New Testament propaganda

[Realworldjack]

There are those on this site who continue to refer to the New Testament as "propaganda".

prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/

noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Can this idea be demonstrated to be a fact? If it cannot, then who is it that is spreading, "propaganda"?

[1213]

Christian "scripture" is biased.

Christian "scripture" is misleading.

Christian "scripture" promotes the political cause of the Leader as "King of Israel".

Can you please demonstrate those are true and fact?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 7 by SallyF]

Preach the Gospel to every creature" ... sure looks like the original propagandists wanted to reach the masses.

Looks like you fail again, because the OP is concerned with those who refer to the NT letters as being "propaganda", and as I have demonstrated the overwhelming majority of the letters can be demonstrated to have been addressed to those who would have already believed, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by anyone other than the original intended audience, which demonstrates they were not concerned in these letters with "publicizing" what they were communicating to the world.

Next, when you use the word, "propaganda" you either have in mind that the information being given would be of a misleading nature, or you have in mind that even accurate information being communicated would be considered "propaganda". If you have in mind the idea that the information would be misleading in nature, then you have failed to demonstrate where the information in the letters contained in the NT would be misleading in any way? If however, you simply mean that even accurate information communicated in defense of a cause would be "propaganda", then we all would be guilty of using "propaganda", and therefore, there would be no point.

My guess would be that your use of the word "propaganda" would involve the idea that the information would be misleading in some sort of way, and as I have said, you have failed to demonstrate this to be the case.

Nonetheless, your chosen definition of "propaganda" says nothing about "masses" anyway ….

And neither does any other definition I have found.

Please feel free to rush to find one that does

You are correct. What it says is,

publicize

Therefore, personal letters addressed to particular audiences who would have already believed, would not be an attempt to "publicize" the information to others.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 9 by Zzyzx]

Propaganda refers to spreading of information to influence opinion (regardless of truth or bias). The NT appears to fit the definition.

Okay, with this being the case, then we would all be guilty of "propaganda" and there would be no need in accusing anyone of such a thing. This would seem to mean, that when I tell others about the "Children's Miracle Network" at the hospital, and how it is a good cause, that I would be guilty of spreading, "propaganda"?

If this is the idea that is in mind, then I guess we can refer to the NT in this way, but I cannot see any sort of point that would be made if this was the case, and I think we both know there would be a little more involved, as I think we will see momentarily.

Propaganda; information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Again, if this is all that is in mind, then we all would be guilty of "propaganda", and I would see no point?

I mean, let us think about it like this. You have scolded me in the past, because I do not consider the audience as I post, and you have actually told me the numbers of people who view what it is we do post. This seems to mean that you have the audience in mind as you post. Therefore, with the definitions of "propaganda" you have used thus far, it would seem that you would be guilty of "propaganda" yourself, so what would be the point in claiming the NT would be, "propaganda"? There would be no point.

Propaganda is the spreading of information in support of a cause. It’s not so important whether the information is true or false or if the cause is just or not — it’s all propaganda.

And again, all the above would apply in this case as well. If this is all that would be involved, then what would be the point, since we could all be accused of spreading, "propaganda"?

Propaganda, dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion.

Now, I believe we are getting a little closer to what folks actually mean when they accuse the NT of being "propaganda"? In other words, they have in mind that the information would simply be "rumors, half-truths, and, or lies".

If this is the case, then they fail to demonstrate that this information would indeed be, "rumors, half-truths, and, or lies. If they have in mind, one of the other definitions you use above, then what would be the point, since everyone can be accused of spreading, "propaganda"?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 10 by benchwarmer]

Biased and/or misleading: Check. How is it not biased to promote the story of a dead person coming back to life and flying away as truth?

Well, let us see,

bi·ased
/ˈbīəst/

adjective
1.
unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something:

Okay, do you see the word, "unfairly"? So then, how can you demonstrate the authors of the NT letters were "unfairly prejudiced" for, or against something? Notice, it is not simply that they may have been "for something"? But rather they were "unfairly prejudice" for something.

Perhaps we can debate misleading, but given there is no verifiable way to test the highly unlikely claim of resurrection and flying away it seems misleading to proclaims this as truth.

My friend, simply because we may find a report difficult, and even impossible to believe, does not in any way demonstrate the reports would be misleading. That simply does not follow.

Used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Check. Is Jesus not claimed to be the king of kings? Political.

Let us recall, Jesus is reported to have said, "my kingdom is not of this world" which would demonstrate that it is not "political".

Is the calling not to spread the gospel? Promotion and publication.

Let us keep in mind, we are talking about the letters contained in the NT as being "propaganda". If we define "propaganda" as simply, reporting information, then we are all guilty of "propaganda" and there would be no point in accusing anyone else of such a thing. If we say that "propaganda" would be to "spread information widely", then I do not see how we can accuse the authors of the NT letters of such a thing, since the overwhelming majority of the letters contained in the NT were addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already believed, with no concern, nor any idea, that what they were writing would have been read by anyone else besides their original intended audience? If however, we are defining "propaganda" to include, the spreading of "rumors, half-truths, and, or lies" then this has not been demonstrated to be the case.

So then, thus far, the only way I can see that we would be able to refer to the NT letters as being "propaganda" is if it is defined as simply, "reporting information whether true, or false" which then there would be no point, seeing as we are all guilty?

Wow, how is it not propaganda even by the very definition you give?

Well, let us look at that definition again.

prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/

noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

If we leave in, "especially of a biased or misleading nature" then this has not been demonstrated to be the case with the letters contained in the NT. If we take this out, we are left with, "used to promote or publicize". Well, I do not see how personal letters addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already believed, with no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would have read these letters, could be seen as, "promoting or publicizing" since the letters were not intended for the, public, and were addressed to those who would have already believed, and so there would be no need in, "promoting" something to those who would have already believed?

The whole point here is, the NT letters are being accused of being "propaganda", and I cannot imagine that this would only entail the "reporting of information", since there would be no point. If however, this would indeed entail more than simply the "reporting of information", then those things need to be identified, and it needs to determined if those things that are identified, can be demonstrated to be a fact, as far as the letters contained in the NT are concerned.

If you all would like to come to the agreement that when one refers to the NT letters as "propaganda" the only intention is to say they intended to "report information" whether true, or false, then I will concede the point.

If however, the intended meaning of "propaganda" would include the "spreading of information", then I do not see how this could be demonstrated, especially in the face of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the NT letters were not addressed to the public in any way, but were rather addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already believed, with no concern, nor any idea, that anyone else would read these letters?

I'm with Clownboat on this one. Debate lost by the OP itself and certainly lost one page in.

I believe we are on page 2 now.

[Difflugia]

So?????? Exactly how can you demonstrate that any of the authors, were "unfairly prejudice"? Because you see, there would be a tremendous difference between reporting what one truly believed to be facts, as opposed to being "unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something".

Perhaps John 21:25?

There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn’t have room for the books that would be written.

If that's not marketing, I don't know what is.

Okay, with this being the case, then we would all be guilty of "propaganda" and there would be no need in accusing anyone of such a thing. This would seem to mean, that when I tell others about the "Children's Miracle Network" at the hospital, and how it is a good cause, that I would be guilty of spreading, "propaganda"?

No, but you would be if you claimed that the "Children's Miracle Network" brought someone back to life and there were guards that saw it, but they were bribed by the atheists to say that it didn't really happen. She then vanished from the hospital and magically appeared to 500 people. You wouldn't know them, though, because they live in Canada.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 13 by Realworldjack]

If proposing that the NT is not propaganda, perhaps your quarrel is with

www.dictionary.com
www.vocabulary.com
www.britannica.com

Definitions supplied by those sources seem to include the NT. That there are other sources of propaganda does not immunize the NT.

Notice in their definitons: ‘deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.’

‘spreading of information in support of a cause’

‘to influence public opinion.’

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 10 by benchwarmer]

Biased and/or misleading: Check. How is it not biased to promote the story of a dead person coming back to life and flying away as truth?

Well, let us see,

bi·ased
/ˈbīəst/

adjective
1.
unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something:

Okay, do you see the word, "unfairly"? So then, how can you demonstrate the authors of the NT letters were "unfairly prejudiced" for, or against something? Notice, it is not simply that they may have been "for something"? But rather they were "unfairly prejudice" for something.

I didn't realize we had to line up with every single definition and nuance of the word 'propaganda' you can find. That seems pretty odd. I used YOUR definition that you gave. One would think that would be enough. Now you add another definition after the fact and expect I should have seen that?

Perhaps we can debate misleading, but given there is no verifiable way to test the highly unlikely claim of resurrection and flying away it seems misleading to proclaims this as truth.

My friend, simply because we may find a report difficult, and even impossible to believe, does not in any way demonstrate the reports would be misleading. That simply does not follow.

Thus my very clear "Perhaps we can debate...". Are you even reading what we write?

Used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Check. Is Jesus not claimed to be the king of kings? Political.

Let us recall, Jesus is reported to have said, "my kingdom is not of this world" which would demonstrate that it is not "political".

You want me to reconcile ALL scripture? Good luck, Christians can't even do that. I gave an example that is political. The fact you can find something else among the cobbled together writings contained in the NT that doesn't match my example is not surprising.

Is the calling not to spread the gospel? Promotion and publication.

Let us keep in mind, we are talking about the letters contained in the NT as being "propaganda". If we define "propaganda" as simply, reporting information, then we are all guilty of "propaganda" and there would be no point in accusing anyone else of such a thing. If we say that "propaganda" would be to "spread information widely", then I do not see how we can accuse the authors of the NT letters of such a thing, since the overwhelming majority of the letters contained in the NT were addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already believed, with no concern, nor any idea, that what they were writing would have been read by anyone else besides their original intended audience? If however, we are defining "propaganda" to include, the spreading of "rumors, half-truths, and, or lies" then this has not been demonstrated to be the case.

Who defined propaganda to be defined as you just did? Not your OP or my counterpoints to it. Are you or are you not asked to spread the gospel message within the texts themselves? Is this gospel message information that is meant to influence opinion?

You can move the goal posts all you like and redefine 'propaganda' until it no longer matches the original topic, but you are still not gaining headway.

[Realworldjack]

So?????? Exactly how can you demonstrate that any of the authors, were "unfairly prejudice"? Because you see, there would be a tremendous difference between reporting what one truly believed to be facts, as opposed to being "unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something".

Perhaps John 21:25?

There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn’t have room for the books that would be written.

If that's not marketing, I don't know what is.

Okay, with this being the case, then we would all be guilty of "propaganda" and there would be no need in accusing anyone of such a thing. This would seem to mean, that when I tell others about the "Children's Miracle Network" at the hospital, and how it is a good cause, that I would be guilty of spreading, "propaganda"?

No, but you would be if you claimed that the "Children's Miracle Network" brought someone back to life and there were guards that saw it, but they were bribed by the atheists to say that it didn't really happen. She then vanished from the hospital and magically appeared to 500 people. You wouldn't know them, though, because they live in Canada.

John 21:25
There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn’t have room for the books that would be written.

If that's not marketing, I don't know what is.

Well, this would certainly be an opinion on your part, and it would not be something you can demonstrate. I simply take it to mean the author was attempting to communicate in an exaggerated sort of way, that it would be impossible to record all the events of the life of Jesus.

I am attempting to understand what the original Apostles would be "marketing", seeing as how we know they gained more hardships, than anything else? So what were they gaining out of the deal?

No, but you would be if you claimed that the "Children's Miracle Network" brought someone back to life and there were guards that saw it, but they were bribed by the atheists to say that it didn't really happen. She then vanished from the hospital and magically appeared to 500 people. You wouldn't know them, though, because they live in Canada.

I take this as an analogy, which you are comparing to the reports in the NT. The question would be, would this still be considered "propaganda" if they were reporting facts? If not, then can you demonstrate that what they reported would be false? If so, then the accusation of "propaganda" is sort of pointless.

[Realworldjack]

.
[Replying to post 13 by Realworldjack]

If proposing that the NT is not propaganda, perhaps your quarrel is with

www.dictionary.com
www.vocabulary.com
www.britannica.com

Definitions supplied by those sources seem to include the NT. That there are other sources of propaganda does not immunize the NT.

Notice in their definitons: ‘deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.’

‘spreading of information in support of a cause’

‘to influence public opinion.’

Notice in their definitons: ‘deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.’

Lets keep in mind that we are talking about the content contained in the NT, and nothing else. With this being the case, it can be demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of the NT was not addressed to the public, but was rather addressed to particular audiences who already believed. So how can this be, "to spread widely"?

spreading of information in support of a cause’

If this is the case, then any information whether good, bad, helpful, true, or false would be considered to be "propaganda". Again, it seems pointless to accuse someone of "propaganda" unless there is some sort of negative connotations involved?

to influence public opinion

Again, this is exactly my point, in that the overwhelming majority of the NT was not addressed to the "public", but was rather addressed to particular audiences, who already believed.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 17 by benchwarmer]

I didn't realize we had to line up with every single definition and nuance of the word 'propaganda' you can find. That seems pretty odd. I used YOUR definition that you gave. One would think that would be enough. Now you add another definition after the fact and expect I should have seen that?

It was not me who added these other definitions, but rather another poster, and I was simply attempting to cover all the bases.

Thus my very clear "Perhaps we can debate...". Are you even reading what we write?

Which is exactly my point. In other words, if "propaganda" involves information that would be "misleading", then we would have to first demonstrate that the information in the NT would be "misleading". If however, "propaganda" would involve any information at all, whether true, or false, then it seems pointless to make the accusation, unless you have some sort of negative connotation associated?

In other words, you are accusing the NT as being "propaganda" because there is some sort of negative involved, which you would then have to demonstrate? Or, you are making an accusation which is pointless, seeing as how any information would be considered to be, "propaganda"?

However, most all definitions has the idea of spreading the information "widely", in order to "publicize" the information, and if this is the case, the overwhelming majority of the NT was not intended for the public, but was rather clearly addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already believed.

The thing is, it seems if there are those who want to accuse the NT of being "propaganda" then they need to define what they mean by, "propaganda"? If they include it being, "misleading information" then they need to demonstrate how the information in the NT, would be "misleading"? If they include information intended to inform the "public", in order to "spread widely" then they need to explain how the NT would be included, seeing as how it can be demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of the NT, was not in any way addressed to the "public" but was rather clearly addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already believed?

You want me to reconcile ALL scripture? Good luck, Christians can't even do that. I gave an example that is political. The fact you can find something else among the cobbled together writings contained in the NT that doesn't match my example is not surprising.

What I am waiting on, is for you to give us any sort of example of where it could be considered "political".

Who defined propaganda to be defined as you just did? Not your OP or my counterpoints to it.

There has been another who has supplied these other definitions. I will be happy to go with any definition you wish.

Are you or are you not asked to spread the gospel message within the texts themselves?

I do not recall anywhere in which I would be directed to do such a thing? I do however recall, this command being given to the 11 Apostles.

Is this gospel message information that is meant to influence opinion?

This is what we are debating, but no one has demonstrated this to be the case? I do not believe it is presented in a way to "influence opinions", but rather is presented as a way to salvation.

You can move the goal posts all you like and redefine 'propaganda' until it no longer matches the original topic, but you are still not gaining headway.

Again, it is not me who is "moving the goalposts". Rather, there are others who seem to want to water the definition down, in order to be able to include the content of the NT, to the point that the accusation becomes pointless.

However, and again, it would seem that all the definitions would include the idea of "spreading the information widely", and I would like to know how this would include the content of the NT since the overwhelming majority of the NT was not addressed to the public, but was rather addressed to particular audiences at the time, with no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would read this information, other than the original intended audience, and the authors certainly could not have known about any sort of NT, which this information would have been contained in, hundreds of years later.

The whole point is, there are certainly those who seem to want to insist that the NT would be "propaganda". With this being the case, my challenge is for those who want to insist this would be the case, then they need to explain what they mean by "propaganda", and exactly how the NT would fit such a definition.