Christian myths – which are the most rampant?

Zanjan: Ongoing ignorance about religious history does no one any favours. The churches are mainly responsible for perpetrating their own myths; in aiming to assert superiority (ie. we are the true church), they’ve missed the mark, succeeding only in breaking down trust and spreading divisiveness, prejudice, even contempt for other Christians.

How could Jesus possibly favour this behavior?

Some of these myths are about Baptism, the role of women in the church, and when the Catholic Church began. It’s time to fess up to the factual reality – it’s better than you think.

Zanjan: Let’s begin with the formative development of church organization and its women.

During the first and mid -second century, there were no ordained priests in Christianity, no scholars of any sort, and no “New Testament” Book, no Cannon. They had the oral Gospels and scattered Apostles’ letters, kept by the early church leaders, called Elders; Elders who’d studied under the Apostles were called church fathers (bishops), charged with guarding the Faith.

Jesus had given the “Great Commission” to men and women alike. Even while Jesus walked the earth, more women were attracted to Christianity than men; they were far more supportive of the Faith and credit went to them for attracting more new believers then the men could.

Although women were the best organizers, they don’t get much credit by name because it was customary at the time and place not to publicize women’s names (to protect them).

By the end of the second century, Bishops were called priests. There are no surviving liturgies to prove when ordination began but artifacts were discovered which prove women played a large role in the early church, also holding priestly positions.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy

Zanjan: Moving on to the development of Church administration.

During the reign of King Constantine, there were no denominations in the church – there were five main church centers presided over by patriarchal bishops – Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome – one for each city in the empire. By this time, there were hundreds of priests, deacons and bishops. It's a fallacy the Constantine brought them together so they wouldn't fight.

Incidentally, this form of administrative hierarchy originated with Moses as a means to resolve disputes. Jesus didn’t institute it, His followers just fell back on their Jewish heritage.

“All took counsel with one another, having Christ as the head, and there was no one person who ruled the Church. All significant decisions were made only in council, no one patriarch or bishop having absolute superiority over another, but all working together in equality. Through this hierarchy the Church had succeeded for centuries in maintaining unity.” (St. John Orthodox Church)

The Nicene Creed (325 – 381 AD) was an effort by the clergy to stem the tide of extreme, divergent notions among individual Christians and those claiming Christian beliefs. Many Pagans had become new believers and had brought their old baggage into Christianity with them. The Creed was, essentially, a Profession of Faith – there are many versions and revisions since, longer and more detailed.

Since then, some of the meanings of the words have changed. For example, originally, the word “Catholic” meant “On the whole” or “In general”……from the Greek language. This is what it meant in the Creed. That later morphed to “universal” (which was inappropriate usage); finally, it didn’t have the same connotation at all – “Catholic” has, since the Great Schism, been the name of a specific denomination of Christianity, nothing more.

In 1054, the Great Schism split churches located in the East from churches located in the West. The separation was initially triggered by a localized event two hundred years earlier.

You see, in 846, the Saracens (Arabs) raided Rome and torched the old St. Peters Basilica (built in the 4th century); they found it housed a fortune in treasures, relics and jewels. Reminds one of a certain biblical story, huh. Well, the Christians re-built it but the group in Rome decided to take over and not be answerable to the rest of the Christian world.

In 868, by appointment, the coronation of the first pope took place in the restored old St. Peters Basilica – that was Nicholas 1. Before that, the Basilica had a ceremonial throne used only for the coronation of Christian kings. Now it was the papal throne; as it gradually expanded it jurisdiction, the Roman church became infamous for corruption, which caused the inevitable split.

Immediately after the Schism, the divisions had to re-name themselves. The Catholic church was identified; in 1059, they switched to an election process to name successive popes.

That was the historical beginning of the Catholic Church, a church which didn’t care what the other churches were doing. In this case, the churches who weren’t on board with that became named denominations by default.

Any reference to earlier Roman church leaders being popes is one bestowed post-history only by the Catholic Church so is not accurate.

Zanjan: On Baptism:

Some denominations insist on Baptism as an essential ceremony to become a Christian. Others think that Baptism has to be performed every time they become members of a different church. They point to the Bible as their foundation. Yet those same verses can tell a person something very different.

Jesus never baptized anyone with water – His disciples did because the people had asked for it. The disciples weren't sure what was right to do so they asked Jesus, Who responded that if they wanted the water baptismal, they could do as they liked.

He didn’t legislate it or say it had anything to do with membership. What effect would it have on the soul if it was only symbolic? Maybe Jesus was just a bit tired because they didn't remember what John the Baptist had said:

(Luke 3.16)

“John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:”

You know, it takes a special kind of person to say “Yeah, bring on the fire!” Who wants that?

chronology: Zan you always have people disagreeing. For example in England you have the Church of England which is doctrinally sound and based on the Gospels. But you always find there are people who push their own interpretation of scripture in some ways. We see this with Calvin based churches like the Baptist and so called Reformed Presbyterian churches and Methodist etc. You also have Penticostal type churches, Mormon and Jehovah's witnesses etc. The church of Rome insists on continuing none Gospel doctrine's.

Again people are free to follow their own road. Freedom of choice is fundamental to Christianity.

Read an amusing story of how British Troops at one time used to attend Church in some parts of the Empire with a Bible in one hand and their rifles in the other. This was not Church doctrine at all. The Garrison was in danger of being attacked during service's or quite often all the rifles would be stolen by thieves if left outside.

Note just for the record am not a Anglican. But I do agree with the Church doctrine.

Zanjan: "you always have people disagreeing"

I'd be shocked out of my socks if everybody agreed/disagreed with me all of the time. I'd seriously suspect we'd been invaded by clones. My aim is not to elicit agreement or create new differences but to flush out different ways of seeing things, maybe sparking a few epiphanies in the process. The Bible says "Come, let us reason".

Interpretation of scripture must be left up to the individual - their understanding is between themselves and God and will change as they learn new life lessons and spiritually mature. In the past, God never appointed anyone except His Revelators to interpret for all. That is a historical fact.

The clergy has gone astray - they, alone, are responsible for the divisions in religion. The people didn't start new churches, the clergy did. They wanted to have their own followers and be adored so, imposing their view placed them between the people and God.

This is NOT enrichment, it's oppression, and they will be held to account for what they've done to lead the people away from God. By the way, I'm not speaking about Monks - those are a different order altogether.

You speak of freedom of choice in Christianity - with over 23,000 denominations to choose from, where does the poor soul start?

I'll tell you - its the one his parents belonged to, the one most accessible and prevalent in his environment. He thinks he's choosing but he's merely accepting the culture he was brought up in. Eventually, he'll become disillusioned, drop away and move on. Sadly, too many throw out the baby with the bathwater - they judged God instead of the people.

Religions all boast a great growth rate in the form of increasing numbers but never mention their retention rate.

Gee, Chron, I didn't think you were a member of any church. Of course, you can agree with doctrine - doesn't mean you actually believe or trust it.

Zanjan: As you can see, I mostly stick to factual history in all of my contributions to Wire. If something is my personal, opinion, I'll make that obvious but never push it. You see, once you've made a contribution, it's a gift - you let go of it the moment you give it.

chronology: Good grief Zan you do seem a little stern about the clergy.
Every day I call around to the local cathedral. It was once a the Roman Army barracks. For 2000 years people have been coming and going to the exact place I call around at most days. There is nothing stopping anyone else calling in there. I don't go in am not an Anglican.
Most of the visitors today are from China, probably Chinese Anglicans.

Like I say Zan you can't blame the clergy people have lost interest in faith. They just don't see the point.

Curiously Zan, the ghosts of Roman soldiers have been seen marching near the cathedral. The ghostly figure of a Roman legion commander has been seen once in a while. Have never seen anything like that myself.

Zanjan: "you do seem a little stern about the clergy."

I'm not discounting the Ministers and Priests who've done good for all people - their purpose was to serve God by serving humanity. They had their place. It's when they left their place, the other clergy followed, taking on that self-serving mantle by association. They all became overbearing and posessive of their congregations.

The church membership considers itself a family. As it's written, "the honour of one is the honour of all; the shame of one is the shame of all".

The believers could do little about it; even if they could afford to own a Bible, it would be useless since they were largely illiterate. Older religions had protection for longer since they had professional remembrancers to convey scriptures to the illiterate.

When that practice was abandoned, this put believers in a vulnerable position, open to predation. That was exacerbated by the clergy choosing to recite verses only in Latin, a dead language nobody but clergy understood. That didn't change until my generation came along.

Of course, Protestant denominations didn't do that; their clergy handed most of the administration off to committees among the laity. While the Minister remained the star of the show, the positive was the membership could pick their own minister.

I suppose in Europe they're still old school. I remember when random visitation was possible but that's no longer the case today - in the West, church doors are always locked except for Sundays and a few other events. I've seen them closed even on Holy Days.

Yes, people do tend to have visions of the past when visiting something ancient or where there has been a disaster. Battlefields are most common.

chronology: The cathedral doors are open every day here. There is an endless stream of visitors. The clergymen at the cathedral are very educated cultured people. The cathedral security are also friendly people who welcome visitors. It is all as welcoming as possible for their fellow Anglican visitors from all over the world. China, America, Africa etc.

Oh don't mention battle Fields Zan. I was trying to understand why the Black and Tans were so violent in Ireland. The fine folks of New York City probably must have been tired of hearing of all the stories of Irish folks of how bad they were.
But I was reading of how after many battle's of the WW1 British troops would walk around for days picking up heads and arms and legs to throw into mass graves. Tens of thousands of bodies after every battle. Some times the rats ate the bodies before they could be buried, other times there were no bodies, just heaps of maggots.
It's no wonder that the Black and Tans were a unstable bunch of people. Although the details of the horror's of the war were kept secret for decades afterwards.

Zanjan: Cathedrals are expensive to upkeep. Like castles, they were built when there was only one culture by people of the same stock.

Since Canada isn't that old, you only see lots of those in Quebec, where every hill and mountain still has a huge cross on its top. They're windows to the past. It was pretty expensive to wash off all the soot and grime from their exteriors (modern pollution) but they'll stay for more centuries yet, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, times have changed; the cities in Western society are a cultural melting pot, forcing clergy to adapt their ways of interaction.

Zanjan: You know, when I was young, I used to think I was born at the wrong time. Society looked foreign and backward to me. Eventually, I came to realize how strangely fortunate I was to be born at a unique moment in mankind’s history – I mean, during a once-only occurrence, a collision of the worlds. If ever there was a Big Bang, my generation heard it.

We knew what the world was like before plastic and TV were invented; it was NOT the good ol’ days. People pretended much but couldn’t hide their narrow-mindedness and injustices. We shouted and warned but the old guard covered their ears from the noise. We watched as the breakdown of the family unit finished cracking and turned to ashes, its particles blown to the wind.

Here I stand, as one who has witnessed two skies - those clouds of darkness, false pride, greed, contempt, deprivation, and ignorance shrinking on my left. On my right, I see how the sunbeams have lit up the fields, graced the hills, and mellowed the hearts. Needs have changed. Excuses are giving way to regrets and apologies. I'm thankful for the mass migrations, mixed marriages, and the Internet.

Some sort of yeast has lifted all those in religion and every culture out of the bog. The music of the spheres sounds like Inuit throat singing and the pulse of mankind is racing because it's finally moving. More and more, society is embracing a world vision of mutual responsibility to each other and to the earth, itself. I’ve witnessed this transformation from egg to duckling.

My grandchildren have no memory of this. They’ll never understand what it was like to be the first to plow. What an astounding time to have lived in!!

chronology: Interesting Zan. But I think I need my morning coffee before I grasp all you have wrote there.

chronology: Well after I have myself kick-started I can consider your points Zan. I must say I don't see your points about the family. Respectable folks are more or less the same as ever, the big point about working class people is that there are way fewer of them. Abortion and contraception along with free sterilisation has slashed the numbers down. This is to be expected as automation and outsourcing of industry means there is no need for large families of cheap labour like there used to be.
I don't want to sound like a grumpy old man, but it really is bliss to go about in town and not have to pass the gangs of working class kids there would have been if the abortion clinics and contraception services had not prevented them from infesting urban landscapes. Again don't want to sound cruel or anything, but it is just so peaceful without the noisy troublesome gangs running about. Folks in the States say the same.

Well Zan, I'll polish off my breakfast and head for my daily visit to the cathedral. No doubts our Chinese Anglican folks are visiting their brothers and sisters in the huge echoing building.

Zanjan: "Respectable" folks? I learned early in life that was just a facade. There were more trustworthy individuals in biker gangs than among the suits. It was a patriarchal society where men insisted on exclusivity while subjecting women and racial minorities.

Family members who didn't conform or belong to the establishment were disowned. Seniors, single moms, and the retarded no longer lived with their families because they were unwanted. Addictions were pandemic - alcoholism, gambling, cigar and cigarette smoking. There wasn't a single soul who didn't lie.

Contraception has always been around, so has chastity; only chastity worked well. The Pill came along in the early 60s, available to all but women, both married and single, still got pregnant and had abortions. Large families disappeared because that cost too much - couples wanted the finer things in life which they wouldn't have with more than two kids.

It's true that our country was built on Christian culture but folks had forgotten how to love. They were the makers of pollution, rapers of the earth and, totally against making waves.

"Working class" people? About 1% of the population doesn't need to work; of that, at least half of them do. Perhaps you meant "low income" kids. In Canada, people have only avoided the homeless because they're psychotics. I still wouldn't recommend walking alone down a dark alley.

chronology: Interesting Zan. You seem to have suffered much in your life. Folks in Russia would say you are very blessed. In suffering there is great wisdom say the old Russians.

Zanjan: Thank you, Chron. Seems to me the overall wisdom is in accurately discerning when one is suffering needlessly. Undoubtedly, genuine learning is painful; raising awareness isn’t difficult but there’s no quick and easy route to a valuable discovery.

Zanjan: The myth of Confession of Sins:

Matthew mentions those who followed John the Baptist. (Mat: 3: 6)
“And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”

This wasn’t a Christian practice. It doesn’t describe followers *recounting* all their sins, spinning off a list. They weren’t changing their religion, just humbling themselves before God.

In reality, Baptism wasn’t a declaration of new-found faith; it was symbolic of personal dedication to the True Spirit – that is, where one doesn’t put themselves first.
John told the Jews they had to do this as preparation to make themselves acceptable to God. The setting is everything:

You see, the Jews described themselves as “God’s chosen people”; believing they were all His favorites, they thought they were right in His sight. They were sick with false pride. Jesus countered that notion, informing them they were all sinners. Certainly, in His time they were; otherwise, there would be no need of a messiah to rescue them from heedlessness.

The first thing they had to learn was not to vaunt themselves over others. History repeats itself; today, we see many Christians doing the exact same thing those ancient, negligent Jews did. They’ve set themselves up above others.

Jesus never commanded believers to go to the clergy or anyone else to disclose all their sins. One confesses them to God, Who already knows. Admission is the first step to correcting one’s aim; rectifying the wrong is the key to correcting one’s path.

Zanjan: (John 20: 22-23) Jesus, after His crucifixion, appeared to the Apostles:
“And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

This points to a state of being – not a sacrament/practice/ritual

In another place, Jesus advises believers to forgive those who have wronged them. For those who don’t get the purpose of forgiveness, it means not to harbor ill will but try to understand the other. He says not to deny anyone who asks for your forgiveness, no matter how many times they ask. This means not to crush anyone’s hopes.

This doesn’t mean you owe anyone an explanation or that others owe you an apology; it doesn't mean you have to tell someone you’ve forgiven them – it’s about the spiritual state of your own heart and mind. The Holy Ghost is the Divine Spirit, the perfect way of being.

Forgiveness doesn’t mean the suspension of justice – that is, the absolution of all wrongs. We can’t wipe anyone’s slate clean; the proof of that is a repeat offense. The Holy Spirit puts justice above all things. We are all held accountable and must bear the consequences of every action.

In the early church, the time for reconciliation with God was during “Lent”, a period of private atonement and refreshment of the spirit. Whereas, the practice of confession to priests can be traced back to the 5th Century in the Roman church, other churches followed in the 11th century but in a different form. Clergy invented it, not Jesus. Their reasons for doing so don’t matter to moderns; the fact that it still exists does.

We have clothes for a reason; thus, God has enjoined believers to love, to have a sin-covering eye. We have no business in someone else’s closet or the right to make them spill. The perfect eye doesn’t look at faults but to the beauty that overshadows them.

edmund_carey: It isn't saying much to refer to the beliefs of a religion you do not adhere to as myths. To a believer in any religion all other religions are made up of myths. That's just a given. To a secular humanist with no religion, all religions are made up of myths.

Baha'ism has a marvellous story about how the Bab could not be executed until he chose to be. But all the world considers that to be a "myth". As indeed is the idea that God completed His revelation of Himself to mankind in nineteenth century Persia.

Zanjan: "To a believer in any religion all other religions are made up of myths"

I find that the bulk of what believers know is made up of hearsay, enhanced with folk tales. Secular humanists think all religion is made up of lies. The majority are quick to accept street talk but highly resistant to God's Word.

The myths I've cited are that which their own leaders have, self-admittedly, espoused in regard to their own religion. That's precisely why I grounded them in official, historical fact.

For example, it's a myth that if you don't confess to a priest, the stains of your sins remain and God will send you to hell. I say test that out - see what happens. You'll find that God hears your prayers, the clergy don't.

Zanjan: No such thing as "Bahaism" - an "ism" refers to political ideology. Baha'is are never involved in political affairs, neither do they see themselves as belonging to any nation. They view mankind as one human family and earth as one home. Their only culture is the culture of education.

I understand what you're getting at with the Bab - you're referring to The Bab's own Words, heard and recorded by hundreds of witnesses, as He faced the firing squad. When the order was given, not a single bullet hit Him. It's why the first firing squad fled in terror (they were Christians). That's a historical fact. The first firing squad had God's protection so they weren't asked to return to try again.

The second squad was made up of 750 Muslims, perfectly fine with killing a Siyyid which was against Muslim Law, and a man whom they all knew well. Within three years after the execution, every one of them was dead. In the first year, 500 plus were killed in an earthquake when a wall fell on them. The rest were eventually executed by the Muslim Guard for mutiny. None of that is a myth.

When you recall the powerful men who were plotting the death of Jesus for so long, you wonder how on earth they didn't get to Him sooner. He was never in hiding, never left the country. Like the Bab, He walked among the people in every town and in the cities; even among the soldiers, in the open, He talked to them, even sat beside the wicked ones.

The history is ancient but there are no grounds to call it a myth.

No Revelation is final - it's ongoing and progressive, suited to the capacity of the people at the time. It's the favour that's complete. Do you think no one needed it?

edmund_carey: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, are all religions, not political ideologies. It is simply a matter of usage. Christianity and Islam did not get called "isms" in English. Several religions did. Including Baha'ism.

edmund_carey: It is hardly "grounding" your citations in "historical fact" to simply assert that it is a myth that failing to confess your sins to a priest will lose you salvation. It is simply asserting. And the only way to "test that out" would be to die. Some people believe it, some don't. That's all.

That confession and the forgiveness won by Christ on the cross are necessary for salvation is obviously a religious belief. It is not amenable to factual analysis. Neither is the assertion that God gave Moses the Decalogue on Mount Sinai. That is a belief and cannot be tested. Such are the beliefs of all religions. That Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from an angel is highly unlikely. But it cannot be proved or disproved, which is why so many people still believe it today.

That the "the bulk of what believers know is made up of hearsay, enhanced with folk tales" is quite possible. But there is no religion on earth to which that would not apply, if it is so. Bahai'ism, once again, included.

chronology: Zan is perfectly correct when she states that it is a myth that priests can forgive your sins. It is only by asking Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins that they can be forgiven.

Zan is a scholar who has laid out her views in the past that the self serving cult of priestism grew up over the ages.

edmund_carey: You are conveying your beliefs here, chronology, not your knowledge. And so is Zanjan, as both of you have a perfect right to do. When beliefs start turning into bigotry, though, as they are doing in this instance, thinking people get dismayed.