bacht

Clearly you've studied enough theology to have absorbed the basic Christian message as laid out by the RCC between the 2nd and 5th centuries. To say that the Roman church wasn't interested in establishing a new religious institution is silly when considering the developments under Constantine and his successors (before this there were the heresy hunters, but we don't have much reliable data about who the believers and their foes really were). Official Christianity came from Rome, and eventually split in many directions, starting with the east/west schism and later the Reformation.

The known world in the 1st C was basically from Britain to India, with bits of knowledge about China, sub-Saharan Africa and the far north. Paul and the others could conceivably have covered this territory in one generation (I don't believe they were doing this, but such is the official story)

I don't believe in anything supernatural, so I base my analysis of Christian origins on normal human motivations (which of course can include belief in miracles etc). Obviously the NT writers believed in resurrection, and this was the basis of their religion. I don't see it as a big step from this to the eschatological expectation of global annihilation and final judgment.

We'll have to agree to disagree on how to interpret the NT authors. I prefer to take the material at face value, rather than reading into them ideas from later believers. Messianic and apocalyptic speculation was common in the 1st C, so this is the natural reading of the NT texts.

I'm not an academic, just an interested ex-Christian. Others here are well-equipped to eviscerate your claims (christian churches since the days of Christ? I don't think so)

Joan of Bark

Hey hymn ...

All these problems we have with Biblical translation and interpretation could have been avoided if the all-wise God had simply transmitted His 'word' directly into our brains. It also would have saved a lot of trees ...

spamandham

What was responsible for the fall? A tree. What'd they nail Jesus to? A tree.

Trees are the work of the devil. The entire purpose of religions of the book, is to kill as many trees as possible.

funinspace

Well, it was hard to choose which of your many comments in this thread to attach my thoughts to, but this one seems to sum up the dialog well enough... You know I have always slowed down to read your comments here in BC&H when I am looking over a thread, as I have found you to be a rational and insightful Christian poster; and I have respected your opinions...now I am left scratching my head, a bit befuddled...

funinspace

Hum...this thread certainly hasn't gone very far in the week I was away. You have been asked several times, by several people, to substantiate your claim that Jesus spoke in Hebrew (or said NT book was originally written in Hebrew). So far you have apparently avoided directly responding. I have a hard time believing that you didn't understand the requests, or somehow didn't see the challenges to your (so far) empy claim...

IBelieveInHymn

This thread hasn't gone very far because atheists don't understand word meanings used in the bible.

Admittedly, if the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 means what most twenty-first century Americans use the word to mean, then Jesus’ statement is a contradiction, unjust, and goes against decent family values. What anyone who studies the verse should quickly discover, however, is that the word translated “hate” does not always mean “to despise, detest, loathe, and abhor,” which are synonymous with the general use of the word “hate” in our modern culture. Instead, the word also can include the meaning “to love less.”

In Genesis 29:30, the Bible says that “Jacob also went in to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah.” Yet, in the next verse the Bible says, “And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, He opened her womb” (29:31, KJV)

Don't you see how people can be confused by reading just ONE verse?

You have to stand back and look at the whole picture. If you stand to close, you will not have any clue to what's going on.

Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426).

This goes all the way back to the root of the verse. Jesus used the word "Sin'ah" which means "to love lesser than".

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/601

Skeptics just love to mistranslate the bible so it looks like an error or contradiction, but they are sadly mistaken.

Sea

Christians made those 20th and 21st century translations which use "hate."

You are going against the facts to slander skeptics.

bacht

Luke 14.26 is similar to quotes in Mark and Matthew:

And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you." And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Mk 3.32-35

Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life."

Mk 10.29-30

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

Mt 10.34-38

funinspace

Ok, I even scanned thru your linky, and I don't see anything there or in your post that provides any evidence that there was any Hebrew being spoken or written. At this point I guess I should ask if English your primary language?

Oky doky, but this has nothing to do with you providing even a shard of evidence to support your vacuous claim that Jesus was speaking Hebrew here, or that the original manuscripts were written in Hebrew.

PS I actually have no problem (aka not seeing a contradiction) with this verse when compared to the verses relative to honoring ones parents. I find that the (purported) words of Jesus often used hyperbole to make his points, so I would categorize this in such a way.

IBelieveInHymn

These verses clearly show that Jesus wants us to love God more than our own family. As told in Luke 14:26.

And it's clearly happening as we speak. Jesus was right all along...

Families are being torn apart due to religious conflicts.