Social Evangelicals: "Jesus was a Libtard!"

[terrapin]

The books of the New Testament were not considered sacred texts when they were written. Jesus himself never wrote anything down. They were religious texts written by various men decades after his death. They didn't become canonized until over 300 years after his death. Think about how much bias and misinformation would be introduced with various second, third, fifth hand accounts over that long of a period of time. Consider that we can't even trust the news today.

And yet there are people who treat it as the literal word of God when Jesus didn't even know a Bible would be made 300 years after his death. He didn't have much foresight into how important writing shit down would become in the future. Could have saved everyone all these arguments.

This is terrible reasoning. First of all, the texts were considered sacred the moment they were written and they were used widely as soon as possible by all Christian communities before there was ever a new testament. Secondly, the reason Jesus didn't write anything down is because he knew dang well everyone around him would.

Do you really think a Jew who held the Old testament to be sacred didn't realize the importance of writing texts down?? That's just terrible reasoning...

And on the comparing of the many different texts available, it seems to refute your point. If grandmother had a favorite cake recipe and her 28 grandchildren and children wrote it down independently and you compared all of those and there were only minor discrepancies between them, you would come to the conclusion that most of them well, all of them were basically accurate with only minor differences . This is in fact the case with the scriptures we have now. The many different veried texts, l only serve to support and strengthen one another rather than do harm.


It is true that it took a long time for the official texts to be written down. But it is also true that they were engaged all of the disciples in intense mentorship... training people in the way that Jesus taught. They were also growing.in maturity in the teachings and in the power Jesus manifested to them. That would keep the basic meaning very fresh indeed. In either case, there is no evidence for your assumption that most of it would be lost or ruined. And thus far, any old texts that have been found have only revealed the accuracy of what we have rather than your position.


For the most part, majority scholarship thinks the New testament is about what the christians thought. They may think the Christians were full of s*** but they really don't think the Christians were lying about what they thought or got it all wrong.


The gospel of John was written latest and I would argue that it's the most accurate because of that. Why would I say that? Because by all accounts at the time of writing it, the author was in a very very intensely advanced state of spirituality and probably understood Jesus better than he did when Jesus was present.

The gospel of John is intended to be the least historically accurate as far as dates and times and the order that the events unfolded. But theologically it sums up the gospel quite powerfully from a very richly contemplative state.

 

[OneOfOne]

well i can understand THAT you disagree but i cannot understand why you disagree. no one in the entirety of the christian tradition from jesus to today thinks what you think about the bible..... none of the saints or scholars and not the early church either. if you think you... just you.. on your own steam with no help from anyone educated on the topic is right and all of Christianity is wrong then more power to you man!

but i do find it hard to believe that you really have not been influenced by other thinkers having heard your exact positions touted online before... maybe even on sherdog. its coming from somewhere and i am extremely interested in where. but id like to read the theological underpinnings because it saves time debating each wrongly interpreted scripture line by line.

theologians go through a lot of work taking ALL of the scriptures into context.. many of which seem to contradict one another and they have principles for why they measure things out the way they do and arguments for them and refutations of criticisms against those positions. thats where i would like to start but if its just coming from you then NONE of that work has been done and i can see why.... its a monumental task that takes centuries to fully form and certainly not the work of a single individual.

you just happen to hold an extreme fringe position based on personal interpretation of the scriptures.

It seems to me that the best approach here would be for you to tell me what positions of mine are fringe and wildly inaccurate and then ask me to explain them. If something in my answer doesn't add up to you then you can point out where you think I'm going wrong and why then ask me to reconcile my position. Or you could just ask me direct questions. This process would give you a full understanding of the theological underpinnings of my view.

Of course Ive listened and learned from people. Ive considered various perspectives from catholics, evangelicals, trinitarians, non trinitarians, hebrew roots guys, hebrew israelites, protestants, free gracers, jews, ect. I wouldn't fully identify with any of these groups or movements. However I have learned something from all of them. Ive also learned a bit about non-biblical doctrines the Bible would refer to as paganism. By learning and gaining an understanding of what the enemies of God believe and do it helps me better understand the things of God by contrast.

Some might refer to my position as 'hyper-literalist' although I would personally reject that label. I understand that not everything in the Bible is literal. I do however take at the Bible at face value. That means I don't reject or reinterpret things the Bible says simply because it might be hard to believe, hard to understand, contrary to societal norms, contrary to tradition, or not readily apparent. When people do this it leads to endless eisegesis. By taking this approach I have found most if not all those contradictions you referenced actually go away. It paints a clear consistent story, message, and direction for your life.

You keep referring to the authority of church fathers and biblical scholars asking if "all of Christianity" could be wrong. Well I would point out that all of Christianity is heavily divided and always had been. So clearly "all of Christianity" can't be right. Also, the Bible teaches that only a remnant will be saved in the end. How can a religion as big as Christianity have the truth and know the way if only a remnant will be saved in the end? It sounds to me that I shouldn't expect to find the truth within a group made up of billions of people. Afterall didn't Jesus say:

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Andy Capp]

The books of the New Testament were not considered sacred texts when they were written. Jesus himself never wrote anything down. They were religious texts written by various men decades after his death. They didn't become canonized until over 300 years after his death. Think about how much bias and misinformation would be introduced with various second, third, fifth hand accounts over that long of a period of time. Consider that we can't even trust the news today.

And yet there are people who treat it as the literal word of God when Jesus didn't even know a Bible would be made 300 years after his death. He didn't have much foresight into how important writing shit down would become in the future. Could have saved everyone all these arguments.

I'm not sure if you intend to direct this at anyone in particular, but speaking for myself, we're talking about Christians here, so yeah it's all about the New Testament. Whatever issues there may or may not be with the Christian canon, it's their textbook. So, when discussing whether people who profess to be Christian are espousing anti-Biblical views, the New Testament is the be all and end all source to determine the answer. One does not need to agree with what it says to evaluate whether or not Christians are faithful to it.

I suggest you review the OP to bring the thread back to the topic, which is that some people in the US who profess to be Christian are discounting the words of Jesus himself--according to the Bible--as "too woke". I conclude therefore they aren't actually Christian or such a thought would never cross their minds.

 

[spamking]

What a wild thread . . .

 

[ReligiousDiscipline]

Jesus wasn't just a liberal.. the dude was straight up socialist.

Conservative Christians deluding themselves into thinking he'd be on their side is peak cognitive dissonance

Jesus wasn't a liberal. He preached against promiscuity, divorce, same sex marriage, victimhood, feminism, abortion, drug-use, criminality and all forms of debauchery which the liberals promote and encourage. Liberals aren't big fans of restraint, responsibility, sacrifice and duty.

 

[Andy Capp]

Jesus wasn't a liberal. He preached against promiscuity, divorce, same sex marriage, victimhood, feminism, abortion, drug-use, criminality and all forms of debauchery which the liberals promote and encourage. Liberals aren't big fans of restraint, responsibility, sacrifice and duty.

lol

 

[skold]

Jesus wasn't a liberal. He preached against promiscuity, divorce, same sex marriage, victimhood, feminism, abortion, drug-use, criminality and all forms of debauchery which the liberals promote and encourage. Liberals aren't big fans of restraint, responsibility, sacrifice and duty.

That's some cool fanfiction

 

[moreorless87]

Jesus was a Lizard....

 

[ReligiousDiscipline]

That's some cool fanfiction

lol

Where am I wrong?

 

[Thai Domi]

The books of the New Testament were not considered sacred texts when they were written.

2 Peter 3:15-16 he refers to Paul's letters as "scriptures."

 

[koquerelle]

What a wild thread . . .

In the last month, I've seen:
-one thread turn into a debate on flat earth
-one thread turn into a debate on anti-gravity technology

The internet is a strange place.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jesus wasn't a liberal. He preached against promiscuity, divorce, same sex marriage, victimhood, feminism, abortion, drug-use, criminality and all forms of debauchery which the liberals promote and encourage. Liberals aren't big fans of restraint, responsibility, sacrifice and duty.

Jesus preached against feminism, abortion, and drug use? Also, liberals are much less likely to engage in various forms of debauchery, less likely to get divorced, etc. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[Darkballs]

This is terrible reasoning. First of all, the texts were considered sacred the moment they were written and they were used widely as soon as possible by all Christian communities before there was ever a new testament. Secondly, the reason Jesus didn't write anything down is because he knew dang well everyone around him would.

Well considering that these sacred gospels couldn't even agree on the correct day the crucifixion occurred, maybe they should have held off a bit?

Regardless, we both know you're just making this up. You don't have any part of the historical record that records society simply codifying, let alone coming to agreement that say, the book of Mark was 100% sacred back in 50AD.

I mean, if they did, you'd think at least one person would have pointed out that while they were living in and around Jerusalem, they never saw all the dead rise up from the grave and start wondering around, as their sacred documents claim. Neither did anyone else at the time either.

Bottom line, christian communities were not acting in unison nor were they adopting the same texts as sacred for the first couple hundred years of the religions birth. That was the whole point of Council of Nicaea. To get everyone on the same page. Christ, you guys couldn't even agree whether or not you were worshiping 1 god or three. And when you made up the idea of the trinity, damn near half your followers packed your bags and moved away.

 

[Don Quixote]

nor were they adopting the same texts as sacred for the first couple hundred years of the religions birth. That was the whole point of Council of Nicaea.

No that wasn’t the whole point of Nicaea. That is a common falsehood.

 

[koquerelle]

Jesus preached against feminism, abortion, and drug use? Also, liberals are much less likely to engage in various forms of debauchery, less likely to get divorced, etc. Where are you getting this stuff?

He also preached against Democrats, the Dixie Chicks and commies who share. You just have to squint hard when you read the Bible.

 

[kflo]

When text and history is so open to interpretation it’s no surprise people will just interpret it to mean what they want it to mean. So, yeah. Jesus was anti abortion, anti lesbian, anti trans, against people who didn’t help themselves, feminism, anti sex before marriage, pro sex before marriage. for and against the Old Testament. Flat earth. Adult at 13. Adult at 18. Etc.

 

[Darkballs]

No that wasn’t the whole point of Nicaea. That is a common falsehood.

The entire point? No. But it's very true that a large portion of Nicaea was to select and codify the dozens upon dozens of supposed gospels and their various translations/interpretations, which culminated in what would eventually become the New Testament. And it's also true, that issues such as the trinity, and not the notion that we worship three separate gods, was established. And it's also true that this led to a large schism that exists to this very day.

So yes, it completely rebuts the point that the gospels were considered sacred in the immediately aftermath of christ's death. It took us almost three hundred years to get to any sort of true codified agreement.

 

[Sinister]

What a wild thread . . .

You're welcome.

 

[spamking]

In the last month, I've seen:
-one thread turn into a debate on flat earth
-one thread turn into a debate on anti-gravity technology

The internet is a strange place.

I'm in a thread on another forum discussing a school administrator explaining that it's critical for kids to be in school to learn and that if they're sick to follow their doctor's guidance. Soooo many people decided to lose their minds and not only whine about schools daring to mention needing kids to be in the classroom and then complain about not being able to drop kids off whenever they want in the mornings. Acting like schools don't tell parents when the drop-off and pick-up times are well in advance. And they also provide options for them if they need before or after school care. But these folks went on to complain about how if public schools don't accommodate the parents better they need to be replaced. Inferring that a private school is the answer and that the private school wouldn't also have specific drop-off and pick-up times.

 

[Don Quixote]

The entire point? No. But it's very true that a large portion of Nicaea was to select and codify the dozens upon dozens of supposed gospels and their various translations/interpretations, which culminated in what would eventually become the New Testament. And it's also true, that issues such as the trinity, and not the notion that we worship three separate gods, was established. And it's also true that this led to a large schism that exists to this very day.

So yes, it completely rebuts the point that the gospels were considered sacred in the immediately aftermath of christ's death. It took us almost three hundred years to get to any sort of true codified agreement.

This video does an excellent job of explaining this issue: