Christians can't stand the biblical God

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

I wasn't at all suggesting that women can't stand on their own (now) or even before (Queen Elizabeth I of England?). Perhaps our mothers, grandmothers and more distant relatives are a metaphorical 'standing behind'. Standing before might have been a better term. 

 

Better? 

 

My opinion is that once the Roman government surrounding the year 140 CE realized this xtian sect was too enduring to rub out, they made a Devil's Bargain and appropriated it for the sake of order and manipulation. Historical digging already suggests to me that at the time of Jesus, a lot of political hubbub and unrest was going on and there were 'several' apocalyptic cults circulating from the tension between Jews and Romans. These cults meant to rally support to call on God (Jewish god) to strike their enemies (Rome) down and it was getting to the point of insurrection (sound familiar?).  

So to appease the masses, a composite of all the religions were thrown into the bargain, what appears to be a buffet of everything for everybody. 

But I'm not done researching yet. 

 

That's a possible of course, but there seems to be very little evidence that Xtianity was widespread at that time. From my readings it was only a very very small movement being promoted by Paul and his followers. There is no evidence that I know of that even 1/1,000 Romans ever heard of it. If there is such a credible historical source at that time I would like to know of it. In 68 AD Nero never heard of it at all, excepting maybe as a separate sect of Judaism, according to my readings.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

And now, for something completely different: 

 

Daily Deep Thought – Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

That's possible of course, but there seems to be very little evidence that Xtianity was widespread at that time. From my readings it was only a very very small movement being promoted by Paul and his followers. There is no evidence that I know of that even 1/1,000 Romans ever heard of it. If there is such a credible historical source at that time I would like to know of it. In 68 AD Nero never heard of it at all, excepting maybe as a separate sect of Judaism, according to my readings.

 

You are probably right that it wasn't a large movement prior to Constantine.  Back then people believed in several gods.  Is it possible that he decided to add the Christian god to his list.  He then asked the christian god (possibly to simply cover all the bases) to help him win a battle, and he won the battle, and became a follower.   And then a promoter of the movement.  And we know what happened from there.  The combined power of religion and Rome eventually led to killing off the competition and forced conversions for centuries.  After a few generations, much of the western world only knew the christian god.  It took centuries, but-----We got christianity through raw POWER.  Not from the blessings of an all powerful god.  And the reason I am so against the Christian Nationalist movement at present.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

That's a possible of course, but there seems to be very little evidence that Xtianity was widespread at that time.

Yes. I think it had more to do with compromise with the Church at Rome (i.e. Headquarters) in order to centralize the whole operation, which had scattered far and wide. 

 

I'm looking into the individual apostles and where and what they did. AFTER the Ascension, which wasn't until 50 days after Jesus blasted off from this earth. I had to start with their names, one of which is brand new to me! Is there a place in the bible that gives a list of names for all 12? My actual goal is not to have to use the bible for any references. 

 

For the first time, I used the AI Chatbot Microsoft/Bing uses (in their browser) to ask questions. I got names of all twelve and will continue to investigate. 

 

Even in the best of scenarios, 11 apostles (minus the hanged man) preaching the gospel by memory would have been a challenge. The Master didn't leave written instructions. If they all scattered it was up to their own memories as well as their students to keep it all straight. 11 paths to other places with their brand new religion to sell against the prevailing religion of their location. How did they keep it all straight? 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

Yes. I think it had more to do with compromise with the Church at Rome (i.e. Headquarters) in order to centralize the whole operation, which had scattered far and wide. 

 

I'm looking into the individual apostles and where and what they did. AFTER the Ascension, which wasn't until 50 days after Jesus blasted off from this earth. I had to start with their names, one of which is brand new to me! Is there a place in the bible that gives a list of names for all 12? My actual goal is not to have to use the bible for any references. 

 

For the first time, I used the AI Chatbot Microsoft/Bing uses (in their browser) to ask questions. I got names of all twelve and will continue to investigate. 

 

Even in the best of scenarios, 11 apostles (minus the hanged man) preaching the gospel by memory would have been a challenge. The Master didn't leave written instructions. If they all scattered it was up to their own memories as well as their students to keep it all straight. 11 paths to other places with their brand new religion to sell against the prevailing religion of their location. How did they keep it all straight? 

 

Maybe they didn't keep it straight. Or maybe it was partly or totally a fabricated tale 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

56 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Maybe they didn't keep it straight. Or maybe it was partly or totally a fabricated tale 

 

I agree that it probably wasn't as organized as the bible makes it sound.  Even the bible says that Paul and Peter got into an argument.   And the organizers of the new testament picked the writings that said what they wanted it to say.  

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

10 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Maybe they didn't keep it straight. Or maybe it was partly or totally a fabricated tale 

I am beginning to suspect just that! (love the wiggly guy!) 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

9 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

I agree that it probably wasn't as organized as the bible makes it sound.  Even the bible says that Paul and Peter got into an argument.   And the organizers of the new testament picked the writings that said what they wanted it to say.  

Not bloody likely! Were Peter and Paul the original split? Paul wasn't even one of the original 12 and had persecuted the christians before that, did he not? 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, moxieflux66 said:

Not bloody likely! Were Peter and Paul the original split? Paul wasn't even one of the original 12 and had persecuted the christians before that, did he not? 

 

I don't know that they split, but to my knowlwdge it was the first argument recorded.  Does that indicate that god or the holy spirit was giving them different messages??    Also, the gnostic gospel of Mary(?) (which did not make it into the bible) indicates that Peter was jealous of the time Jesus was spending with Mary.  SO, were these divinely inspired people, or normal human beings??

 

Yes, according to the story, Paul was originally persecuting christians.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

I don't know that they split, but to my knowlwdge it was the first argument recorded.  Does that indicate that god or the holy spirit was giving them different messages??

 

Ah yes, good ole Galatians Ch 2.  God apparently needed to clarify his message because the original disciples went wrong almost from the start.  It took Jesus appearing to Paul, in order to put the religion back on sound footing.  The early church had "false believers" to sway people from becoming "true" christians.

 

God was so inept at spreading the infallible word that in less than a single generation there were already false believers teaching bad doctrine - even among the original disciples! ("Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church") coupled with ("As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy")

 

This is why christianity is sometimes referred to as Pauline Christianity.  The modern form of christianity is quite different from the christianity practiced by the early church.

 

There is an uncharitable way to read why the early church tolerated Paul, but I don't have time to pull the relevant verses, if someone else would like to string it together?  In short, Paul brought money to the apostles, on a regular basis, from Gentiles, to support the church in Jerusalem.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

4 hours ago, Krowb said:

the original disciples went wrong almost from the start.

That's sure what it looks like! 

 

4 hours ago, Krowb said:

to sway people from becoming "true" christians.

Right outta the gate, they knew what a 'true christian' was?  

 

4 hours ago, Krowb said:

This is why christianity is sometimes referred to as Pauline Christianity

OHHHHHHhhhh! Didn't know that. Thanks! 

 

4 hours ago, Krowb said:

In short, Paul brought money to the apostles, on a regular basis, from Gentiles, to support the church in Jerusalem.

So he was a campaign fundraiser??? 

 

It looks to me like Marcion in 140 was rich too! He was tolerated and then tossed out (excommunicated) and even given his money back! 

Why does god need money? 

(see George Carlin) 

 

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

Yes, according to the story, Paul was originally persecuting christians

BUT HE HAD MONEY!!!!