All of you have been weighing heavy on my mind (1 Viewer)

[Booker]

Many people have given their lives in support of whatever religious beliefs they'd adopted. You're old enough to remember Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, and the Branch Davidians.

In fact, I'd say anybody harping on end-times prophecy is demonstrating the signs of vulnerability to be steered to their doom.

I'm sincere when I say that I wish you'd reconsider the beliefs you are submitting to. Maybe you just got sucked in too deep and have lost all perspective? There are religion recovery support groups online and no matter where you live, you should have access to counselors.

I'm really not trying to pick on you and I absolutely realize this is almost certainly futile, but I think you are a well meaning guy who has been manipulated into embracing a damaging set of beliefs. I sincerely hope you find a way out of this.

To piggyback on this post, this blog post has a pretty good discussion about the martyrdom argument, and also an excellent survey of how historically questionable Christian martyr claims actually are, as they are generally late and legendary.

March to Martyrdom! (Down the Yellow Brick Road…)

Who among us hath not heard the old drum that the apostles and earliest followers of Jesus would not have been willing to die for their beliefs, if they knew that the resurrection had been a lie? S…

celsus.blog

 

[DaveXA]

College degrees do not make one immune from mental illness. (Not directed at you)

Yep. Nor do they even make you smart or better yet, wise. People aren't defined by the degrees or accolades they have. They're nice on a resume and can give a sense of accomplishment, but that's about it.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

College degrees do not make one immune from mental illness. (Not directed at you)

and sometimes quite the opposite

 

[Dago]

You all are forgetting the most important thing here...
Have we put the OPs mind at rest? Hoping now that we have aired this all out he can relax and get some sleep since this was definitely, positively, absolutely, assuredly, undoubtedly, unquestionably, his final say on the matter

 

[UndeadSnoopy]

(Not directed at you)

Too bad. This could have really been interesting.

 

[Loco Hornet Fan]

Let me say this. There were 12 apostles. 13 counting Paul. All but one.... John.....died horrible deaths because of their testimony of the Lord. They did this willingly. Why would they do this for a dead man. If Jesus wasn't real and who he was shown to be....why would they do this.

Fact is that Jesus is the son of God. He is faithful and true. Everything the Bible says is true. No one would go through what they did... this doesn't even include all the early church being killed horribly by Nero.... unless he is real. Would you.

Jesus offers the free gift of salvation to all who will believe. He paid the price for you. Romans says to confess and believe and to call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved. It's that simple. He loves you and he created you. "Behold I stand at the door and knock. ". He is tenderly calling you to come to him.

I have 2 college degrees. I am not an idiot. I have read the Bible 13 times. I have tried it thoroughly and it has proven true. I have called upon Jesus many times for help and he has delivered me over and over. Please believe me when I say this is real. There is no greater decision you will ever make. I can take the persecution because it's not about me. This is about you and your eternal souls.

"He who believes in me is not condemned... but he who believes not is condemned already because he has not believed on the only begotten son of God.".

I’m not sure that is the strongest point. How many people have committed horrible atrocities, acts of self-harm, or suicide in the name of their religion/beliefs.

This happens with many religions other than Christianity, but since they willingly did these things, their beliefs must be true, right? Otherwise, why would they do those things?

I don’t think that adds up.

 

[dtc]

Yep. Nor do they even make you smart or better yet, wise. People aren't defined by the degrees or accolades they have. They're nice on a resume and can give a sense of accomplishment, but that's about it.

Mine look great on the wall of my office only in the 5 years I've been in my building I haven't bothered to hang them. Well, I guess I never bothered to get any of them framed. Crap, not sure I actually know where they are and it's been so long I'm sure I've forgotten all the good stuff anyway.

 

[Dago]

Too bad. This could have really been interesting.

 

[SystemShock]

Historical, cultural and literary. I would even add situational and the intent of the author. There's a lot of considerations when reading Scripture, and it's not always obvious or clear at the surface.

The literal part we get. What is the historical and/or cultural context we need to look at, in which "should stay silent", "submission" and "by law" mean something else, in a time when women were property?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Too bad. This could have really been interesting.

Trying to get her to do your dirty work?

 

[UndeadSnoopy]

Trying to get her to do your dirty work?

No. I'm just a fan of chaos. This thread has brought a smile to my face and a tingle in my nether-regions. I also love double entendres.

 

[DaveXA]

The literal part we get. What is the historical and/or cultural context we need to look at, in which "should stay silent", "submission" and "by law" mean something else, in a time when women were property?

That would require more time than I have to give, and to do it justice. It's a fair question. I've taught on the subject before, and maybe in the near future I'll circle back to this. If you really need an answer, I wouldn't mind sending a PM after I dig up the material I wrote on it.

And women certainly were not viewed as property by everyone during that time period in that region. Many? Sure, but not every culture believed or practiced that.

 

[Booker]

I'm going to dip my toe on a singular point that you usually lead with. Let's address for a moment your usual leading claim that the gospels are anonymous. You state it as a matter of fact, but there's literally no evidence to back up such a claim.

There are many manuscripts of all four gospels from differing regions from the first five centuries. Even the earliest texts from the second century are simply not anonymous. Every one of them have the same formula of 'gospel according to x'. What we don't have is a single example of a gospel manuscript that is not attributed to an author.

To hold that the gospels were anonymous is to believe that there were not one but four different anonymous gospels that were copied many, many times and dispersed throughout the reaches of the Roman empire over many decades and only later were the names added. And somehow they all matched up and the different versions were not attributed to the wrong guy. You'd expect to see some disagreement but it simply isn't there. For an example of an actual anonymous text, you could look at the early manuscripts of the letter to the Hebrews. The manuscripts either claim an unknown author or attribute it to differing writers later on in the centuries. This isn't the case with the gospels.

Additionally, if the authors were falsely attributed for the purposes of authority, why use Luke and Mark who were not eyewitnesses? Why not use someone else that was known to actually be with Jesus? Why not use Jesus himself?

It just doesn't make sense and only became popularized in very recent history by the likes of Bart Ehrman.

It's widely accepted. It is true they were assigned authorship at some point in the second century, and by the time they were collected into a single volume those names stuck. But the Gospels authors don't identify themselves, nor their credentials, sources, anything. And that the later manuscripts all agree on their names doesn't really mean anything, except that those names were assigned by the time they were first collected together.

As far as the traditional assigned authorship, there are good reasons no to put to much stock in them. Mark, for example, was supposed to be a companion of Peter, except that his gospel depicts Peter as a fool and preaches Pauline Christianity, so that looks sketchy. Matthew supposedly wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in Aramaic, but the Gospel of Matthew is acknowledged as having been composed in Greek.

 

[SystemShock]

That would require more time than I have to give, and to do it justice. It's a fair question. I've taught on the subject before, and maybe in the near future I'll circle back to this. If you really need an answer, I wouldn't mind sending a PM after I dig up the material I wrote on it.

And women certainly were not viewed as property by everyone during that time period in that region. Many? Sure, but not every culture believed or practiced that.

Herein lies one of the many issues with the Bible. If you read something which agrees with your current set of values, that's literally the word of God. If you read something that doesn't agree with your current set of values, then we need to do some "cultural and historical" research, in an attempt try to apologize for that which doesn't agree with our current set of values.

The irony is, people are not willing to do the same extensive cultural and historical research about the parts they agree with. Because if you took into consideration cultural and historical context, you will learn (well, you have to know this) that the origins and stories of every god ever conceived by humankind are very much the same, and the reason why you are a Christian today is because Christianity spread throughout the world through conquest and force, not by virtue.

 

[Dago]

No. I'm just a fan of chaos. This thread has brought a smile to my face and a tingle in my nether-regions. I also love double entendres.

That explains the preference for animal love.