The Central Problem with Christianity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

Jesus (and Paul) thought the world was going to end soon. This is why Jesus told people to give away their possessions, and Paul taught people should not marry. Jesus spoke very specifically about the world ending in the lifetime of those he preached to. [I won't go into the verses, because it will spawn the usual verbal gymnastics about how he did not mean what he said]

Christians, for the most part, ignore the idea of not attaining wealth. They also ignore the admonition not to marry. They ignore these basic Christian teachings because they don't like them. Instead, they claim Jesus didn't really mean what he said about the end coming soon. This provides cover for getting married and accumulating wealth.

The question for debate is, "Why do most Christians marry and try to accumulate wealth despite the very clear New Testament admonitions to do the opposite?
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.
__ Matthew 6:19-20
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #191

Post by TRANSPONDER »

oldbadger wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:59 am
Diogenes wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:15 pm Jesus (and Paul) thought the world was going to end soon. This is why Jesus told people to give away their possessions, and Paul taught people should not marry. Jesus spoke very specifically about the world ending in the lifetime of those he preached to. [I won't go into the verses, because it will spawn the usual verbal gymnastics about how he did not mean what he said]

Christians, for the most part, ignore the idea of not attaining wealth. They also ignore the admonition not to marry. They ignore these basic Christian teachings because they don't like them. Instead, they claim Jesus didn't really mean what he said about the end coming soon. This provides cover for getting married and accumulating wealth.

The question for debate is, "Why do most Christians marry and try to accumulate wealth despite the very clear New Testament admonitions to do the opposite?
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.
__ Matthew 6:19-20
I don't think that Jesus was saying the same 'things' as Paul, so I would prefer to comment about Jesus.

I think that Jesus was talking about 'their' world to end, a World run by a greedy, self-centred, hypocritical and corrupt priesthood beneath and trying to copy the cultures of a pagan occupation.
But 'yes', he certainly didn't believe in unreasonable wealth in the midst of such massive unreasonable poverty.
He said so, but like you, I'll wait to be asked by any who do not know the scriptures about that.
Two points about that.

(a) Given that while it was the Sadducees that ran the Temple, had the power, collaborated with the Romans (Maybe they thought it was for the best, but they didn't lose by that) and were the wealthy pro Roman aristocrats and politicians in 1st c Judea, the Pharisees, while having opportunities I suppose to make money as Rulers of Synagogues, were teachers of the Law to the people, and not really the corrupt swanks that the Gospels paint them to be (1). Jesus in the Sermon (which it comes from, I suppose) yeah...6. 19. He is supposedly talking to ordinary people, householders, traders and anyone with a little money to hand over to the common purse, for all the world like a megachurch preacher getting the people to empty their wallets into his bank account.

(b) also Jesus never said it. Or that's my view. Sure, hardly anyone else shares it (though I Have Faith O:) that one day they will as it's obvious when seen) but to me the significant fact is that this passage is also found in Luke 12.33 and in a quite different place - taught on the road to Peraea like the half of the sermon material after the 'Lord's prayer' (11.1) taught for the first time to the disciples when Jesus was praying before they set out for Jerusalem, the previous material being in a Sermon of Luke's own on a level place'. This material is (with a couple of particular exceptions) not found in Mark and what this means is that this is all Q document material, not in the original synoptic gospel and used by both Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) and is put (often) into different places in the Gospels because they edited their gospel independently, if the contradictions didn't make it obvious that Luke did not read Matthew, or he wouldn't have contradicted him (2). The point being that none of this is Jesus' sayings, though I can well believe that it was a list of Thomaslike 'Jesus saids' imported into Matthew and Luke from an original document as lost as the Synoptic original, and reflecting the views of the early church. Chief amongst which is 'Give all your money to us', And which is still unshakeable doctrine up to the present day. Hallelujiah.

(1) they tended to be anti Roman and tended to zealotry and that's what the Gospels had against them, as well as following the Pauline line of discrediting the Law.

(2) one apologist on my former board tried to argue that Luke deliberately contradicted Matthew so that nobody would believe Matthew. What he thought good that did Christianity I don't know but I suppose it was to him as good an explanation as any other than 'none of it is reliable'

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 310 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #192

Post by oldbadger »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:46 pm
Two points about that.

(a) Given that while it was the Sadducees that ran the Temple, had the power, collaborated with the Romans (Maybe they thought it was for the best, but they didn't lose by that) and were the wealthy pro Roman aristocrats and politicians in 1st c Judea, the Pharisees, while having opportunities I suppose to make money as Rulers of Synagogues, were teachers of the Law to the people, and not really the corrupt swanks that the Gospels paint them to be (1). Jesus in the Sermon (which it comes from, I suppose) yeah...6. 19. He is supposedly talking to ordinary people, householders, traders and anyone with a little money to hand over to the common purse, for all the world like a megachurch preacher getting the people to empty their wallets into his bank account.

(b) also Jesus never said it. Or that's my view. Sure, hardly anyone else shares it (though I Have Faith O:) that one day they will as it's obvious when seen) but to me the significant fact is that this passage is also found in Luke 12.33 and in a quite different place - taught on the road to Peraea like the half of the sermon material after the 'Lord's prayer' (11.1) taught for the first time to the disciples when Jesus was praying before they set out for Jerusalem, the previous material being in a Sermon of Luke's own on a level place'. This material is (with a couple of particular exceptions) not found in Mark and what this means is that this is all Q document material, not in the original synoptic gospel and used by both Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) and is put (often) into different places in the Gospels because they edited their gospel independently, if the contradictions didn't make it obvious that Luke did not read Matthew, or he wouldn't have contradicted him (2). The point being that none of this is Jesus' sayings, though I can well believe that it was a list of Thomaslike 'Jesus saids' imported into Matthew and Luke from an original document as lost as the Synoptic original, and reflecting the views of the early church. Chief amongst which is 'Give all your money to us', And which is still unshakeable doctrine up to the present day. Hallelujiah.

(1) they tended to be anti Roman and tended to zealotry and that's what the Gospels had against them, as well as following the Pauline line of discrediting the Law.

(2) one apologist on my former board tried to argue that Luke deliberately contradicted Matthew so that nobody would believe Matthew. What he thought good that did Christianity I don't know but I suppose it was to him as good an explanation as any other than 'none of it is reliable'
OK. I acknowledge your opinions. For myself I focus upon G-Mark for true timeline and real mission, less the added stuff; I think the author was a partial witness and telling the memoirs of Cephas who definitely wanted to straighten the record. Jesus was for a return of the old laws because he stood for recognition of all the poor laws....we see that in his actions as well as his words. I think he was a man with a mission who loved his mates his meat and his wine. Excellent! :)

I think that the Baptist and Jesus both were campaigning against Temple greed, corruption, hypocrisy and being quislings to the occupying power. Many Pharisees were not even Levites, not of the Priesthood and I although there would have been centres of leadership I'm not sure how many synagogues there were at that time.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #193

Post by brunumb »

oldbadger wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:31 pm I think that the Baptist and Jesus both were campaigning against Temple greed, corruption, hypocrisy and being quislings to the occupying power.
If they came back today they would find themselves having to do the same thing, just with a different 'church'.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 310 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #194

Post by oldbadger »

brunumb wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 7:42 pm
oldbadger wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:31 pm I think that the Baptist and Jesus both were campaigning against Temple greed, corruption, hypocrisy and being quislings to the occupying power.
If they came back today they would find themselves having to do the same thing, just with a different 'church'.
Absolutely!
Their campaign sizzled out after 11-12 months, being picked up and fiddled with for Christianity. But they could stand for exactly the same reasons today, but if they got too successful I reckon they might have accidents.....kind of thing.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #195

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #190]

:warning: Moderator Warning


Refrain from personal comments.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #196

Post by TRANSPONDER »

I thought you might say that, but It Is Not Personal - it is setting straight an invalid idea - that trying to blank an opponent only hurts the person doing it. My advice to you sunshine, is to use the brain rather than the rules.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #197

Post by TRANSPONDER »

oldbadger wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:31 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 12:46 pm
Two points about that.

(a) Given that while it was the Sadducees that ran the Temple, had the power, collaborated with the Romans (Maybe they thought it was for the best, but they didn't lose by that) and were the wealthy pro Roman aristocrats and politicians in 1st c Judea, the Pharisees, while having opportunities I suppose to make money as Rulers of Synagogues, were teachers of the Law to the people, and not really the corrupt swanks that the Gospels paint them to be (1). Jesus in the Sermon (which it comes from, I suppose) yeah...6. 19. He is supposedly talking to ordinary people, householders, traders and anyone with a little money to hand over to the common purse, for all the world like a megachurch preacher getting the people to empty their wallets into his bank account.

(b) also Jesus never said it. Or that's my view. Sure, hardly anyone else shares it (though I Have Faith O:) that one day they will as it's obvious when seen) but to me the significant fact is that this passage is also found in Luke 12.33 and in a quite different place - taught on the road to Peraea like the half of the sermon material after the 'Lord's prayer' (11.1) taught for the first time to the disciples when Jesus was praying before they set out for Jerusalem, the previous material being in a Sermon of Luke's own on a level place'. This material is (with a couple of particular exceptions) not found in Mark and what this means is that this is all Q document material, not in the original synoptic gospel and used by both Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) and is put (often) into different places in the Gospels because they edited their gospel independently, if the contradictions didn't make it obvious that Luke did not read Matthew, or he wouldn't have contradicted him (2). The point being that none of this is Jesus' sayings, though I can well believe that it was a list of Thomaslike 'Jesus saids' imported into Matthew and Luke from an original document as lost as the Synoptic original, and reflecting the views of the early church. Chief amongst which is 'Give all your money to us', And which is still unshakeable doctrine up to the present day. Hallelujiah.

(1) they tended to be anti Roman and tended to zealotry and that's what the Gospels had against them, as well as following the Pauline line of discrediting the Law.

(2) one apologist on my former board tried to argue that Luke deliberately contradicted Matthew so that nobody would believe Matthew. What he thought good that did Christianity I don't know but I suppose it was to him as good an explanation as any other than 'none of it is reliable'
OK. I acknowledge your opinions. For myself I focus upon G-Mark for true timeline and real mission, less the added stuff; I think the author was a partial witness and telling the memoirs of Cephas who definitely wanted to straighten the record. Jesus was for a return of the old laws because he stood for recognition of all the poor laws....we see that in his actions as well as his words. I think he was a man with a mission who loved his mates his meat and his wine. Excellent! :)

I think that the Baptist and Jesus both were campaigning against Temple greed, corruption, hypocrisy and being quislings to the occupying power. Many Pharisees were not even Levites, not of the Priesthood and I although there would have been centres of leadership I'm not sure how many synagogues there were at that time.
This would be an interesting discussion because it is a...Question, not a Problem as such. Are the Gospels eyewitness or even report of eyewitness or something made up? I of course started from taking them as eyewitness and even came to believe the swoon' theory. And it still might be (it's fascinating), but I do now think that such a story (1) has been overwritten by Greek Christian commentators who built on Paulinism and the Christian elevation of Man - messiah to a god, the idea that the Temple was destroyed because the Jews did not accept Jesus and the topping and tailing of a story than needed a Messianic birth and a solid body resurrection.

I think people do see that Matthew and Luke differ a lot and John totally (but not the very basic story ;) ) though they differ on who copied whom But the hardest thing to Sell is that Mark in Not the original but is itself seriously edited. The servants in the boat, Pilate's surprise and the elaboration of the death of the Baptist. When we know that Mark amended things (and often made them worse) we understand that Mark is not the original, and of course not eyewitness by anybody.

As I say, hard to sell, but I think one day it will be understood.

(1) Jesus took over the mission of revolt from the Baptist (Antipas was right to be suspicious) and Jesus fakes miracles of inrceasing audacity to impress his followers. The last being the biggest and best.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #198

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #196]
I thought you might say that, but It Is Not Personal - it is setting straight an invalid idea - that trying to blank an opponent only hurts the person doing it. My advice to you sunshine, is to use the brain rather than the rules.
Moderator Comment

Please respond to moderator actions via PM rather than within a thread, as per the forum Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics..
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 310 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #199

Post by oldbadger »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 10:41 am
This would be an interesting discussion because it is a...Question, not a Problem as such. Are the Gospels eyewitness or even report of eyewitness or something made up? I of course started from taking them as eyewitness and even came to believe the swoon' theory. And it still might be (it's fascinating), but I do now think that such a story (1) has been overwritten by Greek Christian commentators who built on Paulinism and the Christian elevation of Man - messiah to a god, the idea that the Temple was destroyed because the Jews did not accept Jesus and the topping and tailing of a story than needed a Messianic birth and a solid body resurrection.
If I strip away (my idea of) the fiddlings, additions and stuff of the gospels vI perceive Jesus as a man who (like you say) picked up the Baptist's mission and struggled on with it for about a year.
By the way, what with Pilate's pushy wife and her dream, and Pilate's delighting in Priesthood embarrassment, I rather think that he got Jesus down and away, alive. After all, Josephus saved a friend from crucifixion and wrote about it. Anyway, loads of folks saw him afterwards, with tales coming from as far away as Kashmir and Cornwall where thousands are supposed to have seen him....... alive. :)
I think people do see that Matthew and Luke differ a lot and John totally (but not the very basic story ;) ) though they differ on who copied whom But the hardest thing to Sell is that Mark in Not the original but is itself seriously edited. The servants in the boat, Pilate's surprise and the elaboration of the death of the Baptist. When we know that Mark amended things (and often made them worse) we understand that Mark is not the original, and of course not eyewitness by anybody.
I don't think that the author of Mark messed about, I think that happened later on.
(1) Jesus took over the mission of revolt from the Baptist (Antipas was right to be suspicious) and Jesus fakes miracles of inrceasing audacity to impress his followers. The last being the biggest and best.
Yes, but I think the miracles in G-Mark happened, but in a temporal, natural way. That's a thread on its own, really. :)

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: The Central Problem with Christianity

Post #200

Post by TRANSPONDER »

oldbadger wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 12:08 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 10:41 am
This would be an interesting discussion because it is a...Question, not a Problem as such. Are the Gospels eyewitness or even report of eyewitness or something made up? I of course started from taking them as eyewitness and even came to believe the swoon' theory. And it still might be (it's fascinating), but I do now think that such a story (1) has been overwritten by Greek Christian commentators who built on Paulinism and the Christian elevation of Man - messiah to a god, the idea that the Temple was destroyed because the Jews did not accept Jesus and the topping and tailing of a story than needed a Messianic birth and a solid body resurrection.
If I strip away (my idea of) the fiddlings, additions and stuff of the gospels vI perceive Jesus as a man who (like you say) picked up the Baptist's mission and struggled on with it for about a year.
By the way, what with Pilate's pushy wife and her dream, and Pilate's delighting in Priesthood embarrassment, I rather think that he got Jesus down and away, alive. After all, Josephus saved a friend from crucifixion and wrote about it. Anyway, loads of folks saw him afterwards, with tales coming from as far away as Kashmir and Cornwall where thousands are supposed to have seen him....... alive. :)
I think people do see that Matthew and Luke differ a lot and John totally (but not the very basic story ;) ) though they differ on who copied whom But the hardest thing to Sell is that Mark in Not the original but is itself seriously edited. The servants in the boat, Pilate's surprise and the elaboration of the death of the Baptist. When we know that Mark amended things (and often made them worse) we understand that Mark is not the original, and of course not eyewitness by anybody.
I don't think that the author of Mark messed about, I think that happened later on.
(1) Jesus took over the mission of revolt from the Baptist (Antipas was right to be suspicious) and Jesus fakes miracles of inrceasing audacity to impress his followers. The last being the biggest and best.
Yes, but I think the miracles in G-Mark happened, but in a temporal, natural way. That's a thread on its own, really. :)
Ah,,,, :D That was where I was a decade or so ago. I took the gospels as basically reliable and one could construct a Real Jesus' story by cherry -picking the bits that fitted. The fact is that 'the disciples stole the body' theory fits the narrative better than the Christian hypothesis. Pilate was clearly disposed to let Jesus off. When Arimathea approached him he was glad to have his Auxiliaries help Joseph to facepalm Jesus with a Spunge of puggle, knock him out then ferry him out of the tomb as soon as the coast was clear. The tomb was empty before the tomb guard was posted and they were working for Pilate anyway.

Then the faked miracles: the healing of the servant or boy where nobody saw it but heard the claim 'he got better at exactly the time!" Like they'd sychrionised watches. Or the girl pretending to be at death's door. Jesus only let a few trusted disciples see that one. Bar Timaeus (They know his name :) ) posted outside Jericho primed to pretend to be cured to make Jesus look good and finally the whole plot around Lazarus, message sent where Martha knew Jesus would be - at John's healing -place in Paraea - Jesus waiting two days before setting out and Lazarus popped in the tomb just in time for Jesus to arrive and have him walk out, legs individually wrapped so he could walk. And there you have a dry run for Arimathea's plot to save Jesus.

It makes more sense than the Christian belief that these are real miracles. And I credited it for a long while. I still think that any Historical Jesus had to be a Zealot Pharisee and the Temple business the start of an insurrection (Yes, of course, Jesus Son of God and Jesus Bar Abba are of course the same person) and Christianity overpainted the zealot to look like a Pauline Greek gentile -- friendly Christian.

It could still be true, at least in part, but I now have to reject so much of the gospels as invented. Still, at base where they all agree really fits the 'disguised insurrectionist' story better than the Risen messiah story.

Post Reply