Good Friday - Why?

Jewish zombie

The part I never understood was why after rising from the grave didn't Jesus make a public appearance. He should have walked around time saying "back to life, bitches" but no, we are suppose to take the word of a few people that it happened.

At Sinai, after the Israelites agreed to accept the gift of the Law, Moses sprinkled the people with the blood of a sacrificial offering to seal the deal (covenant) between God and the Jews.

The Law received at Sinai is fulfilled in Christ who is both the New Moses and our sacrificial offering. The shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross seals the new covenant between God and all humanity.

The one thing that always gets me is when you read the Gospels, they say that when Jesus came back to meet with the disciples, they didn't recognize him because he looked different. And I guess because he answered a few questions correctly, they decided it was really him. And then he ascended into heaven? Or just disappeared like he was a ghost? Not clear.

Hmmmm ...

R3 has given you the correct theological answer.

I appreciate that, R3. Does theology offer any insight as to why it all had to be so bloody? And then did Jesus have to rise from the dead to complete the sacrifice, or was that unrelated? Thanks again.

[quote]The shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross seals the new covenant between God and all humanity.

Couldn’t he have just pricked a finger tip? That seems to be good enough for other magic spells. Did we really need all the dramatics?

[quote] Does theology offer any insight as to why it all had to be so bloody?

My short answer is this: Grace ain’t cheap and love is costly. Christ’s Passion (the events of Good Friday) are the ultimate proof of this.

Cf., Isaiah 53:5. “He was pierced for our sins, crushed for our iniquity. He bore the punishment that makes us whole, by his wounds we were healed.”

You have to understand that they were working backwards. The followers of the historical Jesus almost certainly didn’t expect him to be crucified by the Romans. After Jesus was killed and some of his followers started having visions of him (interpret that however you like), they had to develop a theology that could account for his torture and execution.

[quote] seals the new covenant between God and all humanity.

Yeah, yeah, but what IS this "covenant"? What are its terms? What do we get out of it? I went to Catholic school for eight years and I never did understand WTF that was supposed to mean.

Also how do three days fit in Friday evening and Sunday morning

I went to a catholic boys school and we'd walk around the small town on good Friday for the way of the cross. Fun times

R10, that's what I've always wondered, if the passion was borderline retcon to fulfill prophecies from the Old Testament.

R11, that's how I feel too, I don't get wtf it's all supposed to mean. I have been hearing these words for many years but don't actually understand anything or why millions of people take this so seriously and seem to understand it when I don't. I want to understand.

OLD COVENANT: the Mosaic Law (crystallized in the 10 Commandments).

NEW COVENANT: the Law of Charity (crystallized in the Sermon on the Mount, which is Christ’s recapitulation of the Mosaic Law/10 Commandments).

From the catechism at no. 1965: The New Covenant “is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. The New Law is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: ‘I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ (Jeremiah 32:38).”

This thread reminds me of the (supposedly true) story that a gay man walked into Mary's bar in Houston, threw a couple of railroad spikes on the bar, and asked, "Can you put me up for the night?"

Its all magic and superstition and just a way to impose a patriarchal society on the masses. People are idiots.

“We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles [and to r17 and many others] foolishness.”

[quote] The part I never understood was why after rising from the grave didn't Jesus make a public appearance.

Because then people wouldn't have faith. Faith is unlike science, it is not built upon evidence and logic because if it was it wouldn't be faith. If Jesus had just walked around saying "I'm back from the dead" to everyone, people wouldn't believe out of faith, they would believe because they could see He had come back to life. He showed Himself to His early followers to reward them and to provide the spark that would carry the Good News to the world. He left behind a church for His followers to use to spread His gospel so that when He returns the final time He will be welcomed back to His creation by the faithful and it their job to ensure there are multitudes of the faithful. According to the stories He didn't exactly keep hidden though...

[quote] "He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 1 Corinthians 15:7

It’s all so contrived.

If faith without evidence is so important, why did Jesus let all of the Nephites in North America come and touch him after his resurrection R19?

“And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.“ 3 Nephi 11:15

Oh, we can;t be responsible for the Book of Mormons. That's just a fairy tale invented by a large imaginative cult.

R21 the Mormons are free to believe that through their faith. I however do not share their faith.

What’s so special about the cheesemakers?

I love how people quote the Bible as if it's not a made up crock of shit.

When Jesus’s disciples tried to preach to the pagans they found people used to worshiping many gods and these people wanted to worship Jesus as a God, but how could you explain a God being executed?

The myth of rebirth is common among ancient peoples. Gentiles borrowed from pre Christian myths liberally in their early writings.

Fictional, real, animal, mineral or vegetable, Judas has my sympathy.

Poor guy. His name has been vilified down through the centuries.

And for what? Performing the pre-ordained, necessary acts that moved the plot along?

Screw that. Justice for Judas!

It's a great question OP, and of course one that actual Christians debated early on and definitely did not all arrive at the same answer, leading to a whole lot of angst and bullshit and councils and riots and deaths and, well you get the idea.

And of course, the Jewish Prophets did NOT say any of this shit had to happen. That was all teased and really tortured out of the Old Testament much later on.

Honestly, the whole thing has never made much sense, but blood magic, real actual you gotta kill something to make something else grow and flourish, has a long and well, bloody history, so there's that. The ancient Judaism, the one in Jesus' time (assuming he was real at all) was all caught up in killing doves, and sheep, and oxen, and whatnot to purify this or that person or the land itself from this or that sin.

R12 Americans count days as complete 24 hour periods, but lots of cultures count days as any period of any day. In English for Americans this is probably better expressed as over the course of three days rather than the traditional translation of in three days.

There have been some theologically orthodox responses above so I won’t quote more scripture.

I think most people understand that If you love someone you’d make sacrifices to improve their life. And the big break between pre-Christian religions and Christianity is the idea that it isn’t about us making sacrifices to prove to a deity that we love them to appease them, but that the source of our existence would make the ultimate sacrifice of experiencing death and separation to demonstrate love for us.

The Gnostics were crazy in their own ways, but they actually have a rough logic going on: Jesus is actually sent from the true Heavenly Father, the hidden God, and he has to sacrifice himself to evil Demiurge, a true sacrifice, to ransom our souls, or at least those who have real souls from the heavenly pleroma, and now they are free to return to that place at death. There's more to it, of course, and I'm sure I'm mangling it somewhat, but that is the idea.

Is there evidence? How dare you! Faith, Bitches!

More orthodox Christians? Well, it's some mess about the gates the hell and God had to become Man so that Man could become God, and who even knows with this nonsense?

[quote] Screw that. Justice for Judas!

Not just a Judas kiss, Della: Judas smooches!

R32, Yes, I was remiss!

You've corrected that post.

Smoooches, Doll.

R19, yes but....If it was about faith, why show himself to his followers for that "extra spark..." I mean if it's about Faith then they should have been the first to believe without being shown. And none of it would have happened without Judas. Think about it.

Now the History part, I get. Israel hated the Romans. And in Judea there were always mystics and religious zealots, and prophets, and radicals. For Centuries the Jews talked about a Deliverer. It was "foretold." Most people took it literally, They were hoping some political leader would come and save them. Rise up, fight! They get some guy talking about peace and love and stop shitting on one another. He said repeatedly, "My Kingdom is not of this world." So that was disappointing.

Another leader in Judea at the time, was Barabbas. He was a militant, organizing and getting ready to fight. Shed blood. Romans arrested him. Barabbas was popular. So when Pilate says "I'll release one prisoner to you in honor of Passover, tell me who you want." They wanted him to release Barabbas. Jesus had already pissed off the High Priests by running the money changes and fakes out of the temple, messing with their graft.

So the High Priests, who often collaborated with the Romans to stay in power, actually hired people to seed the crowd and insist he be crucified. Pilate had nothing against Jesus. He was trying to placate the High Priests. So they killed him. Pilate and even some of his soldiers were conscience stricken because they knew they were killing an innocent man. A gentle guy who was basically harmless in the eyes of Rome.

Pilate thought at first if he just tortured the guy and beat him, it would satisfy the Jewish rulers. But Jesus had really pissed off the priests at the temple and Pilate needed those priests to spy on their people. The whole "rise from the dead" thing is because the mystics who followed him had already learned from the Old Testament that a chosen few did indeed rise up to Heaven "on a fiery chariot..."

So according to what they preached from that time forward, Jesus did rise and ascend into heaven. It's all wrapped in the mysticism of a group of religious fanatics. IMO it gained traction because of the brand new concept of "Love thy neighbor, forgive those who persecute you, " etc. Back then, that was a very revolutionary idea and it resonated. Most people didn't like conflict. They longed for peace. To just be left alone to live their lives. Jesus gave them spiritual justification.

[quote] They longed for peace

The lord Jesus promised us peace!

This is what makes the original ending of Mark so weird and interesting: Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Now that is open ended, and I can see why everybody hated it and just had to tack on a better ending. Of course, how does anybody know what the women saw or thought or how they felt, if they never said anything. Or maybe they did, but who knows. It's very mysterious and interesting.

There is another odd factoid: Nobody in the New Testament says I am whoever and I saw the risen Jesus. Paul saw and chatted with some heavenly Christ after Jesus was ascended, but he never claims to have personally seen Jesus walking around after death. Nobody does. It's all second hand at best.

Somebody is looking to have the theology of atonement explained on Datalounge?

Go read St Augustine.

Or better yet - don’t worry about it, buy some new clothes, dye eggs, eat chocolate, and just enjoy yourself dummy.

R30 great answer, but the concept of fear and appeasement still infused some factions within Christianity. The whole structure of Sin and Forgiveness, of Hell, of being eternally damned, etc. was part of how the Institutional Church maintained control. Punishment was important.

Now when Jesus returns for the second coming what if the Jews kill him all over again aren't we eternally fucked? And will we get more epic movies about The Second Greatest Story Ever Told?

There was of course no "institutional Church" that controlled jackshit while much of this was starting up, of course, r38, really for about 300 years. There were a whole lot of crazed Christians running around having visions, sorting out stories, trying to be Jewish and Greek and what the hell let's throw some Plato in there and maybe some Essene stuff and a whole lot of other stuff. It was kind of a zoo really, which just makes it all the more interesting to a lot of us.

Religious narcissism, OP.

All religions have narcissism attached to it.

[quote] Of course, how does anybody know what the women saw or thought or how they felt, if they never said anything.

They were interviewed by Roman reporter and herald Didacus Tylerius Muirius.

[quote] It was kind of a zoo reall

Jesus should’ve bought a zoo (with two of each kind) and retired to Nazareth instead of buying the farm. We would all have been better off.

The sequel is always louder and crazier than the original r39, so now I'm scared. Hold me, King David!

Ha ha R37 you condescending prick.

We needed Christ's sacrifice because according to Genesis, humanity was born into sin due to the fall of Eve. God did not create humanity in sin but due to free will, this is how it came about. In sin, we cannot enter the kingdom of God or his presence. We need absolution from a perfect sacrifice. No human is perfect, so God sent his perfect Son. The Abrahamic Jewish sacrifices of lambs for forgiveness foreshadowed the real blood sacrifice of the true Lamb, Jesus Christ, who is the propitiation for all our sin. Jesus was foreshadowed many times in the Old Testament: Abraham and Isaac, for one. The book of Isaiah. The book of Daniel.

If Jesus is himself god (one in three, three in one), then why did he have to sacrifice himself to himself to wash away the sins of the world that he could wash away himself?

That is not actually according to Genesis, really, is it r46? That is a much later, much more Augustinian interpretation of Genesis, isn't it? We do have to work hard for our food, and women have labor pangs, and snakes are a problem, because of Eve's "fall," which isn't really the right word in the actual story. But this whole "born into sin" that is a much later, much more esoteric doctrine. Disobedience leads to punishment, we don't get to hang around in a sweet garden forever and be immortal, but "born in sin"? That is a much more doughy concept that doesn't really exist in the original. And certainly the whole in sin we cannot enter God's kingdom? Well again, really hazy stuff going on there that nobody can actually explain. The Abrahamic Jewish sacrifices of lambs weren't actually foreshadowing anything. They were blood magic.

Sounds like a bunch of shit to me. Even as a kid I thought "uh huh" with an eyeroll.

We've got some smart people on this thread, I gotta say. Christianity really shit on women, going back even to how they interpreted the Old Testament.

R48, Genesis is the origin myth that explains, or attempts to explain, why men are mortal. Death is God’s curse on humanity for disobedience. Even thousands of years ago it was clear that humanity would never change and therefore didn’t deserve immortal life. What to do? It’s hard to sell religion if you can’t offer to overcome death. The New Testament portrays Jesus as God’s workaround. Jesus dies and via that blood magic, as you put it, we have the opportunity to be cleansed of sin and be resurrected.

Jesus was Gay. There. I said it.

[quote] Why the theatricality of it all

Who needs the aggravation?

Martyrdom. People (including Judas) realized that a martyr was necessary for mass following.

So, Jesus needed to be literally crucified, etc., by the people, and become a martyr.

Only as an unfairly victimized martyr could Jesus drum up enough emotion and sympathy to attract followers.

Just to be clear - the idea that all people are born into sin is a Western Christian concept - the Greek Orthodox and all the other Orthodoxes who followed, do not have this as part of their theology. So Luther and all the Protestants who followed make a big deal about faith in Jesus overcoming original sin in themselves, are they are really arguing only with the Roman Catholic Church (which offered additional remedies to overcome the original sin in themselves). The theological arguments of Luther don't hold up in a theological situation where people are not "Born into sin".

Another way of saying it: "Concerning the original—or “first”—sin, (that committed by Adam and Eve), Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin".

I don't believe any of it now, but growing up, it always bugged me that I should be guilty of something that was supposed to have been done by someone hundreds of thousands of years before I was born. That whole "the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children" sort of theology always struck me as stupid and not logical.

We are immortal, eternal beings. It's something we forget when we incarnate into human form at infancy. Jesus was sent to remind us of who we are, and through faith in His resurection/ascension, we can enjoy confidence in our heavenly promise of the after life. We need reminding. They were ignorant at that time. Many are ignorant today, so you can imagine. Of course God would hold human form, and of course God would be MALE! Born in sin equates to original sin being sex. I'm here to tell you that the serpent was stiff as a board and it only had one eye! The forbidden fruit was sexual intercourse, and once they fucked their eyes were opened. Aye. Then, they realized they were naked. "Go he now. Be FRUITFUL and multiply."

A rather simple matter has been grossly complicated because of mankind's tendency for self-glorification. They say they worship God at al, but it's really themselves they worship. When one realizes that we are eternal beings imbued here on earth with the same portion of divinity we are blessed with in the other realm, then all this other bullshit becomes a complete trifling mess.

It's oh so simple that it had to be made complicated in an effort to define what was already innate. Get the kinks out your spiritual umbilical chord. Then, you will see.

I can't believe some people are bothering to write out paragraphs of explanation about this crazy shit.

[quote] Genesis is the origin myth that explains, or attempts to explain, why men are mortal. Death is God’s curse on humanity for disobedience.

Given how emotionally, mentally and physically painful it can be for some, I think life is God's curse on humanity.

I understand where r57 is coming from, but I love these DL threads because they really bring out interesting posts.

It seems like we have a few people well versed in apologetics here. Can anyone tell me if there has been a good answer proposed to the Epicurean paradox?

I have never understood why an omnpotent, loving diety would go through the elaborate scheme posited by Christian theology to forgive his creations. It woud be simpler and more logical to either make us sinless by nature or lovingly forgive us.

When I think of the world's religions and how well their theories align with the actual state of the world, it seems like the Greek and Roman gods are much closer to being the sort of deities that would cause the chaotic, contradictory melange of good and evil that surrounds us.

Anselm argued that God is due justice for humanity’s disobedience; such justice is only possible through an offering of something of infinite value; therefore, God became man to make such a sacrifice

Abelard said the incarnation and death of Christ is an expression of God’s love (not justice) and meant to awaken humanity’s love for God.

Aquinas said the sacrifice of Christ was the wisest and most efficient way of satisfying God’s need for justice, but not the necessary way (contra Anselm).

John Duns Scotus said God could have accomplished salvation any way he saw fit.

And of course he chose the most annoying way possible, with of course violence and misery, r63, followed by endless bullshit about how grateful everyone is supposed to be for his stupid method. What an annoying twat Yahweh is.

I don't care what anyone says, Jesus was REAL!

And of course Anselm had a much more medieval explanation: An injury against a serf is relatively meaningless, against a lord more substantial, against a king very substantial, so against God, it must be terribly substantial indeed, to be paid only by another god. But outside of that hierarchy, the whole thing begins to fall apart, and even within that hierarchy, God really is binding Himself in ways that don't make a lot of sense, and these terrible "injuries" to God don't make a whole lot of sense in and of themselves either. God can't really be injured, so all this fining and recompense do sort of become meaningless and make-believe.

R66, blah, blah, blah. You lost me at Anselm.

You're all so cute.

[quote] Jewish zombie

What?

The way it was explained to me as a Catholic kid growing up was: after the original sin, people could no longer go to heaven when they died. The gates of heaven were locked.

So Jesus, god in human form, had to die so his soul could get to the gates of heaven and unlock them. He did so, and thereafter the souls of people who deserved to go to heaven could do so.

There were elements of this story that made no sense to me, but that’s a different topic.

R70, that's the Christus Victor idea of salvation. Anyone interested in that should read Gustaf Aulen's work.

[quote] The shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross seals the new covenant between God and all humanity.

A friend of mine with herpes uses that line. Switching out my for Christ, of course.

I agree, R58, of course it's easier to just throw up your hands and say it's all BS, but I rather enjoy reading about what believers and theologians say. I see a lot of bad graphics posted around this time of year on social media from Christians that very superficially touch on the themes explained here (sin, resurrection, sending a son to save us). So, in all sincerity, I appreciate those sharing their knowledge.

R59 outlined one of my main points of confusion about all of this stuff. If there is an all-powerful and all-knowing God, then why go through all these gyrations of sending a son to redeem us humans? Why not just forgive us and move on if that was the end goal anyway? Is it all part of a test to see who believes in Him and this story so that He can send some to heaven and some to hell?

I get that there is no real arguing with this stuff, there is no arguing people out of their feelings about Jesus and Heaven and Hell, even if I wanted to, but deep down, everyone has to know that things like "Christ's blood on the cross seals the new covenant" is kind of gibberish, right?

R74, that's what I don't understand, do most people who present as so sure of it all deep down have an inkling that this doesn't seem to make much sense?

Just one of the many rising and dying gods there have been throughout history.

Here's what I do not understand: Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Easter Monday are all holidays, of varying officialness, for the purpose of religious proselytizing. Why skip Saturday? I never knew a religious group that would give up a single opportunity to preach to a captive audience, so just what the hell was going on that Saturday?

As someone who was born into a Catholic family, I never did understand the whole man dying for our sins, but we still need to follow all the rules like nothing ever happened. Either someone new is coming to set the slate clean for modern people or it was a one and done. Further, I just can’t rationalize living my life by the mores and superstitions of people who would stroke out if they were suddenly placed in 2022. I can’t take them any seriously than I do Q people.

It’s a day off work. Don’t worry about it, OP.

R77 Easter Saturday is now National Man Cave Day

[quote]At Sinai, after the Israelites agreed to accept the gift of the Law, Moses sprinkled the people with the blood of a sacrificial offering to seal the deal (covenant) between God and the Jews.

[quote]The Law received at Sinai is fulfilled in Christ who is both the New Moses and our sacrificial offering. The shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross seals the new covenant between God and all humanity.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

I blame Romans for not exterminating all the raving mad early "Christians."

Y'all'd be worshipping something else, you're so dumb.

Was that the harrowing of Hell r77? Maybe too many souls screeching and howling and trying to find their way to Heaven for any effective preaching.

Actually, in Matthew, there is a whole thing with the dead rising out of their graves and wandering around Jerusalem. Maybe that should be the Day of the Dead.

[quote] If there is an all-powerful and all-knowing God, then why go through all these gyrations of sending a son to redeem us humans? Why not just forgive us and move on if that was the end goal anyway? Is it all part of a test to see who believes in Him and this story so that He can send some to heaven and some to hell?

Look at the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" should be Commandment # 1. However Commandment # 1 is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Sounds very human, not god-like. If God is so secure in God's omnipotence, why the need to legislate it?

True, r84, the first three commandments really seem like a big waste of everyone's time and energy. Basically, love me, love me, love me. Seriously, what a needy bitch Yahweh is. It's not like the other Gods are all paragons of virtue (to put it mildly), but damn, it wasn't always ladled over with this syrupy neediness. Sacrifice something to me and I'll think about helping you, bitch, was pretty much the extent of it. You can keep your damn love.

God's a whore.

Yes, R85, the first 3 Commandments sound very petty, coming from "God."

The Catholic Church is build on the foundation of collective guilty and redemptive suffering. As the Church evolved really starting after 312 A.D. when I think Constantine legitimized it with the Edict of Milan, Rulers used the power of myth to subjugate people.

What I never got was why the Roman Empire felt like Judea was so fucking important. It is often described as a real shit hole.

I'm not sure they did, r88. It plays an outsize role in all the histories, and you can't have a Roman Empire series on any channel without blathering on and on and on about Judea and the Jewish Revolt, but I'm not sure at the time anybody cared nearly as much.

Y'all should watch this really well done movie starring Joseph Fiennes called Risen. Good movie.

The thing I dislike about Easter films is they just focus on Christ’s death and perhaps his resurrection but they never cover what the Apostles Creed mentions, his decent to hell, overcoming Satan, and ransoming the souls of the saints. That would make a great movie that would compete with the super hero films.

Yup, it's called the harrowing of Hell r91, and it presents very interesting dramas and actually some interesting theological issues that would be dramatic to explore. How exactly does everyone feel about being stuck in hell for thousands of years because of Yahweh's weird and stupid nonsense?

R45 - THANK YOU!!!!

- the condescending prick

Bye Felicia!

I'll admit, even in blackened, cold, and devilish heart, this gets me every time.

It's all BS. All the Catholics are out today crowding up the supermarkets without masks and spreading COVD. Really Christ-like of them, eh?

Isn't everyone kind of past the mask thing though r96? Or where are you? There are some cities still, I think.

R77 a lot of churches celebrate an Easter vigil on Holy Saturday with the lighting of the new fire.

As a Lutheran who embraces law and gospel theology I’d like to give a small defense of some important points previous posters have brought up.

First sin just means missing the mark and repentance just means turning around. If you were playing darts and you’d missed the mark you’d want to turn so you’d hit it next time. We are all imperfect and will miss the mark many times in our lives and unfortunately our own insecurity about that often causes us to engage in worse behavior. The story of Adam and Eve illustrates this. They are insecure that they aren’t as knowledgeable as their creator so they eat the pomegranate. Then when called out on this Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the snake. And the desire to blame others and say at least we aren’t as bad as they are because we are aware of and as a defense against our sense of imperfection becomes the greatest source of evil.

While Lutherans believe we are all born to miss the mark we also believe that salvation is pre-ordained and free will only applies to damnation. We are all born saved, but can (and some will and do) reject that salvation.

Let’s pretend DataLounge is the world and Muriel is the creator. If we are all seeking to curry favor with Muriel we might try to do everything with we can to increase our wit and wisdoms and increase the freaks and flames of others so that we appear more worthy. Law would be Muriel saying “bitches please, unless you get 100 WWs on every post and never ever receive an FF you’ll never deserve me and this board.” Grace is Muriel saying “But I love you all anyway.” (Of course, that’s where the analogy fails, cause I’m pretty sure Muriel doesn’t love us.)

Anyway, anyone who uses being a Christian as a way to feel superior to other people is missing the point. Christianity is about not feeling the need to compete against other people, drag them down or fear them because our value isn’t determined in opposition to theirs. And that frees us to be kind and loving. (Or as kind and loving as our pointless bitchery allows.)

Did not know you were religious ElderLez. I like your approach. You are probably wrong about all of it, but I find that is how I am about religion these days. It is probably wrong, but so many good people like it anyway, that the subject remains very open and eternally interesting to me.

Awww R99 your comment made my Good Friday.

Aww, now I gotta aww, sugar overload. But of course, you are one of my favorites ElderLez. You always make me think, and that's all I can ask of any poster.

Man is murdered and buried in a cave, then he comes back life and rolls the rock away and says "I'm back!" Sure Jan.

Harrowing of Hell. Telling you people, so much to deal with there. Hell, what is it? Can we escape from it? What if we are already there. Too late? Nope, there are ways. I think we need a whole Universal Salvation religion. Somebody work on that.

I went to Catholic school for 12 years. By the time I left I no longer believed any of this crap. It never made sense to me anyway - but that's why churches keep shoveling the old "you have to have FAITH or you're going straight to purgatory/hell" BS, because nobody with half a brain cell would ever fall for it otherwise.

Over 100 years ago, Mark Twain put it so well: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

This is a guy who was peaching peace and love, and asking people to look out for one another. And He raised hell about the corruption among the leaders of his people, and they conspired with the State to murder him. His followers were distraught so they insisted the bad guys could never kill him.. He was alive! That's how I interpreted it.

That's a nice interpretation r106. Probably pretty much none of it happened, but if it makes you do those things, well, can't argue with that.

R8, hatred seems to be a lot more costly than love.

Think of Original Sin as an act that deprived Adam and Eve of sanctifying grace (which is necessary for entrance into Heaven--the "state of grace"), and, since they were, according to the myth, the very first humans, their loss of sanctifying grace resulted in the same absence for subsequent humanity.

Through Christian baptism, sanctifying grace is restored to the individual soul (negating a consequence of Original Sin). This was made possible by the salvific death and resurrection of Jesus.

I now think it's all a bunch of nonsense, but it's a way to think of Original Sin not as a positive sin/guilt imposed on everyone, but as the original loss of grace for the whole human race.

There was no heaven for Adam and Eve. There was no bar. There was just them and god and a garden. And of course, no sanctifying grace. Just some goobers who actually were kind of slaves, there to tend a garden. Then they fucked up and got fired, really. And now, well, Yahweh has been dicking around for millennia trying to figure out how to get his gardeners back, and he should just let it happen. Yahweh, we will tend your fucking garden, you cunt, just stop with your nonsense, okay. We're ready to be back. Thanks.

[quote] While Lutherans believe we are all born to miss the mark we also believe that salvation is pre-ordained and free will only applies to damnation. We are all born saved, but can (and some will and do) reject that salvation.

That is similar to my beliefs as a traditional Baptist, except I do not believe any of us are pre-ordained to salvation and free-will applies to both damnation and salvation. We are born innocent but our choices throughout our life corrupts us into the ways of the world, so we then have to accept or reject salvation of our own free will. We can not earn salvation, but it is there and free for anyone to claim.

That's the amazing thing: Mankind has always blamed God for all his woes, failing utterly to assume the responsibility of having created said woes himself. Talk about a bunch of cunts!

Happy Easter! 🌦

I’m curious as to how the people who are channeling Augustine’s idea of original sin as an explanation for Jesus’s death reconcile that idea with modern scientific understanding? Surely you don’t really believe that there were two original human beings living in a Mesopotamian garden a few thousand years ago who fucked up everything for humankind when they were tricked by a talking snake into eating forbidden fruit. What exactly is the modern understanding of the genesis of original sin in Christian apologetics?

The whole thing does seem to depend on literalism r113. I'm not sure anyone gets around that. I think everyone but the absolutely stupidest Christians knows there was no actual Adam and Eve. So what do you do with that whole thing?

[quote] I think everyone but the absolutely stupidest Christians knows there was no actual Adam and Eve.

This was actually confirmed to me by a priest when I was a university student. They sure did give us a lot of shit about "our first parents" when I started Catholic school, though.

So did that priest actually talk about what happens to original sin r115?

R113 Actually the Bible itself isn't totally clear about Adam & Eve being the only humans. The Bible says that after they were expelled from the garden they had sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth, and "other sons and daughters." The idea is that we must all descend from Adam & Eve to have original sin, and through them and their children I'm sure all of humanity would be their descendants by now. Just like all the people descended from Genghis Khan.

I don't take Genesis as literal truth, to me it is just the easiest way for God to explain creation to humans, especially earlier more primitive ones. We know that Jesus, God made flesh, liked to speak in parables and metaphors. Why would He not do so as God the Father? I for instance feel as though the first verses of Genesis is basically describing what we now call the Big Bang, in a religious instead of scientific manner.. Science does not diminish my faith as I view science, including evolution, as just us glimpsing and trying to understand the hand of God.

You literally can't take Genesis literally. It's a mess of contradictions.

[quote] How exactly does everyone feel about being stuck in hell for thousands of years because of Yahweh's weird and stupid nonsense?

R92 I remember asking something like that in Sunday School and the teacher didn't have an answer and had to go ask the pastor. His explanation was that, in death whether we are in heaven or hell, time is meaningless and we do not perceive it. Therefore those in hell would not realize they had been there for thousands of years. I don't know if that is the accepted position but it worked for me. It was after that, that I quit attending Sunday School as I knew I had passed my teacher.

Yes R111, you are an Arminianist (all free will) on the other side are the Calvinists (all predestination) Lutherans take a middle path, but we are all three orthodox Protestants insofar as we see salvation as unearnable.

The pre-resurrection “hell” issue is an interesting topic. A Baptist pastor really opened my eyes to understand that the word used for the hell Jesus descended to is a different word than the one used to described end-times hell. It is the neutral word Sheol and just means place of the dead.

Well Sheol, that's a whole different mindset. That is like Hades, just the grey area, no remembering (eventually) just lost. I'm starting to believe in that actually. The place of forgetting. Maybe. So many already seem to be passing into that even before they die.

R117 there are two creation stories in Genesis: one in Chapter 1 and a completely different one in Chapter 2. It is impossible to reconcile them and they have different theologies (for example men and women are created at the same time in 1 perhaps suggesting a kind of equality of the sexes on creation, whereas woman is created as an afterthought in 2 to be a helpmate to the man; in 1 humans are the pinnacle of creation having been created last, whereas in 2 God creates Adam before the animals and only makes the animals as a first attempt at companions for Adam when he sees that Adam is lonely). These are clearly stories from two different authors that were (rather clumsily) stitched together by a later editor. And this is a well known problem throughout Genesis. To suggest that Genesis represents God speaking to mankind through metaphor is to imagine a God whose writing skills are surpassed by those of Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dante, etc.

And the idea that Genesis is metaphor still doesn’t answer the question of the origin of original sin (a notion that, as others here have pointed out, is almost completely foreign to the other authors of the Hebrew Bible—in fact the story of the Garden of Eden and the characters of Adam and Eve are almost never referenced in the rest of the Hebrew Bible; it was either a story that was developed very late or it was simply not a story that was very important to the rest of the Old Testament authors). If Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit are metaphors, then what is the actual historical event that brought into existence original sin for our species which required God to take human form and be tortured and killed? Is it only Homo sapiens who are created in God’s image and afflicted with original sin and offered salvation, or do these concepts also apply to Homo habilis and Neanderthals etc. (the latter being so like us that our ancestors apparently mated with them)

All religious texts contain the INSPIRED word of God. That is to say that men wrote the words, concepts, ideas, laws blah blah blah, and insisted that it was God speaking through them, directing them to write whatever. Much of it is totally focused on the human aspect of our existence, paying little attention to the spiritual side of our beings. The mind and its sense of consciousness is the essence of soul spirit, and it is the only aspect of ourselves to pass back to God at the time of earthly physical death. We are all so much vastly more than the minimalist defining classifications we have been conned by organized religion into believing. Control. And I am absolutely certain that God intended me to be just as free in mind, body, and spirit as any bird happily soaring through the sky whether here on earth or in the next realm - the realm I came from. Humans are their own worst enemies. They need to be forgiven for rejecting their spirit selves in favor of their earthly incarnation. Look out your window and you'll see the evidence of God and man all around. God is rejected as man chooses himself.

[quote]R6: Does theology offer any insight as to why it all had to be so bloody?

In the Iron Age, the idea that spirits/the gods were propitiated by blood sacrifices was all the rage. The most propitious of such offerings was human sacrifice, practiced universally at that time. Even YHWH was believed to demand human sacrifice, until governments occupying the Levant put a stop to it (subject peoples no longer had the autonomy to practice capital punishment, much less make a ritual offering of people). Once that happened, clauses were interpolated into the Torah requiring first-born sons to be ransomed (for example, Exodus 13:13), and the Prophets were either composed to prohibit human sacrifices, or had it interpolated into them; it quickly became the standard belief that such had always been the practices of foreigners, against which YHWH had always resolutely stood. Circumcision survived as a token of infant sacrifices, and the burden of sin offerings was shifted to animal sacrifices.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls upon the altar; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul" - Leviticus 17:11.

Christians adopted this idea, and made it central to their theology of atonement: "And almost all things are purified with blood according to the Law, and apart from blood-shedding there is no forgiveness" - Hebrews 9:22.

That's why it was so bloody. Of course, this was all based upon Iron Age notions of atonement, as a way of gaining the favor of a deity. This isn't the Iron Age anymore, though, and for people to still be parroting this nonsense as though it were the central truth of the universe is simply ridiculous.

You can't take the New testament literally either. I look at all of it as metaphors.

But metaphor for what r125? That is kind of the big question. What do you think is at the heart of it, if anything?

The whole story is so sordid, silly and embarrassing. And that's what they are: stories. Fairytales to keep the peasants paying taxes to the lords.

Easter is a big money maker for the Catholic church.

See, then there's this, and no, it is not all invented to keep peasants paying taxes to lords. Nobody was getting taxes when this shit started, nobody who was telling stories about Jesus was getting paid for it, at first. That's just dingbat shit. Didn't happen, doesn't make sense. Don't do dingbat logic. It's just a waste of time.

It’s of many savior myths, and most of it was stolen from other myths and figures that preceded it.

R122 you are correct that there are two different creation stories in Genesis, but I’d add that Adam can be read as a personal name or it can be read as humankind - plural. Reading the second story that way isn’t traditional, but I think it is a valid way to read it.

A double helix looks like a curved rib cage.

A small figurine was found. Mother and child, he was in her lap nursing, and at first it was thought to be an early Christian Mother and Child thing. But it was Egyptian. Isis and her son Horus.

God lives. It's the feeble attempts by man to define It which fail. But God lives, and It has lived forever, and It will continue to live forever.

or not r133. But maybe. There's a maybe. Maybe a little bit, there's a maybe.

I think this concept of the Resurrection is simply an articulation of human desire to overcome the finality of Death. Man has seen phenomena in the heavens since the dawn of civilization. Inexplainable. So they made up stories. Stories to explain sickness, and meteors, and stars and how the sun rises, earthquakes, rain, volcanoes, how the sky goes dark and eclipses etc. and lightning and all kinds of shit.

The problem with that theory, actually it's not such a problem, an incompleteness, is so many cultures didn't come up with an afterlife, like what we mean, a whole world where we are pretty much us but disembodied and eternal. A lot of places just came up with a shadowy land of forgetting and not knowing what was going on. That actually seems sort of realistic to me, much more than heaven or hell.

ElderLez at r98

I've read and re-read your post.

Thank you. Something in my own life is weighing on my mind. I found myself looking to deflect blame but it's really mine to bear.

Your post made me feel better.

See that's the thing r137. I will never deny that Christianity has its uses, and honestly its truths. It is beautiful, and it can definitely help. Is it true? No, I don't think so. But is it beautiful and helpful and part of love and life? Yeah, there is that. It helps me sometimes, even without believing in it.

R136 yes. The ancient Israelites didn’t believe in an afterlife in the way that Christians mean it today. At best, Sheol is a kind of Greek style Hades filled with shadowy forms of the dead. But Sheol probably is just a term for the grave. There’s no idea of reward and punishment in an afterlife. In the Hebrew Bible, God rewards you by giving you a long life, and he punishes people by killing them before their time. This life isn’t a dress rehearsal in the Old Testament. And that’s mostly because the soul was not something that was separate from the body in their theology. Once God removed the breath from you, you ceased to exist.

The idea of the afterlife we are familiar with developed during the inter-testamental period thanks to the Hellenization of the Levant after Alexander’s conquest. Suddenly, Plato’s ideas about a soul that was distinct from the body infiltrated Jewish thought, and the concept developed that one day God would return your soul to your dead body and bring your body back to life. But this was a controversial idea in the 1st century with the Sadducees and the Pharisees being on different sides of that argument. Jesus and other early Jewish Christians obviously sided with those who believed in a resurrection of the body. The idea of Hell as a place of eternal punishment is an idea that almost certainly was not preached by Jesus and was invented by later Christians. In the gospels, God destroys the wicked like you destroy something that is thrown onto the fire, but there’s no indication that you’re going to suffer for eternity; you’re simply destroyed while everyone else gets their bodies back.

It’s the spring myth of rebirth, told for thousands of years. In winter things die and there are few crops. After the equinox, things change. Things start springing to life again, animals have cute babies. Certain predictable meteorological events take place, like the flooding of the Nile. Life returns.

Many cultures sacrificed human beings to make the sun come back. The blood of the sacrificial person (later, the blood of an animal) is poured on the earth to satiate the god of rebirth.

In Greece, Persephone was kidnapped by the King of the Underworld who made her Queen of the Dead. She is the child of the most exalted god, Zeus. In some cultures she is called “the deceased woman.” A bargain was struck with Hades so Persephone could be returned to life for part of the year. During her time on the earth, vegetation returns and animals are fecund. When it’s time for her to go back, winter arrives.

It’s a bit like Jesus, who is also the child of a god. The god can’t save him, but the god did allow him to come back for a little while and it just happens to be at the time of the first full moon after the spring equinox. A lot of Mithraism is enfolded into Jesus story. Mithras is born of a rock, he slays a bull in a cave. Jesus’ dead body is placed in a cave and he moves aside a rock to resurrect himself. Mithras is associated with feasting and with the twelve signs of the zodiac. Jesus feasted on Passover with the 12 apostles. Mithras drinks the blood of the sacrificed bull, Christians drink the blood of Jesus. Mithras was called the good shepherd, the way the truth and the light, the redeemer, the savior. Mithras is associated with Sol Invictus, the powerful god of the sun. He returns to heaven and resides next to Sol, as Jesus resides in heaven with God.

And we know the story of the sacrifice of a young king, going back as far as time, for the crops. In mythology the young king was often the son of a goddess.

So Jesus is a seasonal king, born at winter solstice, sacrificed and died, then reborn in the spring, then ascended to heaven to reside next to a more powerful god.

He died so we can eat crops. He dies every year and there is feasting on a spring lamb. The old human sacrifices back in the mists of time were to appease the gods. We can’t say Jesus was sacrificed to appease God, because that would make God a bloodthirsty pagan deity. So someone came up with human sins as the reason Jesus was sacrificed. Jesus died because we sin. We have evil inside of us. But Jesus takes the sin away. His death cleanses us and we can start again. He makes the whole world clean…it’s a spring cleaning. Now new life can be born and be innocent. He dies every year in spring so we & the rest of the world can reborn every year.

Egyptian civilization and culture was centered on Religion and Death and the afterlife thousands of years before the Greeks.

Egypt had cities of the dead before it had cities of the living. That is a fascinating little factoid, but seriously, they were much more interested in burying their dead in big cities before they were interested in living in big cities. Egyptians were kind of nuts and kind of fascinating.

Xtian fantasy and myth amalgamated from Judaic and other sources as part of the Hellenistic religious and philosophical surge -

The late 1st - late 2nd cc CE searches for scripture to "predict" and contextualize the Mythic Jesus Who Died in the Lower Heavens (a construction around for 100 years or so prior to the fictional "dating" of the supposed life of Christ on Earth as Jesus) were part of the historicizing process that often comes with mythic figures. Abraham, Moses, Hercules all were similarly historicized with backdating, "locations" of relics, houses or tombs.

The peculiar nonsense of the Sacrifice of the Son in a Trinitarian Godhead as a physical offering of divine Love to pay an ancestral debt for disobedience (or evolution) requiring an ever-virginal mother and recounted by contradictory "sources" representing subgroups within the weird-and-wide world of early "Christian" groups provides the setup for a spit take for anyone with a reasoning mind, of course.

The drive of what became orthodoxy, with the eradication of records and suppression of unsuccessful rival cults, led to the Marcionite/Pauline/Polycarpian freeze that, after another 2-3 centuries of stomping on "heresies" and sucking up to secular power, taking on the additional forms of Roman temple settings, organizational structure, and knack for expansion.

I like the Easter Bunny, too.

Boy , are you a blockhead, OP. You need to see a psychiatrist or consult a theologian. So many of these replies are full of shit. Haven’t any of you read the Bible? Jesus Christ is the Son of God, a man, thus the perfect ransom sacrifice for the original sin of Adam who introduced death and misery to mankind by his rebellion against paradise and Jehovah. Jesus spread the good news of the Kingdom to Come when, because of his sacrifice on our behalf, paradise will be regained.

do you believe in a literal Adam R144? And are you a Jehovah's Witness? Not that it matters, but will you be honest about these minor points?

Video or it didn't happen.

[quote] Suddenly, Plato’s ideas about a soul that was distinct from the body infiltrated Jewish thought, and the concept developed that one day God would return your soul to your dead body and bring your body back to life.

I'm not entirely sure about that. There was clearly a belief that when one had a soul separate from the body, as they believed the dead went to Sheol and they believed the souls in Sheol could be contacted by the living, such as the Witch of Endor. I also think we should remember that what we have in the official canonical scriptures is what the people in charge wanted us to know. I'm certain we do not know much about the folk religion of the actual people. There are also various passages that speak to an afterlife, they just don't really describe it. Which makes me think it was a contemporary belief but that the views had not been codified so they left it vague so as to not upset various sects. Especially after their time in Egypt it would be strange for them to have no beliefs in an afterlife.

They were never in Egypt really, r147, but still, underground religion is definitely a thing, especially female underground religion. Female religion is rarely recorded and rarely official. What were the women up to? That is always a difficult question.

R148 Where do you come by they weren't ever in Egypt?

r3 is most certainly a Protestant because no Catholic knows anything about the Bible or what happened in the Old Testament.

Archeology r149. No evidence at all, not even a little. This was a story invented centuries after the time it was supposed to have happened. No Egypt. Just Canaanites leaving and fleeing to the hill country, which actually is a great story in itself.

Also, very suspicious, no story between Joseph and his Brothers and Moses and the Exodus. These are a storytelling people, suddenly they don't give a shit for 400 years? No. Bullshit.

Before all of it was: Zoroastrianism.

R151 Carol Meyers, an archeologist and professor of religion at Duke University, would disagree that it certain that it didn't happen. Even if she agrees it didn't happen like in the Bible.

R147 the witch of Endor story is an interesting one but doesn’t require a belief in an afterlife to understand. Samuel (actually I think described as some kind of divine being) comes up out of the ground, only the witch can see him, and he’s super grumpy that he’s been disturbed. It’s easy to read the story as Samuel coming up out of the earth where he’s buried and sleeping forever, not coming from another realm. When they got their hands on the story, the Greek translators understood it as the witch simply tapping into the divine and speaking on behalf of Samuel like the way an Oracle might speak for Apollo. It’s just very unclear what the original author had in mind when he wrote that scene.

But your point about the variety of religious beliefs in ancient Judaism is well taken. When scholars talk about ancient Israelite theology as reflected in the Bible, they’re almost always talking about what the learned priests thought and wrote down, not what ordinary people thought. The Hebrew Bible itself has plenty of allusions to the fact that a great many ordinary Israelites were polytheists, for example. No doubt many ancient Israelites probably believed in some sort of afterlife, just as many Roman Catholics today disagree with the official dogma of the Vatican. But I still think it’s safe to say that the official position of the Temple, so to speak, and the Hebrew Scriptures was a lack of belief in an indestructible soul that was separate from the body, and that such ideas seemed to creep in during the Hellenistic Period.

Also, everyone read Chapter 1 and 2 of Exodus. There's some nonsense about slavery and wanting to kill all the slaves, and then a very brief bit about Moses being rescued by Pharaoh's sister, and everyone is cool with that, cause he's a Hebrew and everyone apparently gets that, especially Moses. And then he kills an Egyptian and has to run away, but the whole thing is complete nonsense. Seriously, some Prince of Egypt has to kill some doofus and everyone is traumatized. Bitches please. Thank you, Cecil B. Demille for making sense of this shit and coming up with a much better story than God could be bothered with.

R155 It is like how people view the Southern Baptists, is based on the leadership and the big city churches, and it has almost no semblance to my experiences growing up in a rural Baptist church.

I agree your reading of the Witch of Endor could be valid as well, personally I don't really get bogged down in "correct" theology. Other than the basics codified in the early ecumenical creeds, I'm of the opinion that every man is is own priest and theologian. And, like Elizabeth I, I do not wish to make windows into men's souls. While others find the idea of multiple meanings for scripture, I find that to be the beauty of scripture and why I believe it is ultimately the inspired word of the Most High, because the same scripture can speak a hundred different messages to many different people. It is why I could never understand wars of religion, especially within Christendom.

Now, that does not mean I believe that every word of the Bible is the word of God. It is the word of God, as passed through the minds and hands of many men. Some of His words remain, but we can't get too bogged down in the words and forget the meaning. When I read the Bible I discuss and analyze it in my brain. I listen to my conscience. My belief is that the conscience of a Christian is the third part of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost. Which is why I say to really read the Bible, one has to read it with the Holy Ghost, in order to separate the works of man from the word of God.

[quote]R154: Carol Meyers, an archeologist and professor of religion at Duke University, would disagree that it certain that it didn't happen.

That's because Carol Meyers is

𝑎) a believer, and

𝑏) invested in illustrating the roles of biblical women in a historical context, which of necessity requires a historicist point of view.

Moses didn't exist.

R158 I've read him and find him unconvincing. You nor he will change my beliefs, but I also don't care if you or he has a different opinion. I don't like fighting or arguing about it in this life because we will only discover which of us was right in the afterlife. If some people are right that death just means death, what will matter I will be dead. If I am right, what will matter as I will be in paradise.

Well, R159, I'm not surprised by that, given your posting history; to still have your views would require a considerable cultivated immunity to reason or facts. And I don't believe you've read anything of Price's, not for a minute. You lack both the curiosity and the courtesy to hear another point of view, but don't mind proclaiming your own, expecting deference. A typical Baptist.

R160 You can believe that, but I know for a fact you are wrong about that. I read his original book Deconstructing Jesus in a class on the historical Jesus at a secular university with a Professor who I believe identified as an agnostic Universalist. I have continued to casually read some of his later writings, but I just do not find him convincing so I don't really read anything by him in-depth.

[quote]But I still think it’s safe to say that the official position of the Temple, so to speak, and the Hebrew Scriptures was a lack of belief in an indestructible soul that was separate from the body, and that such ideas seemed to creep in during the Hellenistic Period.

R155, can we really assume that 'the Temple' acknowledged or knew what we now look upon as the Hebrew Scriptures? Temple-centric religion and the later, post-Temple Scripture-centric religion, aka 'Rabbinic Judaism,' would seem to be fairly unrelated. And I cannot think of any part of the Hebrew Scriptures which can reliably be said to antedate the Hellenistic Period.

To me, the story of the Witch of Endor reads as Hellenistic, with the shade of Samuel ascending from the Underworld to be consulted. Any narrative containing angels can be characterized as Hellenistic.

[quote] Look at the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill"

R84 It's Don't MURDER. לא לרצח

[quote] clauses were interpolated into the Torah requiring first-born sons to be ransomed (for example, Exodus 13:13), and the Prophets were either composed to prohibit human sacrifices, or had it interpolated into them;

R124 Interpolated? By whom? When? Shemot 13:13 has no connection to "human sacrifice" but rather is an injunction to remember/thank G-d for liberation from slavery in Egypt (it's right there in Shemot 13:14).

[quote] Temple-centric religion and the later, post-Temple Scripture-centric religion, aka 'Rabbinic Judaism,' would seem to be fairly unrelated.

R162 "Temple-centric/post-Temple scripture religion"? Religion" is an American construct, and has nothing to do with Jews, their history or laws. You mean the Tanach and the Talmuds, Bavli and Yerushalmi, which are commentaries on Jewish law.

"Old Testament" is insulting and denigrating. Jewish Bible is the correct term.

[quote] "Temple-centric/post-Temple scripture religion"? Religion" is an American construct, and has nothing to do with Jews, their history or laws

R163 I wouldn't say it has nothing to do with Jewish History or Laws. It is just a simple fact, of documented history, by Jewish historians, that the Jewish religion/faith underwent a monumental change after the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora that followed. The Talmuds are clearly the work of a religion and a people trying to maintain their religion when the center of it is no more and the people are scattered. Also, they were being compiled around the same time, if not a little later, than the Christian New Testament, which, and I feel I must point this out, was an offshoot of Judaism. All the clearly important "good" people in the NT were Jewish, all the early followers were Jewish, and then the Temple was destroyed around roughly the same time. It was a significant point in Jewish, Christian, and world history. In fact many serious Christians study the Talmuds to better understand the Jewish scriptures.

I will say that I try to not say Old Testament outside of clearly Christian discussions, so as to not cause offense, but it is often a force of habit. I'm not R162. Though I do wonder can I say the Hebrew Scriptures or even the Tanach. I just do not like the term Jewish Bible or Christian Bible, for that matter, because it makes it exclusionary.

R162 I was just using the word “Temple” as a kind of shorthand for religious authorities/the priestly class etc. which is why I tried to include the phrase “so to speak” after it.

While I understand the argument that the Hebrew Bible can’t be positively dated to before the Hellenistic Period, I go with scholars who believe that most of it was put together centuries earlier while recognizing that the final form of the books remained in flux and certain stories could have been influenced by Hellenism. Sorting out which stories those would be is I think a difficult process. You’re right if you’re suggesting that the story of the medium of Endor is a story that would have been at home in Homer, but whether that’s a coincidence or not is probably something that could never be proved unless we were to find truly ancient manuscripts of Samuel. But I’m not in the camp that believes the Hebrew Bible was basically put together in Alexandria in the 3rd c. BCE

R165 I'm the person you were replying to in R155 and even though we were having a minor disagreement I agree with what you wrote in R165

R164

[quote] It is just a simple fact, of documented history, by Jewish historians, that the Jewish religion/faith underwent a monumental change after the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora that followed.

Jewish law is not a "religion/faith". Anymore than American law is a "religion/faith". It is the law by which Jews organize their society.

[quote] In fact many serious Christians study the Talmuds to better understand the Jewish scriptures.

How can one "understand" when one can't read/understand the language the Talmuds were written in?? What's to "study" or "better understand" in a book that any 10 year old in Beit She'an can pick up, read and clearly understand?

[quote] if not a little later, than the Christian New Testament, which, and I feel I must point this out, was an offshoot of Judaism.

"Offshoot" is a misnomer. Theft, appropriation are far more correct terms. That " All the clearly important "good" people in the NT were Jewish, all the early followers were Jewish" does not mitigate or excuse the theft of someone else's laws and history.

[quote] Though I do wonder can I say the Hebrew Scriptures or even the Tanach. I just do not like the term Jewish Bible or Christian Bible, for that matter, because it makes it exclusionary.

"Old Testament" is an insulting, demeaning Xtian term used to annihilate Jews, their laws, culture and history. Tanakh or Jewish Bible is the appropriate term. As far as "exclusionary", the laws and history contained in the Jewish Bible were meant solely for Jews. In that, the Jewish Bible is indeed exclusionary.

R167 It wasn't theft or appropriation of someone else's laws and history, when it was their law and history as well since they were Jewish. It isn't like Islam, which was written by someone who was neither Jewish nor Christian and instead of taking scripture he rewrote it. The people who formed Christianity were Jews, there is no doubt about that. Therefore through them we Christians have right to the scriptures and the message of them. You argue that...

[quote] Jewish law is not a "religion/faith". Anymore than American law is a "religion/faith". It is the law by which Jews organize their society.

So if I followed your line of reasoning, Christians would still be able to claim the Hebrew Scriptures just as America claimed English Common Law, even after the revolution.

[quote] How can one "understand" when one can't read/understand the language the Talmuds were written in??

What Talmuds are you referring to? One was written in Aramaic and the other in Hebrew, both of which are known languages. And, there are many translations of both.

What form of Judaism do you associate with, because I have known Jewish people who are of different strands but I can't place you. I've never met a Jewish person who argues that Judaism is not at all a religion. I've met some who argued it was archaic and is just about identity today, but they would never argue that is wasn't a religion. They would argue there is more to being Jewish than the religion, but the religion is there. There is a set of beliefs and scriptures about a God with whom the people have a special relationship and certain laws to follow in order to please him. That is a religion. The Law is the religion.

[quote]Couldn’t he have just pricked a finger tip? That seems to be good enough for other magic spells. Did we really need all the dramatics?

Because Jesus was dying to, by proxy, forgive [bold]all[/bold] of the sins of every single human being that ever existed and would exist in the future. So, it's as though he took the deserved punishment on behalf of every human being for sins they committed and sins that had yet to be committed. So, whatever suffering that someone was due to endure because of their sin, however brutal, he took it on instead.

That's why Satan, while taunting Jesus as he was praying the the Garden of Gethsemane that "it was too heavy" to make him change his mind. Also, because Jesus is technically God in the flesh, he had that whole omniscient thing going on, so he knew every detail of exactly what they were going to do to him before he was executed. That's why he was sweating blood while praying and asked God the Father (also him, technically...yes, that is confusing), to "remove the obligation from him to go through with it 'if it was his will.'" Jesus was genuinely terrified and stressed.

Luke 22:40-44 [quote]When He arrived at the place, He said to them, “Pray that you may not enter into temptation.” 41 And He withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and began to pray, 42 saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.” 43 Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him. 44 And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.

R168

[quote] Therefore through them we Christians have right to the scriptures and the message of them.

[quote] Christians would still be able to claim the Hebrew Scriptures

You are justifiying theft/appropriation of someone else's laws/history. Xtians are not simply "claiming" Jewish law. They stole it, then spent almost two millennia discriminating against, persecuting and butchering the people they stole it from.

[quote] What Talmuds are you referring to? One was written in Aramaic and the other in Hebrew, both of which are known languages. And, there are many translations of both.

One is the Bavli, the other the Yerushalmi. Translations are fraught with misunderstandings, mistranslations and absence of knowledge of context/nuance that affect meaning/understanding. Far better to read it in the original and avoid the aforementioned.

Vis-a-vis Aramaic, it is an all but "dead" language. Very few speak it anymore and certainly with no accuracy or understanding of nuance/context. Much like what happened to Hebrew during dispersion and the above-mentioned discrimination, persecution, etc. But Jews have regained their national language and are highlighting just how much of their laws/history have been horribly mistranslated. Such as Vayikra 18:22.

[quote] I've never met a Jewish person who argues that Judaism is not at all a religion.

Only in America have Jews been relegated to a "religion". In the rest of the world, Jews are considered a unique ethnicity with their own history, laguage and culture.

[quote]Because Jesus was dying to, by proxy, forgive all of the sins of every single human being that ever existed and would exist in the future. So, it's as though he took the deserved punishment on behalf of every human being for sins they committed and sins that had yet to be committed.

So, then, why did I have to say 5 Our Fathers and 5 Hail Marys whenever I confessed to the priest that I had jerked off....

Seriously: I was raised fairly hardcore Catholic and really believed all that crap throughout my early years. (I remember living in fear that I might have an accident and die before getting to my weekly confession and would therefore be damned to Hell because I maybe ate meat on a Friday.) Once I entered my teen years, however, I rather rapidly began questioning many of tenets I had heretofore believed. Primary among them was this concept that acceptance of Jesus as Savior was the only way to gain admittance to Heaven. What, I wondered, about children born in China, Africa, or Southeast Asia? Were they condemned to Hell because they hadn't been exposed to the Gospels? How about the indigenous people of North & South America? What about all those people, over all the centuries from the Fall to the Crucifixion, who couldn't use Jesus as a "Get Out of Hell Free" card because they died before he was born?

Once I began questioning these things, the whole edifice crumbled.

[quote] You are justifiying theft/appropriation of someone else's laws/history. Xtians are not simply "claiming" Jewish law. They stole it, then spent almost two millennia discriminating against, persecuting and butchering the people they stole it from.

AGAIN, SO YOU CAN HEAR ME...All the founders of Christianity were JEWISH. They could not steal nor appropriate it, because it was theirs by virtue of their birth. Just like I am American by birth, so I own the right to the Constitution, if I were to use it as the base law for a new independent group on Mars. I wouldn't be appropriating it or stealing it, because it would be mine to use. Once the Jewish Christian founders used those scriptures, it became part of our tradition as well because they built it on their foundation. Just as the Constitution would now belong to the Mars group as well as to the US.

I would also point out that Xtians is actually considered respectful and is thought by some to come from an early Jewish Christian tradition of using X to denote Christ much like the Tetragrammaton is used in the Hebrew Scriptures for God.

[quote]So, then, why did I have to say 5 Our Fathers and 5 Hail Marys whenever I confessed to the priest that I had jerked off....

Because Catholicism is a cult that stole most of its "rituals" from the Pagans and goes against Scriptures multiple times in many different ways. The entire concept of the priesthood goes against the Scriptures. He specifically said, "no one gets to the Father but through me." And what do Catholics do? Literally allow a man to call himself "father" and instruct others to "confess" their sins to a mere human being. Catholicism was just used as a tool by monarchs to control people and it just...stuck.

[quote]All the founders of Christianity were JEWISH. They could not steal nor appropriate it, because it was theirs by virtue of their birth

R172 I get it! Xtians could steal/appropriate Jewish law, history and culture because Jews "gave" it to them. Then Xtians could spend 2,000 years discriminating against, pesecuting and butchering Jews because well Xtians didn't want to be reminded that they stole/appropriated laws and history meant SOLELY FOR JEWS.

[quote] I would also point out that Xtians is actually considered respectful

Xtians is shorter to type.

R169 most serious biblical scholars agree that verses 43 and 44 were added to Luke’s gospel after it was written. Those verses don’t appear in our oldest manuscripts of Luke, they go against Luke’s theology of a Jesus who is in control of his passion and doesn’t suffer the way he suffers in other gospels, and they interrupt the flow of the literary device Luke uses in that passage. The verses about Jesus sweating drops that were like blood were almost certainly added by Christians who wanted to prove that Jesus was a human who suffered at his death, to push back against popular “heresies” that argued Jesus wasn’t human and didn’t really suffer.

They first appeared in Matthew, r178. Luke just reiterated what was in Matthew.

There are parallels among many faiths and belief systems similar to Easter. . . the most compelling for the secular crowd are perhaps the connection to parables within various trickster mythologies... and lessons of survival.

Ummm no they don’t R179. Did you read what you posted. There’s absolutely nothing like Luke 22:43-44 in Matthew’s gospel. Nothing about an angel coming to comfort Jesus at Gethsemane. Nothing about Jesus sweating blood.

Yeah, I realized after I responded what you were talking about with 43 and 44, r181. My bad.

I’m Lutheran and here is what we believe. “All men sin and come short of the law.” That includes women. God insists that sin must be paid for. So he sent his son, Jesus to live a perfect life that we are unable to do. Then on Good Friday, Jesus died on the cross taking the punishment we deserve on himself. This occurred on the cross when he spoke “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” When he spoke the words, “It is finished.” The punishment was over and our sins were paid for. Jesus then descended into Hell, not for punishment, that was over, but to announce to Satan that he had lost. He then rose from the grave. He didn’t resume his teaching, because that phase of his life was complete. He met with his disciples and then ascended into heaven. All of this fulfills the prophesies of the Old Testament. “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned” Your choice.

Yes R183 but why do all men sin and deserve punishment? Why didn’t God create us without sin? And if he did create us without sin, when and how during the course of hominid evolution did we become sinful?

I never understood the 'mechanics' of 'he died for our sins.'

Did Jesus have a verbal contract with God on this exchange?

I was trapped in Sweden during Easter week. From Thursday through Monday, everything was closed. Couldn't buy booze, bars and restaurants closed. What misery - I felt Jesus and his pain like never before during that horrid time.

R137 and R138 you make me smile.

Just a few comments:

1) the theology of angels and devils (along with the large parts the creation story In Genesis, monotheism and the burning bush) all come from Zoroastrianism. They pre-date Judaism and are there from the start. They are not Hellenistic in origin. Thank you to the poster who mentioned them. We are all; Christian, Jewish, Mormon and Muslim appropriators of the Parsi traditions.

2) after the fall of the FIRST temple the Jewish people were taken into exile in Babylon. Babylon was then conquered by Persia which was full of Zoroasters. This is the period that gives rise to the split between the priestly class and rabbinic class. (Fun fact Cohens make bad rabbis because they can’t preside at funerals) As a simplification the rabbinic class embraced and expanded upon Zoroastrianism beliefs and is generally associated with the Pharisees. The priestly class rejected those elements and is generally associated with Sadducees.

3) also somewhat simplified - There was a dispute between the two groups at the time of Jesus as to what texts were scriptural. The Sadducees believed only the five Books of Moses aka the Torah aka the Law were scripture. Pharisees included other texts. The early Christians were in the Pharisee camp. Since the Sadducees collaborated with Rome and Rome destroyed the second temple the Pharisees won the argument. (Although a reform Jew might tell you the Sadducees were right)

4) Genesis 12:3

[quote] Theft, appropriation are far more correct terms.

For what? for describing what the Israelites did to the Canaanites’ land?

There are several stories in Greek Mythology and Egyptian, about gods returning to earth to mate with some young woman. Zeus took the form of a swan to impregnate Leda, as one example. Achille's mother was a Demi god. Half mortal. So the rationale in making Jesus a son of God is consistent with that entire system of belief from that time and place. As it has been pointed out. Christianity borrowed liberally from myth, legend, and tradition when crafting their narrative, and who doesn't see similarities between Old Testament Samson, and Hercules, except Hercules seem like a nice person, IMO. I believe that there was a prophet called Jesus, or Yeshua, or perhaps a composite of several prophets out there that the Romans contended with. The Jews were a subject people, and of course they wanted a leader that was indestructible, one the Romans could not defeat.

Even reading through this DL thread, it absolutely boggles my mind that otherwise intelligent people wholeheartedly believe these nonsensical stories that obviously have no foundation in reality.

Spare me the fAiTh nonsense, too. Faith=gullible.

R187

[quote] We are all; Christian, Jewish, Mormon and Muslim appropriators of the Parsi traditions.

The BIG difference being that none of the above "appropriators" spent 2,000 years butchering Parsis, unlike Xtians did to Jews.

[quote] (Fun fact Cohens make bad rabbis because they can’t preside at funerals)

Wrong. Cohanim do indeed preside at funerals in the separate room provided for them.

R188

[quote] Theft, appropriation are far more correct terms.

[quote] For what? for describing what the Israelites did to the Canaanites’ land?

For 2,000 years of vicious, genocidal Jew hatred. Which you enthusiastically support with your "Jews shouldn't have spit on Jesus" nonsense.

R190 — Amen!

There was a time when men followed blindly. This is less so today. (I know, religion is still a booming business.) I think for myself, I have no problem believing in the teachings, the Beatitudes, if you will. Believing in Goodness, trying to be a good person. Compassion, humane treatment, kindness, etc. And if there were leaders or philosophes or "prophets" who promoted that viewpoint in a harsh and condemnatory world, I applaud them. I don't need to look into all the fine points and the rules and the concept of "sin." And yes I do believe in the existence of Evil. There are millions of examples readily available. I also believe in ethics, and fairness and right and wrong. I condemn cruelty, or actions that take advantage of people and result in harm. Turning water into wine? Raising Lazarus from the dead or healing lepers? No. Moses' ten commandments were crafted for a desert people barely civilized, warlike and aggressive. In fact, religion was the counterbalance to brute force in the power equation. Compassion balanced fear. To me that was the early dialectic that produced Jesus and all the others. Maybe Jesus was a composite of the ideal holy man, one who embodied all the most desired qualities. I enjoy church sometimes. It is that moment when for an hour or so, we can all come together in peace and wish one another well. A time to support one another. It comforts me.

If you have to be in a separate room, it’s hard to preside though in a meaningful way isn’t it? My wife’s synagogue lost a very good rabbi over the funeral situation, it upset so many congregants.

[quote] Good Friday - Why?

Because there could have been no resurrection without the crucifixion.

[quote] Wrong. Cohanim do indeed preside at funerals in the separate room provided for them

Untrue.

My mother-in-law’s cousin wouldn’t come into the funeral home when my father in law’s body was in the building having a memorial service. My MIL’s cousin’s wife came inside but the husband wouldn’t come in because he was a Cohen and the wife explained Cohens weren’t even allowed in the same *building* as a dead body. They were orthodox and knew every nook & cranny of whatever laws their flavor of orthodoxy conformed to. Like Christians, Jews have a bunch of sects who interpret things whatever way they feel like. They were not Haredi. They were “Five Towns Rockaways” Jewish.

Pesach Sameach R196.

[quote] If you have to be in a separate room, it’s hard to preside though in a meaningful way isn’t it?

R194 Meaningful to whom? Certainly not to those familiar with Jewish burial laws. A rabbi has no purpose at a funeral other than to oversee that those participating in the funeral bury the deceased according to Jewish law. Which he can adequately do from a room adjacent to the deceased/mourners.

Persecution of Zoroastrians is in no way comparable to two millennia of discrimination, persecution, expulsions, ghettos, pogroms, and extermination perpetrated by Xtians against Jews.

R196

[quote] the husband wouldn’t come in because he was a Cohen and the wife explained Cohens weren’t even allowed in the same *building* as a dead body.

Cohanim are not allowed in the same ROOM with a body. That is why Jewish burial societies/cemeteries have a separate room divided by glass so that Cohanim can participate in funerals.

[quote] Like Christians, Jews have a bunch of sects who interpret things whatever way they feel like.

Uh, no. Jews who live according to Jewish law don't personally "interpret" the law. How they express their observance differs not due to "sect" but to 2,000 years of expulsion/dispersion.

R199 May I ask what you are doing posting on a gay gossip (lashan hara) site on shabbos Pesach apparently completely oblivious to the fact that persecution of Jews significantly (in every generation like the song says) pre-dates Christianity and different sects of Judaism not only exist now, but existed prior to Christianity?

Lashan Hara would make a good drag name.

[quote]Lashon hara is the halakhic term for derogatory speech about a person, which emotionally or financially damages them or lowers them in the estimation of others. Lashon hara differs from defamation in that lashon hara can consist of truthful speech as well as lies.

It also sounds like a Bollywood actress name.

R200

[quote] May I ask what you are doing posting on a gay gossip (lashan hara)

It's lashOn hara. לשון הרע . And if you'd take a moment to read R201, you'd have your question answered.

[quote] oblivious to the fact that persecution of Jews significantly (in every generation like the song says) pre-dates Christianity

Which has zip to do with the reality the Xtians made Jew hatred a socio-culturally inculcated world-wide industry that exists to this day. No other nation comes close to 2,000 years of Xtian attempts to annihilate/exterminate Jews.

And yes, it is Shabbat and the first day of Pesach. And?

[quote] Uh, no. Jews who live according to Jewish law don't personally "interpret" the law

Uh, yes they do. That’s why there are names like “conservative,” “reform,” “reconstructionist,” “Orthodox modern” and “Orthodox haredi.”

Many orthodox don’t even consider Reform Judaism to be legitimate or even Jews.. They see Reform as “Unitarian Christianity without a messiah.”

Try telling Haredi they follow the same laws as Reform Judaism.

R204

[quote] “conservative,” “reform,” “reconstructionist,” “Orthodox modern” and “Orthodox haredi.”

You mistake American labels/designations signifying degrees of assimilation for observance. The rest of the Jewish world don't follow America labels.

[quote] Try telling Haredi they follow the same laws as Reform Judaism.

They don't. See explanation above.

A huge amount of the beliefs of the Jews was taken, pretty much intact, from Zoroastrianism which came before Judaism. And much was just rehashed from the native pagan religions of the region. Jews christians and Muslims just appropriated it all. Nothing is new.

First, the bible has been mistranslated so many times it has become a work of fiction

Then King James (the homosexual) edited the whole book to suit his agenda. And we use it today.

There is no solid historical proof that Moses ever existed, same for the story of the enslaved Hebrews leaving Egypt. None.

I think the whole thing is bunk, made even worse by the Catholic Church.

There is no god. There was no Jesus. Salvation isn't needed. Just enjoy your life.

[quote] First, the bible has been mistranslated so many times it has become a work of fiction

What do you mean?

[quote] Then King James (the homosexual) edited the whole book to suit his agenda. And we use it today.

Most Christians do not use the KJV.

[quote]What do you mean?

Yeah, I'm with you, R209. It was a work of fiction before it was mistranslated, right? ;)

[quote]Most Christians do not use the KJV.

It depends upon what you mean by "Christians." The KJV is still the second-best-seller overall, which says something about its popularity. Catholics don't use it, but it's probably safe to say it's the predominant version among English-speaking conservative evangelicals.

Whassup, DRMacDT? :D

R200/EL, it's Matt, and he's spoiling for a fight, hoping to disrupt the discussion.

R210 It is also cheap and widely available so when a non-believer or a lapsed believer decides to give it a shot, the KJV is the one they go to because it is the only one available at the dollar store, and other retailers for a cheap price because it isn't copyrighted outside of the UK.

It is the version I grew up on, and is still the version I use when the poetry is more important than the literal translation. I use the New Revised Standard Version Oxford Annotated Bible when I want to know the correct translation. I prefer more formal language for scripture, I can't stand something like The Living version.

[quote] I don't take Genesis as literal truth

That's good.

[quote]It is also cheap and widely available so when a non-believer or a lapsed believer decides to give it a shot, the KJV is the one they go to because it is the only one available at the dollar store, and other retailers for a cheap price because it isn't copyrighted outside of the UK.

Ah, the Baptist. How do you know what non-believers or lapsed believers use? What makes you think they don't own their own copies, from when they were believers?

My own copy - apart from the couple dozen on shelves and in bookstacks around the house - is a blue leather-bound, silver-gilt King James Version, center-column reference, published by World Bible Publishers, and it was not cheap. I keep it here by the desk because I know it so well that I can damn near open it to any passage I'm looking for. But for me, its translation isn't preferable. These days I tend to use online resources like Bible Hub because they're easier to find, and to research other readings, as well as information on the Hebrew and the Greek. I don't mislead myself with the idea that there's any such thing as a "correct translation." When citing online in posts, I often gravitate towards the Berean Study Bible, or sometimes the English Standard Version - or eclectic wording based upon the original languages, if I deem it necessary, or feel that the available English translations are too tendentious.

Sorry, for making assumptions, but we know the cheap KJV versions sell very well. Unless believers are buying multiple copies, for some reason, one would have to assume the majority of people buying them are not committed Christians.

Why would one assume that, R215?

Full disclosure, I don't have a lot of confidence in bible statistics based on sales, because churches and other religious organizations buy them in bulk to distribute, mostly in missions. The vast majority probably wind up in landfills.

Having had a secular upbringing none of the Jesus stuff ever made sense to me--not the birth, the feet washing, the resurrection, none of it. The lessons of Christianity seemed to need none of it. As I got older I came to understand the historical context (virgin birth stories are oldies going back to the Greeks), but it still seemed so un-necessary and it still does. And the silly business about Catholics making it worse (mentioned upthread) ---with Protestants you either get people who believe too much and do stuff like handle snakes or people who don't believe in much of anything but need to be better than their neighbors and identify with some dominant tribe. Catholicism with its co-opting of various threats, it's hierarchy, and the fancy clothes is obviously ridiculous as well as dangerous---but all that is out there. Protestantism just seems pretty un-necessary--if you're going to rebel against the church do something new---the Buddhists and Sikhs went that route, don't try to outdo the Catholics at their own game---it's boring and ultimately serves no good purpose. The great thing about Easter is that it coincides with Passover and Ramadan, as well as the Theravda Buddhist New Year---so you can eat your chocolate bunnies (unless you have to fast) but not get dragged into the Christian nonsense.

Because the ones I'm talking about are very cheap editions that are not made for repeated readings, it probably won't even last more than week's worth of use. If they are wanting to really use the Bible for any length of time they will move on to at least a $10 edition, not the $1.00 ones. And I know the dollar tree sells a lot of them, every year.

Hmm. It's still a believers' game. I recall some SDA Revelation Seminars which handed out no-frills cheap hardback NRSVs in the middle 90s.

R217 At least we put on a good show. You get your money's worth.

[quote] it's Matt, and he's spoiling for a fight, hoping to disrupt the discussion.

R211 Pointing out errors - or in your case, complete idiocy (interpolations? seriously?) - is acknowledged as correction by the sensible. Your continued conjuring up of the "Matt" boogeyman is your own peculiar delusion.

[quote] A huge amount of the beliefs of the Jews was taken, pretty much intact, from Zoroastrianism

R206 Please point out exactly which "beliefs of the Jews" were "taken intact from Zoroastrianism".

[quote] Whassup, DRMacDT? :D

Busted. I'll go back to not posting to religion threads.

And they say that animals don't have souls....

Happy Easter, DL! Jesus is risen!

Do Christians actually believe that over half the world will go to hell, as they are not baptized and do not worship Christ?

Yes, happy Easter indeed.

Christians believe that Christ is always the means of salvation. That is why the early church was referred to as “The Way.”

Revelations is very clear that the Patriarchs (the 12 sons of Jacob) are in heaven so it would be heretical to say that people who didn’t have the opportunity to be baptized or know Jesus automatically go to hell.

Christians believe different things about the necessity for religious service Baptism and professed (or even conscious) belief in Christ for salvation. For instance, the apostle Paul believed that non-believers married to believers would be saved (much as fundamentalists hate and try to explain away that passage)

You might think about it this way. All Christians believe there is only road to the city of God. Some Christians believe you have to find the road, know the name of it and be driving the vehicle to get there. Other Christians think you just need to know the name. And still other Christians think you can spend your whole life ignorant of the name and a passenger and still wind up in the same place. In all three cases the Good News (gospel) is that the road exists.

He is risen. Happy Easter DataLounge.

Happy Easter Everyone! Last night, because of this thread, I watched my favorite old "God" movie. King of Kings. Jeffery Hunter. Dammn he was hot.

Which bible do you find in hotel rooms? I think it's the King James version.

"King of Kings" aka "I was a teenage Jesus".

Jesus has risen, bake at 350.

As is often the case, I’m alone on a traditional holiday, so I turned to DL for some company. As someone who has was raised in a religious home, but no longer really believes, I clicked on this thread out of curiosity. I want to thank all the sincere posters who took time to post thoughtful responses to OP’s question. It made for very interesting reading and somehow it made me feel less lonely.

Sending love to you, R230.

[quote]R221: Pointing out errors - or in your case, complete idiocy (interpolations? seriously?) - is acknowledged as correction by the sensible.

Interpolations in biblical texts are a fact, and uncontroversial in biblical scholarship. If you can't come to terms with that, that's too bad. But if you want to dispute it, you will have to come up with something other than ad hominem. Calling something "complete idiocy" is not a legitimate argument. It's trolling.

[quote]Your continued conjuring up of the "Matt" boogeyman is your own peculiar delusion.

No, babe - I got that from other DL posters who've consistently insisted that's who you are. Your argument is with them.

Since all you do here is troll, it doesn't much matter to me who you are.

[QUOTE] Do Christians actually believe that over half the world will go to hell, as they are not baptized and do not worship Christ?

Catholics do. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and in the first or second grade I was taught that my non Catholic friends would go to hell because they didn’t have Confession. Most of my friends were Protestant but there were few things I hated more than going to Confession so I actually kinda envied them.

[quote]R223: Busted. I'll go back to not posting to religion threads.

That would only be by your own choice. I've never run you out of these discussions; I have only ever called you out for fallacious arguments and for refusing to support your own claims. I don't believe you've ever left, anyway; you simply shift to sock accounts which don't contain the embarrassment of the Dennis R. MacDonald debacle in their history.

When being an atheist is so logical and adult, believing in the Biggest Lie of eternal life appeals to so many weak people.

[quote]Revelations is very clear that the Patriarchs (the 12 sons of Jacob) are in heaven so it would be heretical to say that people who didn’t have the opportunity to be baptized or know Jesus automatically go to hell.

That's a bullshit argument and really doesn't answer the question. First of all, you're only talking about 12 patriarchs -- out of the millions of people who lived Before Christ. If the 12 sons of Jacob are in Heaven, all it demonstrates is that sacred nepotism exists. Way to get saved: be born into the right family.

More importantly, what about the Egyptian who lived his or her life honoring Isis or Horus, or the Greek who worshipped Athena and Apollo, or the Ancient Celts with their pantheon of over 400 gods?

The Revelation is a comic book that was the least likely added to the New Testament. Amazing how history has been changed by one vote.

It belongs right next to the Book of Enoch.

They make Cheeses of Nazareth, r24…

R238, Indeed, they used to!

Cheese makers - the original followers of the whey.

(I’ll show myself out.)

[quote]Then King James (the homosexual) edited the whole book to suit his agenda. And we use it today.

Oh come on, it's not like King James personally sat down and wrote his own bible. We all know that, right? It was a whole committee, it was a whole thing, and they didn't actually start from scratch. It was in its way, centuries in the making, like so much else with religion.

[quote]Do Christians actually believe that over half the world will go to hell, as they are not baptized and do not worship Christ?

[quote]Catholics do.

That was not the Catholicism I was raised in. It was much more vague. God decides who goes to Heaven and Hell, exclusively. There were definitely problems with the unbaptized, and that is why limbo was invented, and purgatory to a certain extent. There's no real biblical basis for either, I believe, but it was an attempt to get around that very uncomfortable doctrine that all non-Christians go to Hell. In fact, it was pretty much understood that very few Christians would get to Heaven initially. Very few saints in the world, as is obvious to all of us. So everyone else goes to Hell? Well, some would say yes, but adjustments were made to that harsh idea later on.

R242 Yeah, how does Purgatory fit in there?

I do get that Catholicism has been pretty firm on non-Christians going to Hell though. Heck, the Harrowing of Hell showed how serious they were that non-Christians, even good, virtuous ones, were incapable of true salvation except through Jesus.

Well they never did the whole "Faith not works" thing that Protestantism brought in. The whole salvation through Jesus thing is definitely real, but a whole lot of us is salvation through the sacraments, and ultimately really salvation as God decides. But I don't deny for a second that suburban, third generation Irish Americans had one kind of Catholicism, and others may have very much had a different kind.

Purgatory fits in as a more roundabout way to get to Heaven. You don't have to be perfect. It's a way to get to heaven after "paying" for your sins through a long round of suffering. And of course, it opened the door to all those indulgences that would eventually prove to be such a bother to a very angry Augustinian monk.

R244. I'm not a theologian so this is quite interesting.

I've always been curious what the cardinal sins are that would have people condemned to Hell vs. those who could be "corrected" through time in Purgatory. Presumably denying Christ gets you sent to Hell but is that it?

Don't look at us, r245!

What I have never understood is why anyone in the 21st century would still believe in any of this horseshit.

R244, I still don't understand why he had to nail 95 feces to his church door.

What?

Never mind.

R247. I'm not a believer but I do find the myth and history of Christianity interesting. Firstly, it's got some great stories.

Most importantly, the fact that people actually used to believe it before the 21st century is what I find fascinating. People actually used to believe and rationalize that they were consuming the blood and body of Christ (as an example).

It's amazing what the human mind is capable of doing to itself.

R249

[quote]It's amazing what the human mind is capable of doing to itself.

You mean like “I’m not a he anymore. As of this morning I’m a THEY.”

It's kind of silly to post the link below, since most of us don't believe in this entire concept, but it's just to show that it's NOT a current Catholic doctrine that all non-Christians go to hell - although non-Christians going to hell is a theme in the doctrines of many Protestant sects, who also don't consider Catholics to be Christian. I think the current thinking of Catholic theology is that Christ always remains the medium for salvation, but through mysterious ways can make it to available to non-Christians who lead pure lives and are searching for God. Yet the Catholic Church would be quick to reiterate that perfect salvation is only through adherence to Catholicism. (Whatever perfect salvation means).

And that makes a certain sense, since the Jews recognized a category of non-Jewish righteous people, the Noahides - they could find a place in the place that is to come if they demonstrated righteousness in following the seven laws:

The seven commandments of the Noahic Covenant enumerated in the Babylonian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 8:4, Sanhedrin 56a-b) are:[6][7][12][13]

Do not worship idols.[6][7][12][13] Do not curse God.[6][7][12][13] Do not murder.[6][7][12][13] Do not commit adultery or sexual immorality.[6][7][12][13] Do not steal.[6][7][12][13] Do not eat flesh torn from a living animal.[6][7][12][13] Establish courts of justice.[6][7][12][13][14]

They lost me at that sexual immorality part though, so I'm a goner.

[quote]It's kind of silly to post the link below...

It is kind of offputting, R251. It comes across as proselytization, of which I should imagine few here approve.

The second half of your post copies from the Wiki article, 'Seven Laws of Noah" (see below). The scope of the Noahide Laws used to be an intra-Jewish debate centering around just how much of Jewish law gentiles could be permitted to learn or observe, and how much of the Jewish version of salvation they could expect to partake. In the 1990s, the Lubavitcher Rebbe Schneerson seems to have taken the concept public (that is, openly shared it with non-Jews), so it's rather modern.

[quote]They lost me at that sexual immorality part though, so I'm a goner.

Well, I would posit that there is a difference between the Jewish concept of 𝑔𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑖 𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑦𝑜𝑡 ("uncovering the nakedness", often described as 'forbidden relationships' in Judaism) and the expression 'sexual immorality,' which is a Christian𝑖𝑠𝑚. The latter stems from modern renderings of the Greek term 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑖.

To be continued...

The word being rendered "sexual immorality" in modern bibles and "fornication" in the KJV (Gk. πορνείᾳ, '𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑖𝑎') means adultery or prostitution, as for example, Matthew 19:9.

Across the centuries, Christians have gradually attempted to broaden its meaning to include anything and everything, in an effort to police everyone else's sexual relationships, and most recently with the specific goal of subsuming homosexuality under the term.

Encountering the expression "sexual immorality" in modern bibles is only worth an eye-roll, at least.

Furthermore:

Sometimes I look at these threads and I cannot believe how smart we are!

Did Jesus fart? Did it smell heavenly?

Ae we talking about the movie with Ice Cube? I thought it was fun. I heard they also made a sequel...

Happy Holy Week 2023

Rebirth or healing through sacrifice. It's the same as the phoenix and a million other myths. It's symbolic and is supposed to teach you something about personal growth. In the case of Christ - it seems teleological to me (similarly to the binding of Isaac), an example of an individual being an agent of history or destiny and must therefore sacrifice their petty morality to meet such ends. Christ overcomes his hesitation and desire to rebel and once he accepts his fate he is then fully actualized (resurrected in his true form, ascends to paradise). I think it's a very dangerous idea - that some force of history or whatever can consume all other ethics.

He done riseth.

OP, do you understand why it was necessary for Harry Potter to die?

People who believe any of this are limited.

That's what gods did in those days.

[quote] Why the theatricality of it all?

They were going to take it on the road to see if it played in Samaria, Rose.

My mother used to do the Stations of the Cross. One year my father worked late, so she had to take me with her. I was psyched. Hooray! We get to visit stations! Each station, my mother said, “depicts a different scene of the Passion.” So I figured there were people acting out scenes. I’d heard of “passion plays” especially in places like Philippines where they sometimes literally nailed themselves to a cross. Awesome!

When we got there it was just framed pictures on the wall of the church. At each picture an old lady was kneeling in front of it, praying. My mother was the youngest woman there. She knelt, she wept, she prayed. Tears coursed down her face as she scrabbled around her rosary beads.

And I was like, “Mommmmmmm, are you [bold] kidding [/bold] me? This is it? Where are the stations? Where’s the cross? Where are the people? This is so boring!”

So I had to go sit/lie down on a bench while she knelt all over the church weeping and saying the rosary. Anything involving performative religiosity was her speciality.

I never believed religion, which was unfortunate since my mother demanded I attend catholic school, catholic mass, catholic confession, receive catholic sacraments and be at the mercy of catholic nuns.

It did not work out well.

Happy Holy Week 2024.

Cool story, r265.