Lies and False Narratives of Christianity

No. There may be 'some' copying errors, but careful comparisons with the earliest manuscripts (some from the first century), have proved a consistent, reliable, accurate rendition of the originals.

'Inconsistencies!' are interpretations, or variations from eyewitnesses, not 'errors!'

Arguments of incredulity do not prove 'error!'

You can certainly disbelieve the accounts in the biblical canon, but the accuracy, historicity, and credibility of the manuscripts are impeccable.

1. Most NT manuscripts were originally greek.. the common language of the time.
2. The Septuagint was translated for Jews, from the Hebrew, for the many expatriates who were not conversant in Hebrew.
3. There is no disagreement between historical, biblical Christians on the canon. Apocryphal writings have been discredited for millennia.

These are, however, popular narratives about historical, Christian beliefs, and their biblical basis.

 

Yes. A clear, historical definition, preferably from the Founder, is NECESSARY, to describe Christianity. Opinions, feelings, and false narratives abound, which was the point of the OP... to expose the lies and false narratives.

In another long running thread, i have explored a summary.. a snapshot, of what Christianity is:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/christianity-a-summary.530362/

In order to expose the lies and false narratives, one must know the true rendition, based on historical scholarship, textual criticism, and a solid exegesis of the original message.

Being a professing Christian is not a prerequisite for exposing lies, and many professing Christians have their own flaws and misconceptions about biblical orthodoxy, so claiming 'Christianity!', as a belief is no guarantee of orthodoxy.

 

The Dark Ages represented a "government controlled Church" only wanting power....not a love for Christ.

 

I truly love your post!

 

I do not see it as a significany fix

 

Nor I. But that is the premise, not a justification for evil.

 

I absolutely did NOT say that.

And, you absolutely DID claim (and in this post double down) that Christianity was the source of secular features of our government as well as leading the right side of social change.

For example, in your last sentence you again suggest Christian leadership was on the side that is right, while the fact is that there was Christian leadership on both sides of these issues.

Women's sufferage (for example) came from women at a time when the church considered women to rightfully be second class citizens who had no place in religious or secular leadersship.

Civil rights was violently opposed throughout wide regions - some of which have been referred to as the "bible belt" given the religious nature of the majority.

 

The dark ages were really dark, and it's assumed now it was from a volcano that blew in Iceland. Whatever it was, it caused a devastating climate change in Europe and even China - and it lasted for decades if not for centuries. This might be why God enlightened Constantine to move the capital from Rome to Constantinople - but I'm only speculating here.

It was Christ's disciples and the Saints that came after them that spread the Gospel to Europe and the world. There were hundreds, if not thousands of Saints that were martyred, and the places of their martyrdom became shrines. That's where people went for cures. Shrines still exist in Orthodox and Catholic countries, and there are also some ancient ones in the Near and Middle East which are frequented by Muslims.

Anyway to get back to the subject, the reason people have no idea of the Saint's martyrdoms and sacrifices to Christianize Europe is because only the monks could write, and so the Protestants discarded them - which is a pity.

 

Lincoln used "religious language"???

That's the excusee you use for suggesting that secular leadership was irrelevant and Christian leadership was all on the side of what progressives see as right??

Are you really going to try to suggest that women's rights was driven by Christian conservatives?

Are you going to next propose that the "bible belt" was the primary source of civil rights progress?

I know there were Christians involved - that had to be the case due to demographics and the fact that Christians in America accepted no leadership that didn't claim to be Christian - a testament in iteslf to Christianity's opposition to religious plurality.

But, you are actually claiming that Christians were the ones driving the change that Progressives want!!

And, then you seem to be suggesting that is a key indication that progressives are to be reviled for being on the wrong side!!!

 

Forcing religious change through conquest andd slaughter is seriously sick.

Also, it only confirms that people accept the religion of the local majority - as opposed to making a serious and informed personal decision.

Is that what God is looking for? Is someone headed for heaven on the grounds that they claimed to be converted rather than being tortured to death in one of the many inquisitions?

 

The Pope was only one of five Patriarchates and didn't really have more power than the others - except maybe in prestige. So to say the Roman Church wanted power during the dark ages couldn't be true until after the 9th century when Rome fell under the influence of the Franks. It was about that time that the Vatican began changing from its Greek/Latin heritage which tended more to the spiritual, into a Church that became more involved in secular matters.

I think that the power the Pope attained was really an outward manifestation of the cultural differences that came about by the Germanic/Frank invasions.

Anyway this is just my opinion.

 

A leader could adopt Christianity as did Moscow, but you can't change people and their beliefs and practices. That comes from the love, prayers, miracles and preaching of the Saints - and usually after their martyrdom. I guess it's the extent of love they have in giving up their lives to save others.

Anyway this is the conclusion I came to after having read not only about Orthodox and Catholic saints, but also Protestant martyrs, and how after their death the people they had sacrificed themselves for became Christian. What it reflects is that people are interconnected, and that the love they express towards others will benefit everyone eventually. By the same token when there is no love, that coldness will grow to proportions that will be devastating - as we are seeing now.

 

what's love got to do with it (thanks tina), when everything is me, me , me... everyone forces their beliefs upon all others... all this self-righteousness will be our doom, it's why the likes of the middle east hates america, we simply can't stop perpetrating our self-righteousness upon them...

 

You are a blessed person so I wanted to share this with you. Pay attention to this video closely starting at minute 1. This is the body of a saint that “died” in 1671, fully preserved, carried by another saint (old man in video) May he bless you and USFAN in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

I don't see love in conquest. Period.

Human populations are resiliiant, so usually there is recovery after conquest. Suggesting that is an exccuse for conquest is not acceptable.

Human history has whole regions of the world having the existing popular religion changed through conquest - its an approach taken by various Christian groups (includng against other Christian groups) as well as non Christians.

Is England better off for the alternating courses of killing protestants and Catholics? To me, that's not even justifiable as a legitimate question.

 

No one can achieve perfection and holiness on their own. Our belief is that it can only be achieved through God's Grace - and even then it's a continuous growth process. It's a gift given to us by God when we repent and recognize ourselves as sinners - and that comes automatically when one accepts Jesus as having redeemed mankind.

This doesn't mean that one has to accept Jesus consciously for certainly the prophets in the Old Testament didn't. I do believe there is such a thing as a subconscious acceptance. Anyway this is what I think.

 

Let me get this straight, you say Hitler was,

But when it comes to Islam we can suddenly trusts what he say!

Which is religious bigotry..
And Hitler was a christian, there is nothing in his early life to suggest that he was not a Christian at least for part of his life.

 

Yes.. so the narrative goes. Hitler is an easy 'tell' for progressive indoctrinees..

 

Are you seriously saying Hitler was NEVER a Christian?

 

Doot doot do di doo doo

 

It depends on what you consider a Christian. Baptism gives one the potential to become a Christian according to Latin, and according to Greek it enlightens one towards Christianity. Hey, the greatest murderers were baptized, it doesn't mean they were ever Christians - although the possibility does exist. Judas Iscariot comes to mind.

Anyway I think Hitler was possessed. Just look at how his eyes glow.

 

I will let you tell me what i was saying, since you don't seem to reply to what i actually say..

 

Btw, Stalin was in theological seminary, and read 'Origin of Species', became an atheist, then went on to have an illustrious career as a despot. But his beginnings in that theological seminary were the real root of his genocide! Christianity made him a murderous tyrant!

That fits with the 'Hitler was a Christian!', narrative, no?

 

Foxes Book of Martyrs of course came later, but it was recorded and many Christians owned a copy and kept it with their Bible. John Rogers was one of the 1st mentioned.....a relative of mine through marriage.

 

Anyone can go to theological seminary.....doesn't mean a thing. Anyone who truly is born of the spirit, never loses faith. It just doesn't happen.