Christmas & Why Bullshit has Become Christian Dogma.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 14
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Christmas& Why Bullshit has Become Christian Dogma.
 
Over century’s speculation, guesswork and downright lies about biblical content have now become church dogma. Certain doctrines have been integrated into western society as if they are positive facts.
Children,and dare I say it, some adults are rarely told or know that Matthew says Mary was a virgin but Mark does not; or that Luke mentions the manger in which Jesus is placed whereas none of the other gospels do not; or that not one gospel makes even the vaguest reference to the stable which has become such an integral part of popular tradition.

 Mark, as mentioned, makes not a single reference to a “virgin birth”. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke mention it in varying degrees and John thinks it is so insignificant and unimportant that he ignores it altogether.
 
 
 
Selective Teaching of this kind is and had been the problem. This applies not only to the nativity in Bethlehem but also to any number of incidents in Jesus’ recorded life.
Christian Children have been taught a story that has been smoothed over, a tale that extracts the most entertaining features from each gospel and merges them into a single embellished tale that was never written by anyone..
 
Children and students alike are told to turn to such and such a chapter and read such and such a verse, they are directed to what “the bible says” and, by doing this whole pseudo gospel has been concocted. Indeed,  while this sleight of hand is being performed right in front the eyes of the student he/she will never realise that this is a purposeful misdirection from the more awkward verses that are far more uncomfortable and complicated to explain than those of the fairy tail they have been led to believe since childhood.

This “miracle” is mentioned in only two of the four gospels and nowhere else in the New Testament And the student not knowing this because of the way he /she has been instructed to “read” the bible would never know, and therefore never have the chance to question why such a marvellous and "miraculous" event was not mentioned by these other men of god, Mark & John, it is after all, at the very heart of Christian tradition.

Merry Christmas.

Stephen
 
 
 

#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
I agree to the word being wrong but I see the joy it brings to many people who for many months of the year have no real family time. I respect the occasion for the family time. Even to Pagans, family is sacred unless they abused you.
#3
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Over century’s speculation, guesswork and downright lies about biblical content have now become church dogma. Certain doctrines have been integrated into western society as if they are positive facts.
Children,and dare I say it, some adults are rarely told or know that Matthew says Mary was a virgin but Mark does not; or that Luke mentions the manger in which Jesus is placed whereas none of the other gospels do not; or that not one gospel makes even the vaguest reference to the stable which has become such an integral part of popular tradition.

 Mark, as mentioned, makes not a single reference to a “virgin birth”. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke mention it in varying degrees and John thinks it is so insignificant and unimportant that he ignores it altogether.
 Four different gospels written for four different purposes and to four different audiences. Hmmm, I wonder why each focuses on something different to the other? I wonder why that might be? Oh dear, obviously that makes no sense - so lets just reject it because we cant figure it out ourselves. 
 
 
Selective Teaching of this kind is and had been the problem. This applies not only to the nativity in Bethlehem but also to any number of incidents in Jesus’ recorded life.
Wow! - this amazing and highly insightful statement from the king of "selective teaching". 


Christian Children have been taught a story that has been smoothed over, a tale that extracts the most entertaining features from each gospel and merges them into a single embellished tale that was never written by anyone..
While I agree that much that is presented in the Christmas story has been embellished, this does not distract from the underlying meaning that goes to the core of it and which most people see when they take the time to read and understand it. Looking at side issues such as the stable and three wise men etc. cetera may well be the high point for some - as I am sure it is yours. For others it has been the core idea which has transformed their lives from what it was to what it is now.  


Children and students alike are told to turn to such and such a chapter and read such and such a verse, they are directed to what “the bible says” and, by doing this whole pseudo gospel has been concocted. Indeed,  while this sleight of hand is being performed right in front the eyes of the student he/she will never realise that this is a purposeful misdirection from the more awkward verses that are far more uncomfortable and complicated to explain than those of the fairy tail they have been led to believe since childhood.
Perhaps that is your experience - but it is not the experience of all - or perhaps even the majority.  People generally trying to teach a subject are following a set plan and order. You yourself do it even on this site and do so frequently. The fact that others notice this and attract your ire is evidence of it. 


This “miracle” is mentioned in only two of the four gospels and nowhere else in the New Testament And the student not knowing this because of the way he /she has been instructed to “read” the bible would never know, and therefore never have the chance to question why such a marvellous and "miraculous" event was not mentioned by these other men of god, Mark & John, it is after all, at the very heart of Christian tradition.
Why should it be mentioned in every gospel? I think if it was mentioned once, in one gospel it would be sufficient. As I indicated above each of the four gospel writers had different purposes and audiences for writing their gospels. For some, Jesus' birth and genealogy was important and for others it would not be. Authors tend to write to their audiences with a specific purpose - and writing everything just for the sake of it is time wasting and redundant. 
#4
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I think being jesus being born to a virgin would rate at least a mention.

if the nativity stories were the same they might have more credibility, they aren't compatible.   Matt and Luke agree closely where they are expanding on Mark's orginal effort (probably) but they over the nativity where Mark is silent.  One or both just made it up, and, of course it's both!

I would point out that there are hundreds of websites offering reconciliations of Matt and Luke and I've read a lot of them!
 
#5
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,239
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
I agree to the word being wrong but I see the joy it brings to many people who for many months of the year have no real family time. I respect the occasion for the family time. Even to Pagans, family is sacred unless they abused you.
+1

#6
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
And yet all four Gospels declare that Jesus is the Son of God. That He died to save us from our sin, and that He arose again on the third day.
Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
And yet all four Gospels declare that Jesus is the Son of God.
Indeed, these gospel writers say many things that are not true and are forever putting words into the mouth of Jesus. 

That He died to save us from our sin,

I don't think Jesus said he had come to actually die for anyone's "sins".. I would like to see those verses verbatim. 



and that He arose again on the third day.

He may have done so. I rose from my sick bed after being on my back for almost a week of influenza. I thought I  had " died" too. 
#8
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
I think being jesus being born to a virgin would rate at least a mention.

if the nativity stories were the same they might have more credibility, they aren't compatible.   Matt and Luke agree closely where they are expanding on Mark's orginal effort (probably) but they over the nativity where Mark is silent.  One or both just made it up, and, of course it's both!

I would point out that there are hundreds of websites offering reconciliations of Matt and Luke and I've read a lot of them!

But it has rated a mention. Otherwise why are we discussing it. Mark starts with the prophecies of John the Baptist not with the birth of Jesus. 

I don't see why it needs to be repeated in each gospel if the point of the author had a different purpose to the others. The writers were trying to confirm the other authors or their stories - they were writing to their particular audiences in their circumstances. There are lots of incidents in each of the gospels where only one particular point is mentioned - this does not reduce its credibility. An argument from silence does not reduce or make something true or not true.  The whole argument for atheism rests on an argument from silence. Does this mean it has no credibility? 
#9
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The virgin birth has been passed down by church tradition since the earliest days, as well as the perpetual virginity of Mary after Jesus.

Besides that, there is, like everything pertaining to the life of Jesus, a more significant allegorical meaning to Mary. 

This is one of those mysteries protestants really don't understand. They can't, and it makes sense.... if you get it.... lol.

#10
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't see why it needs to be repeated in each gospel if the point of the author had a different purpose to the others. The writers were trying to confirm the other authors or their stories - they were writing to their particular audiences in their circumstances. There are lots of incidents in each of the gospels where only one particular point is mentioned - this does not reduce its credibility. An argument from silence does not reduce or make something true or not true.  The whole argument for atheism rests on an argument from silence. Does this mean it has no credibility? 
The authors are anonymous, how then can you know their motivation was to confirm the other gospels? BTW there were hundreds of gospels. Now were they confirming each other or writing to a specific audience and how can you even imagine their motivation, but that is all you can do. Atheism is the rejection of an unsupportable claim made by men, there are no awateriswetists because "water is wet" is profoundly supported.

#11
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
it's not an argument for atheism.   It is an argument that the element of virgin birth was added to the stories about jesus by matthew and Luke seperately at a relatively late date.

Topic's author
#12
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
they were writing to their particular audiences in their circumstances.
 
They were. The intent was to unite the Hellenists and Jews. But they had a big problem as the hierarchy of the Jewish temple and the Jewish population in general actually supported James’ claim to the throne and not Jesus’ after the crucifixion, enter the resurrection scene where the Hellenists in pure Hellenistic tradition invented a dying and rising god, something that seemed to appease the Hellenistic Jews and the Romans at the same time... Something else the gospels are stone cold silent about.
 
People generally trying to teach a subject are following a set plan and order.
Indeed which is what I have said in the op i.e. misdirection from passages and verses such as this:

Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)
 I am sure that the preacher would rather shy away from the violence and torturous nature of " the father" which clearly exists and preach the lie about a different kind of god that loves them. It would surely conflict with what Moses says about  "the  father" :

The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.Exodus 15:3
 


You yourself do it even on this site and do so frequently. The fact that others notice this and attract your ire is evidence of it
Don’t be silly. No one has attracted my “ire” as much as would like to believe that it has. I have said many times that I do not care what you think of me, it counts for nothing.. I have told you on more than one occasion, the scriptures are not for me to defend but for you to defend if you choose to. it is this that gets up your nose. 
The hypocrisy of some here I find astounding and ridiculously funny at the same time. What you think of me is totally irrelevant.
 

Topic's author
#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Selective Teaching of this kind is and had been the problem. This applies not only to the nativity in Bethlehem but also to any number of incidents in Jesus’ recorded life.
Wow! - this amazing and highly insightful statement from the king of "selective teaching". 

I am not teaching anything though, am I?

 I am simply highlighting the great hypocrisy and contradictions concerning these anomalous, problematic and ambiguous half stories contained in the scriptures. It is for you to do the teaching by answer the questions,if any, that may arise  after. Or to debunk with supporting evidence and not just another contradictory verse from the same unreliable source.

So far you have failed to even reasonably answer questions; such as this ambiguous statement from disciples seemingly wanting to commit suicide;

“Let us also go,that we may die with him.” 11:16

I have given my interpretation of what this means, but you gave it a wide berth.

Did they "die" with him? No one knows what happened to these people and after such a profound statement. You see, another loose end to a half story that theist try to explain away with, of all things, another "miracle".



Topic's author
#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
While I agree that much that is presented in the Christmas story has been embellished,
NEVER!!! You don’t say? It wasn't even in December was it?

this does not distract from the underlying meaning that goes to the core of it...
 
You hope it doesn’t because these lies-  sorry -embellishments only serve to have the opposite effect, they attract attention of a sceptical keen eye.
 
 
The core you mentioned is  that It is straightforward story about the birth of ”the king of the Jews” who was seen from the off as a threat to the reigning king. That is the core.
It has nothing to do about a child born to bring peace on earth because this birth ended with a barbaric crucifixion, the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, the destruction of city of the Jerusalem and an end to Judaism as it was known, in 70AD.
 
 
 
this does not distract from the underlying meaning that goes to the core of it... and which most people see when they take thetime to read and understand it.
Which is what exactly.The floor is yours. Let's hear your explanation about what the real "core of the story is then.
 
 
 
 
 Looking at side issues such as the stable and three wise men etc. cetera may well be the high point for some
The embellishments you mean, like “virgin” births and “immaculate conceptions”?