Christian myths – which are the most rampant? (Page 8)

chronology: Zan is correct when she says there are no copies of the gospels at all from the first century AD. It would be surprising if there were.
But there are hundreds of fragments from the gospels of the 1st and 2nd century to affirm that the gospels were written around that time.

By the way Zan, don't know if you have heard the conspiracy Theory about the Spanish Gospel. This is a Gospel of Matthew or something that is supposed to be the most accurate translation of the gospel in question. There are no added verses or any left out, but the style is said to be closer to the original gospel than any other translation. Copies of this Gospel have never left the Spanish town they were discovered in. Most gospels were translated from the Greek language. But this one was translated from Arimaic, the local language in Judea back then.

Again, there is nothing knew in the Gospel, it is just said to be a more clear translation. Who knows?

Zanjan: Aspect: “We don't have the original autographs, but we have early copies.”

The copies weren’t signed or dated. None have a footnote reference to the copy used as the template. There’s no way all of it is authentic and no way at all to verify. However, truths are testable and I think they thought that was more important.

The Muratorian fragment isn’t cannon – it’s a list of books and not a full list. It named two books that aren’t in present day cannon, also noting the Book of Revelations was titled the Apocalypse of John - a more fitting name because it's not a Revelation, it's a vision.

The document is in crude Latin, written in the 7-8th century. It was found in the library of an Italian monestary. In a previous post, I mentioned this codex. If a writer struggles with the language, it's probably not their mother tongue.

Since it’s the oldest list found, there’s no evidence it came from any copy written at an earlier time. If there had been an earlier copy, it couldn’t have been earlier than the 4th century. You’d know why if you knew history.

By the way, it’s not acceptable to counter the facts without presenting new evidence.

Zanjan: Chron, the original gospels would have been in Aramaic Hebrew. That language is dead so who would be able to verify even if they found the gospels written in that?

One could maybe improve the ancient Greek translation IF they were fluent in both those languages. Nobody is. We only have a close proximity. A religion can't be letting every rogue go and translate the Bible on their own.

I've heard folklore that some of the Apostles went to Spain, that village people remember them visiting there by boat. Maybe, but no unique writings from there survive. Did any of the Apsotles speak Spanish?

Zanjan: Regardless of how the ancient scriptures are translated, there's no promise anyone will gain understanding from them. Everybody reads the Books differently.

Albert Einstein once said, "the only source of knowledge is experience".

Well, we get swamped with information but digesting it is another matter. You have to live it to really get the most meaning from it. To "see" is to understand; to understand is to "know".

There are times when God deposits understanding in our minds when we had no previous experience with the subject. I've had that happen - blurting out things I didn't know I knew. They turned out to be correct. Did I once know them but forget? The jury is out on that.

chronology: Interesting facts Zan

Aspect212:

Zanjan, your claim that the New Testament is from the 800's is preposterous. This shows you do not know the scholarship and the archaeology. I've already given some information, but here is more.

The John Ryland's Fragment (P52) dates to about 117 to 125, but the original date of the autograph is AD 85-100.

The Chester Beatty Papyri (P45, 46, 47) contains portions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John Pauline epistles, and the book of Revelation. Earliest date of copy is AD 200-300, but the original autograph dates to AD 50-100.

Bodmer Papyri (P66, 72, 75) contains portions of the Gospel of John and the earliest copy of of 1 and 2 Peter and John. Earliest date of copy, AD 175-250. Original autograph dates to AD 50--70.

Codex Siniaiticus (a) has the complete New Testament, except for several verses. Earliest copy AD 350. Original autographs AD 50-100.

I can reference many more. Read the aforementioned books.

Zanjan: Aspect, I don't think you were paying attention to what I wrote about that. FYI, when an "autograph" is copied, it's a forgery.

This is not the place to be arguing the authenticity of relics or peddling books. Leave it to the readers to do their own research if they're interested.

This topic addresses long-held erroneous beliefs about the Christian community. If you have something to contribute on the subject, please do.

Solvento: King Herod murdered John the Baptist for not having the power on Earth to stop a person from commiting sin thru hypocrasy. Jesus Christ knew that would happen to John the baptist who told people to repent and recked his body to teach them-- he really tried to teach them and suffered this 'sports' injury. But the Apostles and Saints, whose names should always be capitalized (thats the joke) discovered the same thing that John the baptist did... people like to tell a joke. At the end of the day, morality is a personal journey and will determine the state of Earth when the Kingdom of Heaven comes.

Zanjan: I don't think anyone questions why John the Baptist was martyred. Personal opinions aside, we're addressing popular myths.

Solvento: John the baptist was murdered because they could have let him go.

Solvento: maybe that is a popular myth

iamgypsychild19: Many people believe they can get a divorce if their spouse commits adultry and then they can remarry someone else. It is written, that even though divorced one is not to remarry another as long as the original partner lives..............

Zanjan: To clarify, the text doesn't say adultery needs to be the only reason for divorce; it states that if sexual immorality is the reason, then one can divorce with impunity. Meanwhile, it was still not permissible to marry a divorced "woman". The gender implication applied to a patriarchal society.

The idea was to discourage people from using various complaints to replace their spouse when a more attractive specimen came along.

If couples separated, the clergy encouraged the couple to work on repairing the marriage so it could take years of waiting to produce enough proof they couldn't get along before divorce was granted. Some religious folk avoided divorce by living separately for the remainder of their lives. They could do this because marriage law didn't stipulate co-habitation.

I remember that, legally, adultery merely got one a faster, hassle-free divorce because people believed resentment could never be healed; then again, those were government rules.

zeffur: It isn't resentment--it's trust. When spouses trust each other to keep sacred vows & one of them commits adultery, how could the non-vow breaker truly believe/trust//have faith in the vow breaker & would it be wise to do so, or, is it a wiser choice to div & find someone else who is worthy of the faithful spouse?

As usual, you failed to understand---no surprise there...

chronology: In no way am I judging any woman who enjoys recreational sex. But like a guy once said about women engage in sex with men they are not married to 'a woman's body is her sovereign space. When she allows men to engage in sex with her outside marriage she has crossed a line that is for all women seen as the most important.

Zanjan: We're speaking of actively religious folk here. They don't have multiple trysts outside of marriage. If they're sexually unfaithful, they're having a single affair and there's less excuse for the devout, who are very picky about who they marry.

How many were virgins when they married? Back in the day, that was a requirement and, the woman's virginity had to be proven by doctors before the wedding. They supposed a woman who didn't save herself would continue her indiscretions. It would have worked the same way for men except there's no way to determine male virginity unless caught in the act.

Marriage was considered so important that all bachelors had to plan carefully for it. Often, marriages were arranged by the parents so there was no romancing going on. My girlfriend's Italian parents didn't meet each other until their wedding day and that was with a chaperone. They were a beautiful match. I'm pretty sure they couldn't have picked as well on their own.

Upstanding men chose their bride by family status rather than through romantic love. Upper class young women were introduced to fashionable and wealthy society via a debutante's ball but others selected from different, more trustworthy places.

My grandfather, a Doctor, chose his bride from a group of young women who'd been groomed for acceptable society since age 12, residing with nuns in a Convent. They were happily together until death. The Biblical Joseph chose his bride by the same method.

Trust doesn't mean you trust the person with EVERYTHING, 100%. That degree of trust is reserved for God, not a human! Few are those who even trust God.

Adultery isn't the worst thing a partner can do to their intended or spouse. The key word is *fidelity*, to be faithful in all things. The law provides for a person to redeem themselves after a betrayal - some have, some haven't. It's up to the injured one to decide whether or not to forgive and be the bigger man.

Many couples have stayed together for the sake of their children; divorce is far more devastating to children than to the couple.

chronology: There is just something that many people cannot resolve about sex zan. Leo Tolstoy is held up by many Russians as a Saint, even though the Orthodox Church could not tolerate him. But as a young man he would enjoy any opportunity for sex. He was a regular in brothels, tried out gay sex. Had sex with old women, and with what we would call under age girls.
His last years in life were filled with guilt and depression. He just could not believe he was saved from hell. A young gay student in the USA a few years back killed himself after a friend broadcast him having gay sex with his boyfriend live to thousands of people on the Internet. Dozens of men in England killed themselves after they discovered they had been video taped masturbating over the Web by scammers out to blackmail them. One well known American tele evangelist seemed to be ruined after he was exposed as a regular customer of truck stop prostitutes. He gave a famous tear soaked confession and asked for forgiveness. He was not given the pink slip and carried on praising jesus over the airwaves. He also carried on visiting his prostitutes every week.

Just something about sex zan.

Zanjan: Tolstoy was a tortured soul but not about his sexual past. Like many others, he was looking to make sense of life at a very turbulent time, socially and politically, in the affairs of his country. Like other cutting edge thinkers, movers and shakers, he attracted more accusations than accolades. Great artists are only immortalized after their death.

As for the rest, I think you're talking about the dark web. Regular websites have never permitted anyone to post graphic material; furthermore, one has to question anyone who would watch it. The closest I ever got to that while surfing was traffic accident footage recorded by Russian dash cams. You don't want to see that either.

I recall there was a period of exposure where people were outing men by posting the names of johns who visited prostitutes and escort services. They were married men and it was vicious retribution perpetrated by the offended women. Thankfully, that didn't last long.

On that note, I'd like to put in a word for all the married women who've been raped by their husband - there's no recourse for them unless he also beats her up, leaving visible surface marks. For her, divorce is justified because she has no legal protection otherwise.

What it is about sex is that it's so easy to destroy someone with that because there's no physical evidence unless a rape kit could be produced. In Islam, one had to have 4 eye-witnesses to the act to prove fornication - who in the world would......??

chronology: Tolstoy like the other Russian writers of his era were part of that tidal wave of deep thinking that came out of Russia at the time.

The Russian writers were obsessed with the meaning of life and the destiny of man. Tolstoy also had a almost alarming insight into the female mind. He seems to have a understanding of women that no other person had.
If Tolstoy ever visited the brothels in Nevada in his later life, it would have been the women's minds he was interested in, not their bodies. He would try and convert all of the women to believing in his idea of Christianity. He would convince them all to keep diaries and write down their most important thoughts each day.
It would have been a show of the century if he and Billy Graham could have been on a Las Vegas talk radio station together. Am sure Dr Graham would tell him world disarmament would just never work. The Sparks would fly in Las Vegas on that Radio Show.

Don't know if the blackmail scam was on the dark Web. Tens of thousands of men were scammed but most were too ashamed to go to the police.

Zanjan: Billy visited Sin City twice. Apparently, no lasting impact there.

chronology: If Tolstoy went out to the Moonlight Bunny Ranch to preach to the ladies there, they would have insisted he took a bath. They would have probably climbed in naked with him to soap him down.

Tolstoy went through a period in his old age where he just gave up washing and cleaning himself.

Zanjan: The myth of Apostasy.

This one is perpetrated by the Catholic church but the misinformation is spread by the media.
The dictionary defines apostasy as:
“1. an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith
2: abandonment of a previous loyalty: Defection

With the discovery of almost a thousand unmarked graves of children at Indigenous Residential schools in Canada, our country grieves and tries to heal. Some haven’t got past the anger and are burning down Catholic churches. Others have questioned their membership in the church and have walked away. Still others have switched denominations.

That doesn’t mean any of them have abandoned Christianity - same religion, somewhat different doctrines. One is either active or inactive.
Yet Catholics call withdrawal or transfer of attendance a rejection of Christ – but they use the word "apostasy". This isn’t correct. Jesus told believers what to do when they see their house burning down!

The church handled departures in the past with severe retribution. The punishment for apostasy included state enforced annulment of his or her marriage, seizure of the person's children and property with automatic assignment to guardians and heirs, and death for the apostate.

That draconian practice is no more. Civil laws protect religious conscience. Today, never going back is nothing more than a benign disappearance, no hoopla or goodbyes, nothing to sign. More attractive denominations looked to scripture for guidance.

The New Testament adresses it this way: Hebrews 6: 4-6 and 10:26-31
“the Shepherd of Hermas affirms that apostates may be forgiven while a gap of time remains before the final eschaton (event in the divine plan; end of the world). A refusal to respond to this offer will result in final condemnation.”

When this was written, there were NO denominations of Christianity.

One thing on which all denominations agree is if you were a registered Christian then decided to reject Jesus, you were a Covenant Breaker. It’s the mark of a traitor and its worse than merely being an unbeliever.

We really ought to learn the difference and get our labels right especially if we’re going to broadcast our statements. Sometimes, it's just best to move on; seems "apostasy" has already joined the list of archaic words.

chronology: Zan, people I have met who have left various churches have zero interest in returning to those churches. If you are referring to Tolstoy, he hated organized religion with a passion at the end of his life. His writing on religion at the end of his life are suppressed in most countries, but Americans would be surprised at how the Russian Mystic came to see religion as evil incarnate. I doubt if the State Department would allow him to visit the USA if he was alive today. He would be stood in Vegas demanding Americans take back their country from churches. Washington DC would ban him from visiting the United States. Tolstoy would have nothing to say about brothel's and gambling in Vegas. He would be raging at how religion has brought down America.

No wonder he spent his last days on his farm. The Russian Orthodox church bishops thought he had gone crazy.

Zanjan: A lot of people have left their church because they don't like the condition it's in - they'll tell you that up front. They'll tell you they're still Christians, that they're believers, just not in how people, in particular the clergy, are handling their religion.

Being a Christian is more than a belief or lifestyle - one internalizes the spirit of faith and that is their identity. Personally, I've spotted a Christian just by their physical appearance (not clothing) before they ever opened their mouth to say so. It's something in the eyes and written all over their face.

We'll decide for ourselves if someone is acting like a Christian or not - if we don't think so, then you can bet the bank that Jesus doesn't either.

chronology: Well zan, I think the Russian Orthodox Church just thought Tolstoy had gone crazy. Personally I think he was suffering from old age, he was just not thinking clearly. But for politicians he was a problem. Today people like Ms Jen Psaki and her counterparts in Moscow would probably try to avoid being drawn into Tolstoys arguments about religion and politics.

But if Leo ever visited Las Vegas the Taxi Drivers in Vegas would probably roll down all the windows in the cab to keep the smell of BO from making them throw up. Washington DC cabbies would probably do the same.