospel he was wrong. No one argues this. We have the evidence. The conclusion - which you CAN argue - is that he made up the virgin story because he thought that’s what the prophecy said. The letters of St Paul don’t mention a virgin birth. The gospel of Mark doesn’t. John doesn’t. No historian does. Matthew barely mentions it, and Luke pretty much copied and extended/changed Matthew. Many of the earliest Christian sects didn’t believe Mary was a virgin. Heck, Matthew was written almost a century after Christ was born. How did Matthew know about this and no one else before him mention it???

It’s not the biological blood ties that are important, but the spiritual ties. That’s why early Christians called each other “brethren”, because they were connected spiritually into one big family, adopted children of God, brothers in Christ, even if they weren’t biologically related to each other.

Well, you are now changing your position. I won’t argue the above. That’s theology. In fact, I agree with it.
But the FACT remains that the Bible REPEATEDLY refers to Jesus as having brothers and sisters. Josephus says the same. You made the argument that certain Middle east translations of the Bible use words that can also mean ‘cousin’. This is a stretch, but you can interpret it that way. But, the original Greek clearly states that Jesus had biological brothers. Not spiritual brothers. Not cousins. Real biological siblings. The Bible also clearly states Joseph is the biological father of Jesus - it even lists the genealogy multiple times.

People get upset when they learn this. It’s like their faith is shaken. But that shouldn’t be - you should question the institutional leaders of the Church that try to subvert facts and true history, but not the fundamental message of Christianity. So Mary wasn’t a virgin? It really doesn’t bother me. I’m still going to live my life as a good person.