{"id":18014,"date":"2022-09-29T10:59:07","date_gmt":"2022-09-29T14:59:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=18014"},"modified":"2022-10-30T16:03:16","modified_gmt":"2022-10-30T20:03:16","slug":"4001-4050","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=18014","title":{"rendered":"4001-4050"},"content":{"rendered":"

(4001) Jesus dying was only the prelude<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jesus dying on the cross, supposedly to save humanity, was not a turn-key operation. It was only the beginning. There were other conditions and requirements that would eventually become \u2018needed\u2019 to complete the transaction. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/xp20kp\/god_didnt_get_much_bang_for_his_buck_when_he\/<\/a><\/p>\n

According to Christianity (I know there are exceptions, I\u2019m talking about the main teachings) God killed his Son so that salvation is available:<\/p>\n

IF:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. you believe in the right version of Christianity<\/li>\n
    2. your belief is sincere enough<\/li>\n
    3. according to some, you were predestined for salvation before you were born<\/li>\n
    4. according to some you perform enough good works<\/li>\n
    5. according to some you follow a Byzantine system of behavioral codes relating to all aspects of life<\/li>\n
    6. according to some your theology is correct<\/li>\n
    7. according to some, you undergo a ritual water sprinkling or dunking<\/li>\n
    8. according to some, you formally confess your sins to a man in a box<\/li>\n
    9. you don\u2019t start to doubt and then unluckily die during that time of doubt\/disbelief.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      So he sacrificed his son so that humanity would have many many hoops to jump through in order to be saved??!!!! And he never clarified, in a clear way, which of these hoops are important and which are BS???? At the very least it seems a bit anticlimactic- a god was sacrificed for humanity by another god for this result? Snooze. Christian Universalism goes way back to some of the very very early Christians- since it wasn\u2019t good for business it was deemed a heresy. Too bad.<\/p>\n

      Christian universalism refers to an early belief that Jesus\u2019 crucifixion had saved literally everybody, but clerics could not exercise control over people or enrich themselves in that scenario, so the rules listed above were trotted out and out enshrined in church <\/a>dogma.<\/p>\n

      (4002) Acts-Galatians conflict<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Although many Christians view the Bible as being without error, there are many examples denying that claim. One of the more salient ones is how Paul\u2019s associations with Jesus\u2019 disciples are described. As can be seen below, there is an irreducible conflict between how this subject is described in Acts and Galatians:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2022\/09\/a-pop-quiz-for-christians-number-5.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

      What conclusion may we draw from reading Acts 9:26-28 and Galatians 1:15-20 back-to-back?<\/p>\n

      Acts:<\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/a>\u201cWhen he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.\u00a0But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus.\u00a0So he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.\u201d<\/p>\n

      Galatians:<\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/a>\u201cBut when the one who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased\u00a0to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human,\u00a0nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days,\u00a0but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord\u2019s brother.\u00a0In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!\u201d<\/p>\n

      Yes, do please compare Acts 9:26-28 and Galatians 1:15-20. These Galatians verses are Paul\u2019s own words about the aftermath of his conversion. The text in Acts was written decades later by an author who created narrative to portray the event\u2014or more correctly, to\u00a0dramatize the event.\u00a0He was an early expert in special effects, e.g., blinding lights and voices from the sky, with Paul being struck blind. None of which is reported by Paul in Galatians, or anywhere else in his letters. Critical historians have long been skeptical about the Book of Acts. The author never mentions his sources, and there are too many elements of fantasy literature, i.e., roles given to holy spirits and angels. Moreover, the author depicts Paul being welcomed by the original disciples, while Paul is emphatic that this didn\u2019t happen. When Acts 9 and Galatians 1 are read back-to-back, it\u2019s clear someone is lying.<\/p>\n

      The author of Acts obviously didn\u2019t want to describe Paul as meeting only one disciple (after 3 years no less) and one relative (Jesus\u2019 brother), but rather wanted to depict Paul as immediately integrating into the fullness of Jesus\u2019 inner circle of disciples. This would give him additional credentials as being a spokesperson for <\/a>Jesus.<\/p>\n

      (4003) Life expectancy vs. church attendance<\/strong><\/p>\n

      In 2020, the Pew Research Center developed a graph plotting church attendance versus life expectancy for each state in the United States. The result was counter-intuitive under that assumption that Christianity is true and that people who attend church are more likely to attain health and safety through the exercise of prayer:<\/p>\n

      \"r\/dataisbeautiful<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      This is a result that doesn\u2019t prove that Christianity is false, but it adds weight to the evidence suggesting that a supernatural being is not interacting with the followers of this <\/a>faith.<\/p>\n

      (4004) God is either not omniscient or sadistic<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The horrid and embarrassing Old Testament story of Abraham\u2019s near sacrifice of his son Isaac leaves us with one of two options- God is either not omniscient or he is a sadist. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/xqfdh4\/the_abrahamic_god_is_not_all_knowing_according_to\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      If the Abrahamic god is all knowing, didn\u2019t he know that Abraham did truly have blind faith and loved him more than his own son? Why did he ask Abraham to behead his son then? This would obviously be very traumatizing and put a lot of anxiety on any human including prophets so why even test him that way? There are many other ways to test one\u2019s faith in a less sadistic way.<\/p>\n

      Also, since god knows and can predict the future didn\u2019t he know that once he asks Abraham, that he would do it? Again, this proves the Abrahamic god loves to play mind games and is sadistic.<\/p>\n

      It is probably certain that if Christians had the option they would remove this story from their Bibles. It no longer plays well in polite company and it presents a theme that is no longer consistent with modern ethics or even standard Christian dogma that God is both benevolent and omniscient. It is also a story that traumatizes children who fear that their fathers might \u2018hear\u2019 God\u2019s command to do the same to <\/a>them.<\/p>\n

      (4005) Paul\u2019s vs. Luke\u2019s idea of salvation<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has detected a fundamental difference in the way that Paul conceived of salvation versus how Luke (who wrote both Luke and Acts) saw it. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AcademicBiblical\/comments\/xpxbcq\/does_lukeacts_lack_a_doctrine_of_atonement\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      In Ehrman’s less technical discussion (than in the blogpost), in “Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene,” he contrasts the Luke\/Acts view of salvation with Paul’s own view as expressed in his letters:<\/p>\n

      “According to Paul, Christ’s death provides an atonement for sins; according to Luke, Christ’s death leads to forgiveness of sins. These are not the same thing.<\/p>\n

      “The idea of atonement is that something needs to be done in order to deal with sins. A sacrifice has to be made in order to compensate for the fact that someone has transgressed divine law. The sacrifice satisfies the just demands of God, whose law has been broken and who requires a penalty. In Paul’s view, Jesus’ death brought about an atonement: it was a sacrifice made for the sake of others so that they would not have to pay for their sins themselves. This atonement purchased a right standing before God.<\/p>\n

      “The idea of forgiveness is that someone lets you off the hook for something you’ve done wrong, without any requirement of payment. That’s quite different from accepting the payment of your debt from someone else (which would be the basic idea of atonement). In Paul’s own way of looking at salvation, Christ had to be sacrificed to pay the debt of others; in Luke’s way of looking at it, God forgives the debt without requiring a sacrifice.<\/p>\n

      “Why then, for Luke, did Jesus have to die, if not as a sacrifice for sins? When you read through the speeches in Acts the answer becomes quite clear. It doesn’t matter whether you look at Paul’s speeches or Peter’s, since, if you’ll recall, all these speeches are pretty much alike (they were, after all, written by Luke). Jesus was wrongly put to death. This was a gross miscarriage of justice. When people realize what they (or their compatriots) did to Jesus, they are overcome by guilt, which leads them to repent and ask for forgiveness. And God forgives them.<\/p>\n

      “Thus Jesus’ death, for Luke, is not an atonement for sins, it is an occasion for repentance. It is the repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins, and thus a restored relationship with God (see, for example, Peter’s first speech in Acts 2:37-39). This is fundamentally different from a doctrine of atonement such as you find in Paul.” (pp.143-144)<\/p>\n

      Because salvation is the core product of Christianity, it would be expected that the two most prolific authors of the New Testament (Paul and Luke) would deliver a consistent message on this subject. The difference observed is best explained by the assumption that they were writing as humans devoid of any celestial <\/a>inspiration.<\/p>\n

      (4006) Virgin birth is a minority opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Most versions of Christianity observe the tradition that Jesus was not born in the usual manner. Rather, his mother was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. While Catholics maintain that she remained a virgin for life, Protestants for the most part do not, but they almost all believe that Jesus was conceived in a miraculous way- or else they discount the two gospel accounts of the same. But what is pressing to note is that the virgin birth itself is a minority opinion in the New Testament. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.debunking-christianity.com\/2022\/09\/a-pop-quiz-for-christians-number-5.html#more<\/a><\/p>\n

      Today, especially in Catholic brands of Christianity, the Virgin Mary remains high profile and big business. She\u2019s Queen of Heaven and has put in thousands of appearances around the globe. But in the very earliest days of Jesus belief, she wasn\u2019t even on the map. In all of Paul\u2019s letters\u2014and in those forged in his name\u2014the virgin birth of Jesus is not mentioned; these are the oldest Christian documents we have. The author of Mark\u2019s gospel apparently knew nothing about it, and the author of John\u2019s gospel\u2014who surely was familiar with the earlier gospels\u2014didn\u2019t feel it was worth mentioning.<\/p>\n

      So it is a minority opinion, found only in Matthew and Luke. And just exactly how would they have known that Jesus was virgin-born? Matthew says that Joseph got this information in a dream\u2014how\u2019s that for credible evidence! \u2014and Luke imagined that an angel brought the news to Mary. Curious readers, those inclined to critical thinking, know this doesn\u2019t work. John Loftus, on Christmas day in 2016, wrote on this blog:<\/p>\n

      \u201cHow might anonymous gospel writers, 90+ years later, objectively know Jesus was born of a virgin? Who presumably told them? The Holy Spirit? Why is it that God always speaks to individuals in private, subjective, unevidenced whispers? Those claims are a penny a dozen.\u201d<\/p>\n

      If Christian were forced to concede that the virgin birth is a myth, it would remove a veneer of holiness from the Jesus figure, and it would make it seem more likely that he was a regular human who died and remained dead. Thus, the accounts of the virginal conception in Matthew and Luke are important to most Christians for this reason. But this theme is not a consistent or majority message in the New Testament…and that is a <\/a>problem.<\/p>\n

      (4007) Matthew embellishes Jesus\u2019 glory<\/strong><\/p>\n

      When Matthew was copying Mark while writing his gospel, he took liberties to re-engineer the story to make Jesus look better.<\/p>\n

      In the following instance he changed the disciples\u2019 reaction to Jesus\u2019 walking-on-water trick from having \u2018hardened hearts\u2019 to proclaiming Jesus the Son of God:<\/p>\n

      Mark 6:47-52<\/p>\n

      Later that night, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. Shortly before dawn he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw him and were terrified.<\/p>\n

      Immediately he spoke to them and said, \u201cTake courage! It is I. Don\u2019t be afraid.\u201d Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.<\/p>\n

      Matthew 14:25-33<\/p>\n

      Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. \u201cIt\u2019s a ghost,\u201d they said, and cried out in fear.
      \nBut Jesus immediately said to them: \u201cTake courage! It is I. Don\u2019t be afraid.\u201d\u201d:Lord, if it\u2019s you,\u201d Peter replied, \u201ctell me to come to you on the water.\u201d<\/p>\n

      \u201cCome,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

      Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, \u201cLord, save me!\u201d<\/p>\n

      Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. \u201cYou of little faith,\u201d he said, \u201cwhy did you doubt?\u201d<\/p>\n

      And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, \u201cTruly you are the Son of God.\u201d<\/p>\n

      In the following instance, Matthew changed Mark\u2019s depiction of Jesus being unable to perform miracles because of the peoples\u2019 lack of faith to a simple refusal to do any miracles (which he presumably was capable of doing otherwise).<\/p>\n

      Mark 6:5<\/p>\n

      And because of their unbelief, he couldn\u2019t do any miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them.<\/p>\n

      Matthew 13:58<\/p>\n

      And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.<\/p>\n

      These are examples of progressive theology, where an author takes what has been written previously but then exercises an agenda to make the changes he sees fit, in this case to present Jesus in a more powerful <\/a>fashion.<\/p>\n

      (4008) God not needed for origin of life<\/strong><\/p>\n

      A recent scientific discovery has taken God completely out of the formula for the origin of life. A bottleneck in the sequence of events needed for the naturalistic development of life forms has been erased…in fountains. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/scitechdaily.com\/the-fountain-of-life-scientists-uncover-the-chemistry-behind-the-origin-of-life\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      Purdue University chemists have discovered a mechanism for peptide-forming reactions to occur in water \u2014 something that has baffled scientists for decades.<\/p>\n

      \u201cThis is essentially the chemistry behind the origin of life,\u201d said Graham Cooks. He is the Henry Bohn Hass Distinguished Professor of Analytical Chemistry in Purdue\u2019s College of Science. \u201cThis is the first demonstration that primordial molecules, simple\u00a0amino acids, spontaneously form peptides, the building blocks of life, in droplets of pure water. This is a dramatic discovery.\u201d<\/p>\n

      This water-based chemistry, which leads to proteins and ultimately to life on Earth, could also lead to the faster development of medicines to treat humanity\u2019s most debilitating diseases. The team\u2019s discovery was published today (October 3, 2022) in the journal\u00a0Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences<\/em>.<\/p>\n

      Scientists have theorized for decades that life on Earth began in the oceans. However, the chemistry behind this remained an enigma. Raw amino acids \u2014 something that meteorites delivered to early Earth daily \u2014 can react and latch together to form peptides. These are the building blocks of proteins and, eventually, life. Strangely, the process requires the loss of a water molecule, which seems exceedingly improbable in a wet, aqueous, or oceanic environment. For life to form, it required water. However, it also needed space away from the water.<\/p>\n

      Cooks, an expert in mass spectrometry and early Earth chemistry, and his research team have uncovered the answer to the riddle: \u201cWater isn\u2019t wet everywhere.\u201d On the margins, where the water droplet meets the atmosphere, extremely quick reactions can take place, transforming abiotic amino acids into the building blocks of life. Therefore, fertile landscapes for life\u2019s potential evolution were in places where sea spray flies into the air and waves pound the land, or where fresh water burbles down a slope.<\/p>\n

      The chemists have been using mass spectrometers to examine chemical reactions in droplets containing water for more than 10 years.<\/p>\n

      \u201cThe rates of reactions in droplets are anywhere from a hundred to a million times faster than the same chemicals reacting in bulk solution,\u201d Cooks said.<\/p>\n

      The swift rates of these reactions make catalysts unnecessary, speeding up the reactions and, in the case of early Earth chemistry, making the evolution of life possible. Decades of scientific investigation have been focused on figuring out how this mechanism works. The secret of how life emerged on Earth can help scientists better understand why it happened and guide their search for life on other planets, or even moons.<\/p>\n

      Understanding how amino acids built themselves up into proteins and, eventually, life forms revolutionizes scientists\u2019 understanding of chemical synthesis. That same chemistry may potentially help synthetic chemists identify and create novel medications and therapeutic treatments for illnesses by accelerating key processes.<\/p>\n

      \u201cIf you walk through an academic campus at night, the buildings with the lights on are where synthetic chemists are working,\u201d Cooks said. \u201cTheir experiments are so slow that they run for days or weeks at a time. This isn\u2019t necessary, and using droplet chemistry, we have built an apparatus, which is being used at Purdue now, to speed up the synthesis of novel chemicals and potential new drugs.\u201d<\/p>\n

      This research provides an additional and perhaps final, fatal blow to the theist argument that God was needed for the origin of life (even if the basic evolutionary process was conceded). Science again has pushed God to the sidelines in our understanding of the universe. Now that life can be seen to form naturally, theists will have to retreat to their last bastion of hope- the Big Bang, and even that is under serious attack by <\/a>scientists.<\/p>\n

      (4009) The stolen jewelry analogy<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The following analogy strips naked the core of Christian theology that promotes a so-called \u2018sacrifice\u2019 as the ultimate solution to the sins of mankind. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/Antitheism\/comments\/xtumgo\/when_christians_mention_the_ultimate_sacrifice\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      Ah, God and Jesus and their so-called sacrifice. Granted, crucifixion is no cakewalk, but death came within 12\u201336 (extremely miserable) hours \u2014 and then the ordeal was over forever. Of course it\u2019s an excruciating end for a mere man. But Christ? After being deadish for a few days, he woke up, rolled the stone from his tomb, and happily floated upstairs to live with Dad.<\/p>\n

      We are asked to fall on our knees in awe of God sacrificing His only son, but since Jesus readily assumed his divine, hyper-privileged status in less time than it takes to binge-watch a season of\u00a0Friends<\/em>\u00a0\u2026 well, in this case it\u2019s hard to grasp the difference between eternal sacrifice and painful inconvenience.<\/p>\n

      I’ll put it another way: If my wife\u2019s jewelry was stolen, and the thieves returned the entire loot three days later, ultrasonically cleaned and\u00a0better than they\u2019d found it, I don\u2019t think I could get many people to empathize forever with our briefest of traumas.<\/p>\n

      But that’s Christianity to a \u2020.<\/p>\n

      This is the sandy soil that Christianity is built upon. The ‘jewelry’ was returned better than before. THERE WAS NO <\/a>SACRIFICE.<\/p>\n

      (4010) Four mythical persons in one verse<\/strong><\/p>\n

      There is no verse in the Bible that displays its mythical nature better than Jude 1:9:<\/p>\n

      But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, \u201cThe Lord rebuke you!\u201d<\/p>\n

      Here we have an archangel (angels don\u2019t exist), the devil (who doesn\u2019t exist), Moses (who didn\u2019t exist), and the Lord (who doesn\u2019t exist even if Jesus was a real person).<\/p>\n

      The following provides commentary on this verse:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AcademicBiblical\/comments\/xv65xr\/jude_19_references_an_argument_between_the_angel\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      The source of v. 9 is generally thought to be the Assumption of Moses, on account of patristic comments making this identification as well as internal evidence. The best discussion of this is Johannes Tromp in his commentary on the book (Brill, 1993). Richard Bauckham also gives a good analysis of the evidence in his WBC volume on Jude-2 Peter, although I think Tromp’s argument is more convincing. The Assumption of Moses is preserved only in a single Latin manuscript and it is missing its ending. In the portion that is still extant, when Moses was about to die, Joshua implied that no one was fit to bury Moses and no place on earth was fit to hold his body: “Who, being human, will dare to carry your body one from place to another. For all who die when their time has come have a grave in the earth. But your grave extends from the east to the west, and from the north to the extreme south; the entire world is your grave” (11:5-8).<\/p>\n

      This may imply that Moses would be buried by angels and that the monument of his tomb would be so grand it would have to cover the whole earth. Tromp notes a close Hellenistic parallel in Thucydides, “the entire world is the grave of excellent men” (2.43). We don’t have Moses’ reply or the narrative of his death and burial, but this is what we know: (1) Michael the archangel was responsible for Moses’ body and had a dispute with the Devil about it (Jude 9), (2) there was some uncertainly in Second Temple Judaism over whether Moses died, as Josephus presented Moses as hidden by a cloud and disappearing. (3) Clement of Alexandria and Origen both relate the story, possibly from the Assumption of Moses, that there was a double Moses, one dead who was being buried and one alive being escorted to heaven, (4) the term in the title of the work, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2, is the same term used in Luke-Acts to refer to the ascension of Jesus to heaven, which is in a similar manner to that in Josephus (Jesus hidden behind a cloud and disappearing from view).<\/p>\n

      This comports well with the description of the ascension of Israel to heaven in the same work: Israel “will mount the neck and wings of an eagle and they will be filled and God will exalt you and make you live in the heaven of the stars, the place of his habitation, and you will look down from above, and you will see your enemies on the earth” (10:8-10).<\/p>\n

      There are many biblical scholars who wonder why Jude was selected for the New Testament canon. But because it was, they must<\/u> defend it. The apologetics needed for this purpose are complicated and ultimately <\/a>ineffective.<\/p>\n

      (4011) Reacting to hell<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Christian idea of hell is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence against its truth. Not only would a god not create such a place, but it would ensure that its \u2018holy book\u2019 would not be polluted with such a hideous concept. The following is the best way to view this gruesome meme:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/atheism\/comments\/xx3res\/i_think_im_a_agnostic_but_scared_to_go_to_hell\/ir9ufjk\/?context=3<\/a><\/p>\n

      Just understand that any true loving god would never even think to create a concept like hell.<\/p>\n

      Any omnipotent creator would necessarily have to understand that they’ve engineered an unwinnable situation with religion until they actually reveal themselves. How can they begin to consider punishing someone for not believing in them when there are literally thousands of different religions that all claim to be the word of god?<\/p>\n

      You are literally scared of god hurting you for being honest with what you know. You’re scared of god hurting you because he refuses to reveal himself to you.<\/p>\n

      This is what religion does. It convinces you that you are sick and then offers you the homeopathic remedy. There is no reason to fear hell because any reasonable creator would never have conceived such an immoral concept.<\/p>\n

      And, if it is real, then I will sit in hell knowing that I am morally superior to the creator of the universe. I wouldn’t want to spend eternity with an entity that condemns billions of humans to suffer for eternity for not believing in him on bad evidence, and I sure as hell would never worship such a being.<\/p>\n

      Worshiping a being with an inferior morality to themselves is a full-time occupation for Christians. It is quite fortunate that this god, Yahweh, does not exist, and that this unspeakable evil is not woven into the fabric of <\/a>reality.<\/p>\n

      (4012) De-apocalypticizing<\/strong><\/p>\n

      It is obvious that early Christians thought that Jesus would return in a matter of a few years while they were still alive. The earliest gospel, Mark, is replete with this short-time theme. But later gospels, written after many of the faithful had died, had to mollify this disappointment without conceding the underlying fidelity of the dogma. So we get the process of de-apocalypticizing, as discussed below:<\/p>\n

      https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AcademicBiblical\/comments\/xx7sz7\/why_didnt_most_christians_abandon_their_faith\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      In Mark 9:1, Jesus says:<\/p>\n

      \u201cTruly I tell you, there are some who are standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has\u00a0come in power<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

      When Luke writes his version of gMark, he copies this quote but leaves out the last few words, so that now Jesus says:<\/p>\n

      \u201cTruly I tell you, there are some who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God\u201d (Luke 9:27).<\/p>\n

      Note that the kingdom no longer \u201ccomes in power.\u201d This is consistent with Luke\u2019s framing of the kingdom as having already been here, present in the person of Christ.<\/p>\n

      Another example of this de-apocalypticizing process is at the trial before the Sanhedrin. Jesus states to the high priest:<\/p>\n

      \u201cYou will see the son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven\u201d (Mark 14:62).<\/p>\n

      Once again, Luke writing long after the high priest was dead modifies Jesus\u2019s words:<\/p>\n

      \u201cFrom now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God\u201d (Luke 22:69).<\/p>\n

      In other words, Jesus no longer predicts that the high priest himself will be alive when the end comes. The gospel according to John pushes this even further so that when Mary, the sister of Lazarus, tells Jesus that her brother will \u201cbe raised on the last day,\u201d Jesus corrects her by saying that he himself, is \u201cthe resurrection and the life\u201d!<\/p>\n

      I won\u2019t belabor the point, but it\u2019s also been argued the Paul softens or modifies his theological message as people in his churches begin dying out.<\/p>\n

      Aside from the fact that Jesus is dead and will not return, even those who believe in him must concede that God did nothing to dissuade his early believers from harboring a wrong belief about the timing of his return. It would seem that the gospel authors and later Paul or whoever else was allegedly \u2018receiving inspiration from the Holy Spirit\u2019 would have gotten it right and put in scripture something like this:<\/p>\n

      \u201cGod has ordained that many generations of new humans must be born before Jesus returns. There are many souls waiting for bodies, so we must be patient for the Lord\u2019s glorious <\/a>arrival.\u201d<\/p>\n

      (4013) Christianity is an abusive relationship<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Abusive relationships are a hallmark of family and friendship dynamics, something that virtually everyone experiences sometime in their lives. But few Christians see their religion as being abusive. The following lists some of the ways Christians interact with their god that meets the standard definition:<\/p>\n