Vomitously Sick Of Christians

[Pantophobia]

I did almost the same thing, RenWoman, first chucked the OT, then St. Paul (who is a giant asshole) and then Revelations and- what's left? Four contradictory accounts of the same events. 

[sandiego4me]

 

Deep down, as frightened of the idea of hell as you are, you must know in your heart that the very idea of hell is absurd. Because it is. 

 

 

 First of all, I really liked your comment. I sincerely did.  I have not come here with an ounce of pretentiousness.  I am LONG over that.  Agree, I don't like hell.  In my book,  I wrote a chapter called "What the Hell?" that talks about this issue in ways that you haven't seen before.  It's funny and deep at the same time. 

[florduh]

Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

 

Or he's an amalgam of other mythological man-god beings devised by ancient cultures.

 

The problem I have in debating Christians about anything is that they never start at the beginning. Prove that your premise is not false and we'll go from there. I still have not been presented with any evidence showing the Bible to be reliable in any way, that the Jesus character of said book actually existed, or that there is an invisible and undetectable spirit realm run by something called Jehovah.

[LivingLife]

There may have been a historical Jesus that the gospels were based on, but I imagine most of the stuff about him in the gospels was made up.

The problem here is giving partial plausibility means that what was actually real and what was not?

 

I simply dismiss the claims as myth as one would not have required to attempt to trace lineage through 3 earlier myths if he was as awesome as reported. Evidence of his reality would be oozing out of every nook and cranny. Somewhere someone else said that if there was a rebel fella, they romans would hardly have given the body back for burial.

[sandiego4me]

 

Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

 

Or he's an amalgam of other mythological man-god beings devised by ancient cultures.

 

The problem I have in debating Christians about anything is that they never start at the beginning. Prove that your premise is not false and we'll go from there. I still have not been presented with any evidence showing the Bible to be reliable in any way, that the Jesus character of said book actually existed, or that there is an invisible and undetectable spirit realm run by something called Jehovah.

 

 

A good book on the subject of Jesus' historical authenticity is "The Historical Jesus:  Ancident Evidence for the Life of Christ."  The book looks at actual secular evidence from history that shows that Christ existed.  

[sandiego4me]

 

There may have been a historical Jesus that the gospels were based on, but I imagine most of the stuff about him in the gospels was made up.

The problem here is giving partial plausibility means that what was actually real and what was not?

 

I simply dismiss the claims as myth as one would not have required to attempt to trace lineage through 3 earlier myths if he was as awesome as reported. Evidence of his reality would be oozing out of every nook and cranny. Somewhere someone else said that if there was a rebel fella, they romans would hardly have given the body back for burial.

 

 

Frank Morrisson, a lawyer and atheist from the early 20th Century was fed up with the ridiculous claims of Christianity.  He came up with the idea of writing a book that debunked the Resurrection of Christ.  If he could debunk that myth, then the totality of Christianity would fall.  The book is entitled "Who Moved the Stone?"   Morrison came to a shocking conclusion when he finished, one that caused him to abandon atheism and embrace Christ.     The book is a short read, about 120 pages.  It's only for the intellectually honest. 

 

Here is what one reader had to say about the book on Amazon.com:

 

"I've read many books on the historical reliability (and unreliability) of the New Testament; I've seen many educated opinions varying in every way; I done studies many resurrections-centered topics; but I've never seen a book quite like this! Morrison takes nothing for granted. He trusts his instincts, and, though coming shy of any kind of Biblical-Christian opinion, he beautifully defends the resurrection in this short examination. As a doubter I find it difficult to swallow what many Christians take for granted in their own faith. This book is not like most. However, as a believer I was thrown by Morrison into the last week of Jesus' life (and the following weeks) as I never have by any lecture or writing. Morrison brings to light many historical details missed my so many people (including myself). He is easy to read and difficult to put down.

                 To the skeptics: I was once a skeptic. It was not a brief reading of one or two apologetic works that convinced me; instead, it was months and months of hard research, with this book as one of the many highlights. I encourage all to read this."

[mymistake]

Even going by the gospels as written Jesus didn't make anything like a claim of divinity until the Gospel of John.  The other three gospels clearly portray Jesus as not God as do the writings of Paul.  The idea that Jesus was God didn't become popular until much later and never would have become mainstream had it not been for the intervention of the Roman Empire.  By the way there are not four gospels.  There were dozens of gospels.  Rome picked four and declared them to be authentic.  It's just silly to think the four gospels Rome picked reflect the actual words of Jesus.  Was there even an actual Jesus?  In the unlikely event that there was then a better source for the words of Jesus would be in the older gospels than the ones we find in the standard Bible.  It's unfortunate that Rome destroyed the oldest sources.  Perhaps they were worried that these older sources made it look like the religion was something else entirely.

[florduh]

A good book on the subject of Jesus' historical authenticity is "The Historical Jesus:  Ancident Evidence for the Life of Christ."  The book looks at actual secular evidence from history that shows that Christ existed.

 

 I've read it. This ain't my first rodeo.

 

Habermas himself says the Gospel of Mark (author unknown) is his best evidence. Huh? 

 

I have little doubt that there was an actual person or persons after whom the Jesus stories were crafted beginning three or more decades after the alleged death and resurrection of the character. Only the mostly unattributed writings in the NT ascribe magical powers to the god-man, much as in the earlier pagan religious tradition. And not until long after the supposed occurrence of the miracles. IOW, only the religious writings found in the NT made note of the astounding and remarkable feats of this person. 

[TheUnknown]

 

 First of all, I really liked your comment. I sincerely did.  I have not come here with an ounce of pretentiousness.  I am LONG over that.  Agree, I don't like hell.  In my book,  I wrote a chapter called "What the Hell?" that talks about this issue in ways that you haven't seen before.  It's funny and deep at the same time. 

 

I'm absolutely baffled and disgusted that you could find such an issue even remotely amusing. I personally find it heartbreaking when young teens come on here that have a deep fear of it. And you somehow find the concept amusing?

 

 

Nothing could add to the horror of hell, except the presence of its creator, God. While I have life, as long as I draw breath, I shall deny with all my strength, and hate with every drop of my blood, this infinite lie.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll

 

 

I would not for my life destroy one star of human hope, but I want it so that when a poor woman rocks the cradle and sings a lullaby to the dimpled darling, she will not be compelled to believe that ninety-nine chances in a hundred she is raising kindling wood for hell.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "How To Be Saved" (1880)

If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men.... What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Liberty Of All" (1877)

[sandiego4me]

Even going by the gospels as written Jesus didn't make anything like a claim of divinity until the Gospel of John.  

 

That's not accurate.   I had similar concerns a few years back, so I read through the first three gospels and scrupulously took notes.  I came up with 113 incidents and statements by Christ which showed that he was divine. Here are a few:

 

Matthew 16:15-17:  "He said to the, 'But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven."

 

Mark 61-62:  "Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"  Jesus said, 'I am."

 

Luke 22:70:  "Then they all said, 'Are You then the Son of God?  So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."

 

Mathew 26:62-64:  "And the high priest arose and said to Him, 'Do You answer nothing?  What is it these men testify against You?' But Jesus kept silent.   And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God:  Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?'  Jesus said to him, "It is as you said."

[sandiego4me]

 

 

I'm absolutely baffled and disgusted that you could find such an issue even remotely amusing. I personally find it heartbreaking when young teens come on here that have a deep fear of it. And you somehow find the concept amusing?

 

I'm certainly not poking fun at a serious situation.  Rather, I am using humor to diffuse stress.  We do this in our lives all the time.  Comedians consistently make jokes about extreme tragedies to soften the blow.  Read the chapter that I have written and you'll see what I mean.

[LifeCycle]

I see signs of deconversion here.

[Fernweh]

I see signs of deconversion here.

 

Perhaps. I'm also seeing signs of an evangelizer couched as a doubter. Could go either way at this point. 

[LifeCycle]

 

I see signs of deconversion here.

 

Perhaps. I'm also seeing signs of an evangelizer couched as a doubter. Could go either way at this point. 

 

Yeah.

 

But I think he's still too rational for Christianity. It makes for an tough relationship.

[sandiego4me]

 

Perhaps. I'm also seeing signs of an evangelizer couched as a doubter. Could go either way at this point. 

 

Yeah.

 

But I think he's still too rational for Christianity. It makes for an tough relationship.

 

 

I get run off the Christian websites for being too "out there' and accused of being an evangelist here!  Funny.  Actually I'm just a real dude who's not trying to please anybody, but, rather, just want to talk about real things. 

[pawn]

You are welcome here. just remember that all of us on this forum were all Christians once too. Most of us for years, many of us were hardcore about it too! We have read all the apologetics, scoured through every verse of the bible, and we've all heard the CS Lewis quote a million times... So when you start quoting him or the bible, we roll our eyes, as we've heard it all before!

So if you aren't an evangelist, that's great, hang around an enjoy. A lot of good info on this site, and freedom of speech is highly respected.

[RaLeah]

 

 

Deep down, as frightened of the idea of hell as you are, you must know in your heart that the very idea of hell is absurd. Because it is. 

 

 

 First of all, I really liked your comment. I sincerely did.  I have not come here with an ounce of pretentiousness.  I am LONG over that.  Agree, I don't like hell.  In my book,  I wrote a chapter called "What the Hell?" that talks about this issue in ways that you haven't seen before.  It's funny and deep at the same time. 

 

 

Thank you (and to the others who liked my comment). 

 

I don't think you sound pretentious at all. But to further pull apart the idea of hell... where is it supposed to be? The people who wrote the Bible had several different words for it. Some referred to it as the shadowy underworld. Most seem to think it's down inside the earth. (The earth swallows up some evil people; also the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, it seems hell is below.) And heaven is up in the clouds. (Jesus ascends up into the heavens.) 

 

We know now from science that the core of the earth is not hell. We also know that if you go up past the clouds, there's no heaven up there. (Pretty much renders the story of the Tower of Babel as absurd.) There's outer space, but no heaven. 

 

The Bible also indicates that the "dead in Christ" will rise from the grave. We know that bodies decompose or they're cremated, and there's no physical resurrection possible. 

 

Heaven and hell just don't make any kind of logical sense today. The Bible refers to them as physical places, but where are they? You can argue for alternate dimensions and a spirit world that isn't physical, but the Bible doesn't say that. Instead of trying to delve into apologetics for the Bible, doesn't it make more sense to realize that ancient men just didn't have as much information as we do now, and that they were making this up as they were trying to understand how they got there and why? They didn't have our scientific understanding. They collected together mythology. It makes sense they would do this to try to better comprehend their world and pass down this information so their descendants wouldn't have to keep reinventing the wheel, doesn't it? 

 

The trouble is, we know their explanations were about as useful as a square wheel, and science has given us the answers our ancestors could only dream of and long for. 

 

It would be a shame to reject all that knowledge we have now in favor of ancient superstitions that don't fit with the facts and evidence we have access to today. I think it actually dishonors our humanity and our evolution. How can we keep progressing if we stay stuck in the past, clinging to out-dated information (superstition) that has been refuted by new information (actual evidence)? 

 

Denial of science is dangerous -- it starts with rejecting evolution, but it continues with refusing to believe we can harm the earth because Christians believe Jesus will come back and rescue them before we could possibly destroy our climate or irreparably pollute our air, water or food supply. It's imperative that we wake up to the truth and deal with realities rather than staying stuck in the harmful delusion of disproved fantasies. 

[Bhim]

I'm absolutely baffled and disgusted that you could find such an issue even remotely amusing. I personally find it heartbreaking when young teens come on here that have a deep fear of it. And you somehow find the concept amusing?

 

 

This is something I point out to people quite often as well.  Hell isn't funny.  It's not something that we should be joking about.  Maybe if the notion of eternal conscious torment for non-Christians was an arcane belief held by ancient cultures, ridicule would be in order.  But we're talking about a belief held by over one in four Americans (source: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-all-traditions.pdf states 26.3% of Americans were evangelical Christians in 2007).  These people actively believe that we will eternally burn in a lake of fire for failure to practice their religion.  So we're talking about a truly evil doctrine which is not only held by millions of Americans, but which is a socially acceptable belief in America.  If an American believed in lynching blacks, he would be ostracized by most of society.  Yet a far more heinous belief is considered permissable, even to Americans who don't hold said belief.  No matter how far-fetched a belief is, it can't simply be laughed off and ignored when so many subscribe to it.

 

I think you're absolutely right to be disgusted by this belief, and by the failure of others to recognize that it is evil.  I'm sure Sandiego didn't consider the seriousness of this doctrine when he chose to laugh off the idea of hell.  I hope he'll think about it more seriously though, now that we've raised the issue.

[mymistake]

 

Even going by the gospels as written Jesus didn't make anything like a claim of divinity until the Gospel of John.  

 

That's not accurate.   I had similar concerns a few years back, so I read through the first three gospels and scrupulously took notes.  I came up with 113 incidents and statements by Christ which showed that he was divine. Here are a few:

 

Matthew 16:15-17:  "He said to the, 'But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven."

 

Mark 61-62:  "Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"  Jesus said, 'I am."

 

Luke 22:70:  "Then they all said, 'Are You then the Son of God?  So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."

 

Mathew 26:62-64:  "And the high priest arose and said to Him, 'Do You answer nothing?  What is it these men testify against You?' But Jesus kept silent.   And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God:  Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?'  Jesus said to him, "It is as you said."

 

 

 

It is so deeply engrained in you that you cannot see it.  "Son of" doesn't mean "is".  "Christ" doesn't mean God.  "Christ" means "anointed".  King David (in the story) was a Christ.  King Saul was a Christ.  All the kings of Israel were Christs.  These synoptic gospels do not say that Jesus was God.  For that you have to go to John.

 

Furthermore all of the authentic writings of Paul have the author list God and Jesus as serperate entities.  Paul never thought Jesus was God.  Jesus served God.  He wasn't God.

 

Look past the indoctrination and see the words in the actual Bible.  They don't mean what your pastor told you they mean.

[Bhim]

I get run off the Christian websites for being too "out there' and accused of being an evangelist here!  Funny.  Actually I'm just a real dude who's not trying to please anybody, but, rather, just want to talk about real things.

 

For what it's worth I believe you.  A lot of Christians attribute credibility to their faith and their scripture, but are infuriated by the behavior of other Christians.

 

You quoted M.K. Gandhi to point out that Christians behave unlike Christ.  Being one of Gandhi's countrymen I'm of course sympathetic to the man.  But I think he was absolutely wrong to say that Jesus is a good person.  The doctrine of hell didn't pop out of the vacuum.  Jesus popularized it.  1st century Judea featured enough itinerant preachers and prophets that I cannot say for certain if Jesus created the idea of eternal conscious torment.  The word gehenna (which refers to hell in the context of eternal conscious torment) is found 13 times in the Bible.  All of them are in the New Testament, and 12 are from the lips of Christ.

 

If Jesus is really God, then Gandhi is in hell, and I'm headed there too for practicing the same religion as him.  Gandhi's last words upon being shot were "Rama, Rama" (there's some dispute about the exact wording since they were barely audible).  He prayed to God according to a Hindu understanding of him, and certainly did not convert to Christianity at the last minute.  So according to the god you worship, the man you quoted will burn in eternal torment.

 

Still think Jesus is a great guy?  Please understand I'm not trying to win an argument against you or make you look bad in front of the crowd.  But I hope you'll think about this, and perhaps stop worshiping a person who resembles a demon more than he does a god.  At the very least, I hope you'll never again try to convert a person to Christianity.

 

That's not accurate.   I had similar concerns a few years back, so I read through the first three gospels and scrupulously took notes.  I came up with 113 incidents and statements by Christ which showed that he was divine. Here are a few:

 

Matthew 16:15-17:  "He said to the, 'But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven."

 

Mark 61-62:  "Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"  Jesus said, 'I am."

 

Luke 22:70:  "Then they all said, 'Are You then the Son of God?  So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."

 

Mathew 26:62-64:  "And the high priest arose and said to Him, 'Do You answer nothing?  What is it these men testify against You?' But Jesus kept silent.   And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God:  Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?'  Jesus said to him, "It is as you said."

 

None of these involve a suggestion of divinity on the part of either Jesus or the author of the text.  "Son of God" is not at all the same as saying that one is equal with God.  I am not a scholar of ancient Greek literature, but do you know how I know this?  Because if the Biblical author wanted to say "Jesus is equal with God," then he would simply need to write that.  Indeed, the author of John does precisely this, "This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18).  Paul did the same thing, "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 9:5).  If the synoptic gospels' author(s) wanted to say that Jesus is God, why not just say that?

 

At best, "Son of God" associates Jesus with angels, which is what that phrasing means in the Old Testament.  In Job 1:6 it seems to be used to refer to people who accompany Satan in some capacity or another.  The reason the New Testament invokes this idea of a singular "Son of God" is because it's a Greek document, not a Hebraic one.  It's written in Greek.  It is influenced by Greek thought.  I have serious doubts that even one of the New Testament's authors was remotely Jewish.  In Greek mythology many demigods are fathered by Zeus and other deities.  Being a son of God is roughly equivalent to being a hero or a demigod.  And given Jesus' strange set of superhuman abilities but lack of absolute authority over the universe, it makes sense that this Greek concept is borrowed and that he's called the Son of God.

 

Consider also that to this day, Jews consider the idea of a man being God to be abhorrent.  In Hebraic thought, God is so far above the laws of man and nature that it is unthinkable for him to become a man.  But Jews have never thought that this makes God incomprehensible or inaccessible.  The Old Testament is replete with examples of people praying to God and speaking with him.  Because of this contradiction, evangelical theologians need to make up ridiculous ideas about God being both transcendent and immanent, the idea being that the incarnation is necessary for us to be able to relate to God. For the first 19 years of my life I was a Hindu (as I am today) and had never set foot inside an evangelical church; it never occured to me that I couldn't comprehend God unless he became incarnate.

 

You don't need Jesus to be able to speak to God.  He is just a middleman who offers nothing but eternal torment for failure to obey him.

 

(Of course most others here are atheists and will tell you that you can't speak to God because he doesn't exist, but I think that's a separate discussion.)

[sandiego4me]

 

 

Even going by the gospels as written Jesus didn't make anything like a claim of divinity until the Gospel of John.  

 

That's not accurate.   I had similar concerns a few years back, so I read through the first three gospels and scrupulously took notes.  I came up with 113 incidents and statements by Christ which showed that he was divine. Here are a few:

 

Matthew 16:15-17:  "He said to the, 'But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven."

 

Mark 61-62:  "Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"  Jesus said, 'I am."

 

Luke 22:70:  "Then they all said, 'Are You then the Son of God?  So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."

 

Mathew 26:62-64:  "And the high priest arose and said to Him, 'Do You answer nothing?  What is it these men testify against You?' But Jesus kept silent.   And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God:  Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?'  Jesus said to him, "It is as you said."

 

 

 

It is so deeply engrained in you that you cannot see it.  "Son of" doesn't mean "is".  "Christ" doesn't mean God.  "Christ" means "anointed".  King David (in the story) was a Christ.  King Saul was a Christ.  All the kings of Israel were Christs.  These synoptic gospels do not say that Jesus was God.  For that you have to go to John.

 

Furthermore all of the authentic writings of Paul have the author list God and Jesus as serperate entities.  Paul never thought Jesus was God.  Jesus served God.  He wasn't God.

 

Look past the indoctrination and see the words in the actual Bible.  They don't mean what your pastor told you they mean.

 

 Isaiah 9:6 says, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."   This son is called the Everlasting God.  Certainly not trying to get all theological, but this verse in Isaiah clearly shows that a son will be the Everlasting God.  

[sandiego4me]

 

Still think Jesus is a great guy?  Please understand I'm not trying to win an argument against you or make you look bad in front of the crowd.  But I hope you'll think about this, and perhaps stop worshiping a person who resembles a demon more than he does a god.  

  We all dislike the concept of hell.  I certainly don't like it more than anyone else here.   I would like to completely dismiss it.  What Jesus said was disconcerting (to say the least).  However, most of us find it abhorrent because we consider it to be false.  That there must be something seriously screwy in the interpretation.  But, what if what Jesus said is actually true? What if hell really existed?  If that were the case, then his words make all the more sense.  Listen, I would be perfectly fine if everybody got a free passage to heaven.  

 

In my chapter "What the Hell?" I discuss various scripture that almost certainly shows that those who have died still have a chance.   People in church would claim this is blasphemy, but it's in the text.  Just freaking read chapter 4 of my book. It's the furthest thing from preachy.  You'll actually like it.   Also, it's free, so I'm not making dough of it. 

[Vigile]

Who cares what Jesus said, or what was attributed to some character named Jesus?  He isn't real. 

[Ravenstar]

If Jesus was right about hell that makes him and Yahweh monsters. Infinite punishment without a chance for redemption for finite crimes (and I would even argue that 'sin' does not equal crime) is evil, pure unadulterated sadism. It serves no purpose other than this deity is cruel, bloodthirsty and abhorrent.

 

I've brought this up before, it isn't even logical OR Biblical. The Bible does not teach that humans are immortal (i.e.: 'souls' are bodies animated by the breath of god.. old hebrew, 'ruach' - spirit/breath)  Man and animals were created on the same day (6th)

and there is no indication that immortal life was the state of Adam and Eve... Jesus says that the GIFT of God was the resurrection, BODILY to immortal life - supposedly he was the example.. and this is illustrated with Thomas, whom Jesus allowed to touch him to see that yes, indeed, he was flesh. (afterwards he floated up into the sky, to where is anyone's guess) So, if one believes in hell (or even heaven) then they must see that the Bible considers it a physical place.

 

Now follow me here... for humans to be cast into hell they would have to be resurrected (in other words receive the gift of immortality) and then tortured for eternity.

 

huh?  How does that make any sense whatsoever? A plain reading of scripture is clear on these issues... but it's not logical. Now the Greeks considered the Gods physical - even had their abode on Mount Olympus... and with the story of Persephone it's obvious that they thought Hades (Greek 'hell') was underground and mortals could (under certain circumstances) visit there. SEE the parallels between Greek mythology and the NT? These ideas you do not find in the OT. It is NOT a Jewish idea at all.

 

By the time the NT was written Judea (Because Israel had been conquered for a very long time by then and 'Israel' as a country was long gone) was fairly hellenized, centuries of Roman and Greek influence had changed the view of the Jews (some anyway) not consciously...but seeping in culturally. This points to the theological split between the Pharisees and the Sadduccees.

 

It's all in context, but if you don't understand the cultural and political context it doesn't make sense. Christianity is syncretistic... deeply syncretistic.

 

Back to justice... which is what hell is supposedly about. It is NOT just to punish someone forever for 70 years of wrong living. That isn't justice, it's vengeance, it's hateful, it's unforgiving and as far from mercy as you can get. Hammurabi had more moral ground than this. An innocent taking the blame for the guilty is IMMORAL. It doesn't make sense either... it does make sense when you think about it in evolutionary terms. Way way back, when the Hebrews were not yet a distinct people, human sacrifice was common... Child sacrifice was common (The evidence is actually in the Bible) People were few and far between and the most valuable thing people had were their children and their livestock... the FIRST BORN of these things were sacrificed to their gods... probably at first for blessings like rain, health, etc... then religion evolved and it was done for success in battle (Japhtheth) then it evolved again as population increased and 'substitutes' were used (livestock, etc..) and it became more ritualized. An entire priestly caste was invented, and sacrifice became their currency (as shown by Jesus in the temple)... and although we no longer sacrifice animals or children the TITHE is an echo of these practices.

 

BUT!!! The (supposed) sacrifice of Jesus goes right back to the child sacrifice of the very ancient Hebrews (and others in the area.. Moloch, etc...) He is the FIRST BORN. This illustrates the cultural mind set that BLOOD (life) is the only 'payment' for sin. The Aztecs made it an art form. It's barbaric. As a matter of fact Abel, way back in Genesis was the first blood sacrifice. The entire Bible is about BLOOD SACRIFICE. The Jesus brings in the doctrine of eternal torment... horrific.

 

TRUE punishment includes restitution and correction. There is none of this in the doctrine of hell. It's just barbarism and evil.

 

So enlightened? No.  Good? Not even close.  Loving?  This concept is as far from love as I can imagine.

[BendyLine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even going by the gospels as written Jesus didn't make anything like a claim of divinity until the Gospel of John.

That's not accurate. I had similar concerns a few years back, so I read through the first three gospels and scrupulously took notes. I came up with 113 incidents and statements by Christ which showed that he was divine. Here are a few:

 

Matthew 16:15-17: "He said to the, 'But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven."

 

Mark 61-62: "Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus said, 'I am."

 

Luke 22:70: "Then they all said, 'Are You then the Son of God? So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."

 

Mathew 26:62-64: "And the high priest arose and said to Him, 'Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?' But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?' Jesus said to him, "It is as you said."

 

It is so deeply engrained in you that you cannot see it. "Son of" doesn't mean "is". "Christ" doesn't mean God. "Christ" means "anointed". King David (in the story) was a Christ. King Saul was a Christ. All the kings of Israel were Christs. These synoptic gospels do not say that Jesus was God. For that you have to go to John.

 

Furthermore all of the authentic writings of Paul have the author list God and Jesus as serperate entities. Paul never thought Jesus was God. Jesus served God. He wasn't God.

 

Look past the indoctrination and see the words in the actual Bible. They don't mean what your pastor told you they mean.

Isaiah 9:6 says, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." This son is called the Everlasting God. Certainly not trying to get all theological, but this verse in Isaiah clearly shows that a son will be the Everlasting God.

So when was the government on Jesus' shoulders?