My (very conservative) history teacher said that this was probably the most common one people thought was in the Bible and wasn't. She also said it was an actively anti-Biblical sentiment.
It’s actually from 1 of Aesop’s fables. “Hercules helps those who help themselves”.
But you don’t want to put all the weight on God. If he sends you a solution & you reject it because you’re waiting for him to rescue you, you’re toast.
Like that 1 comic where someone’s on the roof of a building & there’s a flood, & 3 boats pass by & the person in each boat asks if the guy on the roof wants to get on & the guy says God will save him. He then drowns & complains to God, who points out that he sent 3 boats.
I don't know how widespread this belief is, but I've heard a surprising number of people say that Noah warned people before the flood. Nothing in the text says that.
I re-skimmed and didn't see that. Could be wrong though. If you can find it, I think it's an interesting conversational point, but even then. I might privately make fun of a guy building a giant boat anywhere other than a port, even if he didn't mention a flood coming.
I read it the last time recently like if someone was told by God to build a bunker for the apocalypse today. A lot of people would just think that’s the nutty conspiracy theorist and apocalypse prepper. History repeats itself… and the fact that the Bible says it will as in like the days of Noah and in conjunction with the parable of the 10 virgins. I wonder how many times people are going to tell the prepared ones with extra oil that they’re being “extra” or even “fearful” until the tide turns. Or if any that usually have extra oil except for the one time they need it and talked themselves out of it.
Stay ready in & for the Lord🫡🫶🏻🙏
Sure, hundreds of years later. Even then, the writer doesn't expand at all on what he means by κῆρυξ. We don't know with certainty what he was getting at, or where he got the idea.
The “hundreds of years later” argument is tricky if you think the entirety of scripture is inspired. Paul says a rock followed the Israelites in the wilderness, and “that rock was Christ” 1 Cor. 10:4. While there is mention of a rock in the Torah, nowhere does it say it followed them. St. Paul is almost certainly referring a later rabbinic tradition that the rock/well followed the Israelites during the 40 year period. So, was Paul wrong? If so that means that even Christology is not inerrant in the scriptures. Jude also quotes 1 Enoch.
Adding on… this may be *also taken from 1st Enoch describing Noah this way. From multiple references from Peter’s books it seems pretty obvious that he’s referencing the 1st book of Enoch. Although it’s much more difficult to see that clearly if we haven’t read 1st Enoch yet. I recently acquired it and it makes a lot of things mentioned much more clear. Since it’s not biblical canon, I am reading it as such, but it makes a lot that is biblical canon more understandable.
The idea that Christians will be raptured and removed from earth while everyone else is left to endure a “tribulation”. The idea was born in the 1800’s and didn’t get mainstream evangelical attention until the mid/late 1900’s. It conflates a couple of verses and morphs them into a whole doctrine that is not actually found in scripture, and has never been believed in all of church history. … in contrast, scripture teaches that when Jesus does return, that will be the end.
I’ve also noticed that some people will use “the rapture” to refer to the second coming, while others will use it to refer to the concept you mentioned. I think using the rapture as a shorthand for the second coming is…unhelpful at best. It makes it hard to know which way someone means it, even though only one is correct
You CAN get more than you can handle, you HAVE TO rely on God!
1 Corinthians 10:13
“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”
For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. - 2 Cor 1:8-10
It's not Biblical, but I have always liked the saying "I know God doesn't give me any more than I can handle... I just wish He didn't trust me so much."
This, but also the opposite belief that as Christians we’re supposed to point out sin in nonbelievers’ lives. Scripture says it’s not our place to judge people from outside the church, but that we should instead focus on warning our brothers (and sisters) in the faith and ensure that no evil is allowed to corrupt our own community from within (1 Corinthians 5:12).
The prophets told the people what God revealed to them. That's what they did. Jeremiah spoke on behalf of God who dwells in Heaven. Jeremiah was a messenger. So the message was from God, through Jeremiah.
This is said metaphorically. The bible says that Jesus stands at the door and knocks. Thus, an easy way to grasp salvation is to invite Him in. It’s meant for children and new believers. I don’t think you would find anyone who genuinely defended this.
I think it’s both. It seems to be primarily American evangelicals, which is almost more a cultural or political group than one truly based on faith anymore.
It’s evangelicals, I never said it’s what the bible teaches I’m saying that it DOES not. Most politicians in US and even UK justify their aid to Israel through the bible eg ted Cruz
Sadly, given that many protestant denominations are based on conservative evangelicals denominations from the USA, they hold this very same idea in other countries, like many others that came from there, also believing in things like the rapture and satanizing things like video games and or secular music in general, etc.
It's pretty widespread I think. My anecdote: The bible says that Israel was (and still is) God's chosen people and therefore the Christians must support Israel (mostly so that JC's second coming will happen in their lifetimes)
It's an idea started in the American evangelical Christian circle, and then they spread it to international students who went back to their own countries and planted their own churches there with Americanisms sprinkled in..
This one is really sad… Because it shows that there are a large number of people calling themselves Christians… Meaning they claim to follow Jesus Christ… And yet they seem to just be following other Christians… Jesus himself said in Jerusalem just days before his crucifixion “for this reason, the kingdom of heaven will be taken from you, and given to people who will bear its fruits.”
Furthermore, I typically like to ask a question to Christians who have been brainwashed into thinking that we are supposed to mindlessly submit to Israel… I ask them “so you’re telling me that you would have been in the crowd shouting “crucify him” if you had lived back then…? And most of them are quick to shoot that down… And then I remind them, “you would’ve been going against the people of Israel if you did not want to crucify Jesus… even the Roman government did not want to crucify Jesus… But the Israelites were absolutely adamant… They were the reason it happened. They pushed and they pushed… I don’t think there’s another group of people in the Bible, who have a history of anger in God, more than the Israelites… Granted, I can’t say we would have done any better in their shoes… I can’t say we’re doing any better now, actually. We really give those people a bad rap… but most of us would literally tell a lie just to put $10 in our pockets because that’s how little we trust God to supply our needs…
But I digress… The Bible is abundantly clear that our loyalty is to be to God and God alone. Anybody using common sense can tell that we should not be supporting many of the things Israel is doing right now… that does not mean that I support Hamas either… both sides are doing evil things and there are lots of innocent people in the middle getting hurt…
But yeah, it’s really sad to see how many people have been conditioned to think that they are supposed to blindly follow Israel, no matter what … even though the Bible actually states the opposite… and they would know that if they ever bother to read it… that is how bad of a state western Christianity is in Wright right now. We have pagan our faith and have wondered very far from the original teachings. And the crazy part is, what is said and taught on the surface isn’t all that different… It’s the things that are not said that are causing people to think they have a relationship with God when they do not.
lol this one gets me. 😂😂 ughhh the government of Israel. I’m still shocked that pastors are over there colluding with the actual government of Israel… NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE does it say that… the nation of Israel… not the nations government lol 😂
Also for "lm*o"
Ephesians 4:29
"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
I was permanently removed from teaching Sunday School at my long-time Wesleyan church because, during a warm-up exercise, I mentioned that nowhere in the Bible is "Lucifer" given as a name for Satan. Even the senior pastor stood up for me and said I was 100% correct, but the parents and the people in charge of volunteer positions were apoplectic over it, and I was drummed out after many years of teaching middle- and high-school Sunday School every single Sunday morning.
For context, I made the comment one Sunday morning, and it really was an off-handed comment in a warm-up exercise, not actually the point of a lesson or anything. But a couple of the students were like "yes it is, that's absolutely in the Bible." And, sensing engagement, I challenged them to find it and show me. Most of the class got caught up in the chance to prove me wrong, and they poured over their Bibles and the commentaries on the shelf, but even after most of the hour they hadn't come up with anything. So I told them they could spend the next week tracking down where the Bible says that Satan's name is Lucifer, and if any of them found someplace that said that, I would buy that student or students a dozen doughnuts each.
So that first week, I got multiple calls from parents (at my home) who were so happy that their kids were engaged and digging through Bibles and commentaries and asking questions. Like, the feedback the parents gave me in the first week was "this was a fantastic lesson, good job!" They were totally happy that I'd stumbled across a "hook" to get the kids so engaged, to the point that they were spending hours in their Bibles instead of anything else they might normally have spent the evening engaged with.
It was only a week and a half later, after the dust had (mostly) settled. I was at a community dinner with people from the church and neighborhood, and one of the parents asked me "you're just messing with them though, right?" And she had a big grin like we were in on some joke together, but I was...unclear what she was asking? So I said as much, and then she clarified, "the Lucifer thing, you're just messing with the kids, right? Like you're going to tell them that it really is Satan and show them where it really is in the Bible, right?"
And I said "uh, no, I wasn't messing with them, it's really not anywhere in the Bible, sorry..."
And then her facial expression changed, and then a couple of days later I get a heads' up from the youth pastor that the senior pastor has had multiple calls and visits from angry parents about the "heresy" that I'm teaching in class, and pretty soon there's a meeting, and then another meeting, and then...even though the senior pastor (allegedly) backed me up every time, his own wife was in charge of who taught what Sunday School classes. And within a month I was invited to a meeting of parents, Sunday School teachers, the pastor's wife, and me, at somebody's house, where they let me know that my "6-12th grade Sunday School class" was being split up. 6-8th graders would join a class for younger kids, the 10th-12th graders would be going to one of the adult classes, and I could continue to teach "9th grade" Sunday School.
I then pointed out that zero of the 16 students in my class were 9th graders. Several of the parents were like "oh, we didn't know that. Anyway..." and that was the end of my Sunday School volunteer teaching career. Relegated to a single class with zero students. As far as I was ever made aware, literally the only complaint had ever been raised was the Lucifer question, and that after a week of calls about what a great job I was doing.
That's insane. It's not like even integral doctrine, it's just a name. It's not like you said Jesus never existed or the Flood never happened (even if you don't believe the last one, people hold it dear so it'd make sense they'd get mad)
That's very sad to hear. Everyone should be searching the Scriptures for the Truth and not just assume that everything that is spoken from the pulpit is truth!
Yep. Most scholars seem to agree it refers to an unnamed Babylonian king. Some think it was Nebuchadnezzar III, but I last time I checked I don't think were able to fully detail the reasoning so officially it goes unnamed.
In Roman folklore, Lucifer ("light-bringer" in Latin) was the name of the planet Venus, though it was often personified as a male figure bearing a torch.
The bible in one place mentions Isaiah 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star [another name for Venus], son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"
Some people attribute this verse to the enemy, thus Lucifer got connected to Satan.
In other pictures Venus is a symbol for messengers coming from / going to heaven. Revelation 22:16 says “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright MorningStar.”
The problem with the Isaiah 14:12 reference is that Isaiah 14:3 explicitly says that this a taunt aimed at the current king of Babylon. The King of Babylon (whichever king was kingin') is "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14, and anyone attributing it to "Satan" instead is choosing fan fiction over what is otherwise a very straightforward passage.
Common myth, but Dante was elaborating on earlier Christian beliefs that existed within 100 years of the crucifixion. The Apocalypse of Peter was well known text (may have even influenced the Quran), that is also a guided tour of the hell, including the different regions, and punishments therein.
It’s refreshing to see a Christian acknowledge this. Everything from free will to all the demon stuff. A lot of horrible apologetics comes out of these beliefs.
At least not explicitly in the modern sense, but there are passages that heavily imply that the authors thought there is no free will more often then that there is.
The Magi came from the east with gifts. The Magi were considered wise men because of their knowledge. They were probably not kings. The Bible doesn't say how many there were. The assumption has always been three because they brought three gifts.
Myrrh is native Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya Yemen, and Oman). Frankincense, largely the same. The Bible also states that fine gold comes from Ophir, which could be in several different locations but similar region. Just a fun fact.
It makes sense to have three different people play the Magi because of the gifts; a fourth would stand on the stage and be empty-handed. In reality it would maybe a group of people and the three most noble or most senior guys would present the donations.
Group of people & animals gathered around the newborn infant: False. The Magi might’ve ended up getting to Jesus in Egypt, but at the very least Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, & the animals in the stable were gathered around Jesus. Though the animals were probably in their stalls.
The kid with the drum: Only turns up in 1 song. I’ve never heard him being part of the traditional Christmas story.
An inn. The word used there is actually something more like 'spare room.' More likely that they just showed up last and didn't have any space in the family home so they crashed in the barn.
This is correct. No New Testament teaching condones violence in any form, much less a direct teaching of Christ.
It is staggering how many people pull out the passage about buying swords in the Garden of Gethsemane or Luke 11:21 with guarding your house and don't even bother to glance at the rest of the passage which sends the complete opposite message about taking up arms to defend yourself and your property.
Jesus forbids retaliation, escalation, and revenge. Protecting oneself and others is in the Bible. We are not supposed to go around starting wars or fights.
Could you expand upon “protecting oneself and others is in the bible”? Just curious, because I was talking to my friend about her wanting to get a shotgun in the house in case her house was broken into, but I feel like murdering someone that is robbing you, doesn’t feel Christ like to me. I don’t know what the bible says about this.
The interesting thing about the OT is that every instance of violence in the OT that was not punished or labeled a sin was in obedience to a direct command from God through a physical or auditory manifestation wither to the people themselves or through the designated representative of that time (prophet, high priest, king, etc).
Not saying that I agree with the violent methods or that I do not have trouble reconciling those accounts with who God claims to be, but it is not just wanton, random violence.
In America it absolutely is a normal teaching that you can commit violence as a christian as long as it is somehow justified. It is primarily a conservative belief. It ranges from justifying christian soldiers and cops to executions to killing people in self-defense.
However, it is a constant throughout history. Most wars committed throughout history (at least ones involving Europe) were at least claimed to be partially motivated by christian principles.
If you’re a trinitarian, how can you NOT believe it? God in the OT was as violent as a deity can get—committing and commanding genocide. So if Jesus is God, and you believe the stories of the OT, then you have to accept Jesus did all those things too.
Once saved always saved, you’re saved by grace, but He can blot your name out of the Book of Life if He wants too, especially these verses “Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ “But He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know you, or where you come from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’” Luke 13:26-27 ”“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 7:21 ”He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels” Rev 3:5
If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
I fear you're not right about the rod referring to a shepherd's staff... The word is this one and it the shepherds staff is indeed one possible translation, and used as such in Psalm 23:4. But as you can see in String's concordance, the link I provided, it ranges from a king's scepter (Gen 49:10) to a battle weapon (2 Samuel 18:14)... And as a cane for corporal punishment used by slave master (Exodus 21:20), a parent (2 Samuel 7:24), or even God himself (Isaiah 11:4).
And strikingly, if we look at the instances of proverbs itself, they're either not clear... Or extremely clear like Proverbs 23:13-14 (KJV if you're that kind of person). Similarly, this sentiment is found in other texts of the time, and it's not surprising that they share the same... Advice.
All that being said, I'm glad that you seem that you feel like it's a bad thing to do because it demonstrably is. Don't beat your or any child, period.
I think Jesus is being pretty literal when he talks about Satan's fall, but the idea of a chief angel and many of the details are clearly additions
The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your name.” So He told them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy. Nothing will harm you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
That, combined with the passages in Revelation and the OT at least hint towards something but what that something is is vague and not fleshed out.
I frankly don’t think we should count revelation since the evidence supports that it’s really just early Christian apocalypse literature aimed at Caesar and Rome and not the end of the world.
While I hold more to a both/and with regard to Revelation, that's still fair! The passage I quoted is from Luke and that might be the only reference to Satan "falling" in the NT (at least off the top of my head, unless an Epistle references it)
This story actually has striking similarities to Christ‘s death and resurrection. Seems to be how this act was witnessed in the heavenly realm and not a separate event.
That when Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of the needle than for a rich man to go to heaven, he was referring to a low gate on a city wall. There is no evidence a gate like this ever existed.
That Job is the oldest book on the Old Testament. It is most likely one of the newest (more a misconception that’s often taught about the book).
The Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. This is never stated in the Bible.
Right, the opposite is here: Luke 6:34 "And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full."
Christ and the rest of the New Testament authors never taught that christians are responsible for calling out sin in the lives of others or society.
There is exactly one passage that applies to average, every day christians when it comes to confronting the sins of others. And that is when Christ taught that if another christian sins against you specifically that you are to confront them.
Inversely, Christ taught multiple lessons where minding your own business is either the central or a strong sub-theme in the teaching. The older brother of the prodigal son, the people paid the same amount while working different hours, the beam in your own eye, and casting the first stone.
There is no mandate to judge the sins of others and definitely not any direction whatsoever to try to force your own views of morality onto other people through laws and government policies.
Hebrews 9:27-28 ESV
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
For Sodom and Gomorrah I typically tend to think it is more about the raping of innocent travelers that enter the city. They literally gathered in large numbers to sexually assault and rape new people that visited them.
I guess that falls under breaking sacred hospitality but it feels like it is worth noting in and of itself. I am sure there are lot's of cities throughout history that were not very hospitable, but the mass rape of travelers is a whole other level.
Do you think that the group with Lot was the first group to ever be sexually assaulted en masse in that city?
The story shows that these people didn't just come up with this practice. They all gathered because it was an expectation to sexually assault people new to the city.
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
For the author of Ezekiel at least, it is more about wealth inequality than it is the sexual act.
Fair enough. But again, many cities and nations in that time and place did not help the poor and needy. Many had wealth inequality. The question is what set these two cities apart.
Well, to my knowledge, they are the only cities in recorded history to spontaneously generate a mob of citizens that showed up expecting to rape newcomers to the city.
But, who knows. Maybe that was just a coincidence.
Well, to my knowledge, they are the only cities in recorded history to spontaneously generate a mob of citizens that showed up expecting to rape newcomers to the city.
You've never heard of lynchings? They frequently raped the victims. Sodom was not an isolated incident and rape is about power, not sex. Keeping the foreigners in line, keeping the Black people in line, keeping the immigrants in line. The lynch mobs that raped Black people didn't do it because they were gay, they did it as a display and exercise of power over those that they viewed as property. The same as Sodom, it's about social inequality, not the sexual act itself.
I’m not sure where you’re getting those ideas from.
This set of verses disproves both your first and last claim (please read them, just putting the specific verse for less text)
Jude 5-7 (not ignoring Ezekiel 16:49, as it and Jude give a full picture together; tons of wicked sin of all kinds)
“7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
Serving as an example shows that their acts were detestable, the practices are mentioned, and then it says the punishment is “eternal fire.”
What do you mean by your second point?
Why do you say hell isn’t eternal? Source(s)?
That the serpent in the garden of Eden is the Devil. That’s an extra biblical addition and interpretation.
That Noah went around warning people about the flood. Maybe he did, but it’s not in the Bible.
That there were three wise men. Bible never tells the number.
That Jesus was a newborn infant when the wisemen visited. He was most likely closer to two. (Imagine a Jesus in his “terrible two’s” running around causing a ruckus, killing plants in the house that don’t have flowers. 😂)
Satan ruling Hell. It’s stated that “the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone …” - to be tormented himself in the destination, not sent for dominion or rulership.
The idea that hell is a fiery pit ruled by Satan. That's Dante.
The rapture is some version of believers getting zapped out of thier clothes to rise to heaven. That's the Left Behind series. That is a modern American idea.
Most of what we have in our nativity scene is made up. Mary had a baby, wrapped him in cloth, and laid him in a manger. That is all. Nothing about animals. Nothing about angels or glowing stars overhead. Not enough room in the guest room of a family member's house is more likely than an inn or a shed. An unknown number of magi came later to his home (like he was a child later) not the manger.
The Bible does not define "biblical marriage" as one universal model.
The Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality was not even a concept for them to define as a sin. The Leviticus verse does not use the Hebrew word for sin. It uses a word tied to ritual purity aka the same category that covers food laws and temple practices. And when you look at the context of the ancient world, those passages line up far more with exploitation and idolatry than with anything that looks like a loving, consensual adult same sex relationship today.
The Bible doesnt ban abortion or say life begins at conception.
The word itself, “homosexuality” was made in English (language evolves and words get made) yet the act is described quite clearly, and is labelled as a sin, not for a follower of Christ.
Check out 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul is listing sin (and it encompasses all)!
If you disagree, I’d encourage you to see how Jesus’ defines marriage in Matthew 19.
Any sexual activity outside of husband and wife (married) is sinful, called fornication, sexual immorality, or adultery. Ergo, any sexual activity outside of marriage is… Sin.
>!This shouldn’t have to be stated, but I feel obligated people look for any excuse to diminish others, and that’s ungodly imo.
This does not condone any violence/hate/etc against those who practice. Those who do that must repent, in 1 Corinthians 5 it says God is to judge those outside, and the church is to judge within.
Thank you for the perfect examples of why people incorrectly believe this:
1 Corinthians 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality and any translation that uses that word is a mistranslation.
In Matthew 19 Jesus isn’t defining marriage, he’s rebuking divorce.
In the OT, sex is analogous to marriage. It was the two becoming one. This issue was taking another’s wife. If she was unmarried or widowed, she was available. Which is why prostitution was prohibited, she would be with different men. The word fornication comes from porne, which is prostitution or sex with multiple people and where we get our word pornography.
Otherwise I agree, we have no justification for hating on people or committing violence against them.
In reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9. There is no consensus that homosexuality is the only thing these words refer to. There is also no serious scholarly consensus that they have nothing to do with male/male sex.
One understanding is that Paul is condemning same-sex behavior, but especially exploitative, commercial, or adulterous forms. I don't think he is talking about sexual orientation. That is a more modern concept.
In Matthew 19, Jesus simultaneously rebukes divorce (his primary purpose) and affirms the created pattern of marriage.
The word, porneia can refer to prostitution. That's true. But it also refers more broadly to any sexual immorality outside marriage (adultery, incest, premarital sex, etc.).
The moral conclusion is true. Christianity absolutely forbids hatred and violence. We are to love our neighbors and our enemies. We are also expected to do good to those that hate us.
One understanding is that Paul is condemning same-sex behavior, but especially exploitative, commercial, or adulterous forms.
The modern American Catholic bible, NABRE, translates the words in Corinthians as "boy prostitute" and "sodomite" with a note that the sodomite is a man that has sex with the boy prostitute. Not one can say with certainty whether they are right or not, but the translators involved were very well educated.
Abortion really isn't talked about other than when God instructs dudes how to brew a "bitter brew" that would cause their wives would miscarry in the event she was unfaithful.
A godly marriage is only between one man and one woman. It is, in theory, not a sin to simply be homosexual (although a born again Christian would no more be one), but you can't marry the same gender, so it's not the straight issue that you're gay, rather that you will have sex outside of marriage, no matter if you are married to the same gender or not .
A godly marriage is only between one man and one woman.
Nothing in the bible says this.
It is, in theory, not a sin to simply be homosexual (although a born again Christian would no more be one),
That’s not how it works.
but you can't marry the same gender,
Yes you can. I know of many examples.
so it's not the straight issue that you're gay, rather that you will have sex outside of marriage, no matter if you are married to the same gender or not .
(It’s in there - Any identity someone has that is not founded in Christ is not for a Christian. It’d be like trying to serve two masters, which Jesus’ also teaches about)
Quite a lot of our standard Christian theology. If we read NT texts and let them speak for themselves, they present a variety of views on the nature of Jesus. He might have been just human, or a heavenly being, or maybe even God himself. He might have been promoted in status, and people place this promotion at various different times- his baptism, after his death, etc.
The early church tried to synthesize this all together and blended in some other ideas and eventually came up with the now-standard trinitarian model.
In all the Gospels Christ is depicted as God (as He is). The NT writings, early church father writings, and secular texts, are resources to read to see what has been consistent about the teachings within early Christianity.
I recommend St Ignatius, the Didache, and “Against Heresies” by Irenaeus. By reading those you’ll see that Christ is known as God, and is worshipped as such within Christianity.
It seems comments like these usually stem from people who think American Evangelicalism is a full, proper, all encompassing description of Christianity. So saying “standard Christian theology” is quite misleading; there are so many beliefs that have been consistent throughout the ages - People claiming otherwise usually are making bad faith arguments, or they’re genuinely ignorant (unaware, and fun ruin off their limited knowledge) of the development of the church (stating that for others, not you)
The word "rapture". There is also no specific reference to a rapture-like event occurring before the tribulation period (please spare me the 1 Thess Ch. 4 references, there is nothing specific there). Nor is there clarity about a mid-trib or post-trib rapture to be fair. The rapture was a doctrine popularized in the 1800's by an Irish teacher named John Darby.
Some say the Trinity is not in the Bible directly, and has to be inferred. Which may not matter, since the Trinity is clearly in the tradition, but it could be important if you are a Biblical literalist.
Jesus actually said not to judge others, unless you then also accept the judgement of others. That said, the apostle Paul wrote to only judge other believers, but not those outside the church.
“God works in mysterious ways”. Not found in the Bible anywhere, but anyone who has read the Bible will know that in fact God does work in mysterious ways. And of course there’s this verse to back up the sentiment:
““For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.”
Isaiah 55:8 NKJV
The other one is “Money is the root of all evil”.
The actual verse says:
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
I Timothy 6:10 NKJV
Wives must submit to their husbands. It goes on to say husbands are to submit to their wives as well. It was never meant to promote a one sided dynamic where the woman is always at a disadvantage
That Jesus is white. You’d be surprised how many people assume Jesus is European or have fair skin with long brown hair and soft hands, handsome too..which is ironic. If Jesus came back today, MAGA or some equivalent (ICE) would absolutely have him crucified AGAIN and the world would be as blind as it was in the past bc we’d all be focused on how he looks bc we didn’t learn shit as a whole since we still askin the same damn questions..
Praying to Saints and Mary — not in the bible and completely false. The Bible does not instruct Christians to honor saints, seek their intercession, or keep their relics.
God helps those who help themselves.
My (very conservative) history teacher said that this was probably the most common one people thought was in the Bible and wasn't. She also said it was an actively anti-Biblical sentiment.
It’s actually from 1 of Aesop’s fables. “Hercules helps those who help themselves”.
But you don’t want to put all the weight on God. If he sends you a solution & you reject it because you’re waiting for him to rescue you, you’re toast.
Like that 1 comic where someone’s on the roof of a building & there’s a flood, & 3 boats pass by & the person in each boat asks if the guy on the roof wants to get on & the guy says God will save him. He then drowns & complains to God, who points out that he sent 3 boats.
My favorite one
I’ve heard others say that as well
The one I immediately thought of, myself. And it runs contrary to trusting and relying on God. It’s not scriptural.
Following Gods path helps yourself, ex, I help myself by quitting, but God helped me by showing that path to me and telling me to guard my temple
This was the first thing that came to my mind as well.
(Story of Hercules & the stuck cart)
I don't know how widespread this belief is, but I've heard a surprising number of people say that Noah warned people before the flood. Nothing in the text says that.
It’s a thing from Rabbinic Judaism
Did it say in the Bible something about the people laughed made fun of him building the Ark? Of course not in those exact words.
He was telling people I guess by building it and the people seeing it.
🤷♀️
I re-skimmed and didn't see that. Could be wrong though. If you can find it, I think it's an interesting conversational point, but even then. I might privately make fun of a guy building a giant boat anywhere other than a port, even if he didn't mention a flood coming.
I read it the last time recently like if someone was told by God to build a bunker for the apocalypse today. A lot of people would just think that’s the nutty conspiracy theorist and apocalypse prepper. History repeats itself… and the fact that the Bible says it will as in like the days of Noah and in conjunction with the parable of the 10 virgins. I wonder how many times people are going to tell the prepared ones with extra oil that they’re being “extra” or even “fearful” until the tide turns. Or if any that usually have extra oil except for the one time they need it and talked themselves out of it. Stay ready in & for the Lord🫡🫶🏻🙏
2 Peter 2:5 calls Noah a preacher of righteousness.
Sure, hundreds of years later. Even then, the writer doesn't expand at all on what he means by κῆρυξ. We don't know with certainty what he was getting at, or where he got the idea.
The “hundreds of years later” argument is tricky if you think the entirety of scripture is inspired. Paul says a rock followed the Israelites in the wilderness, and “that rock was Christ” 1 Cor. 10:4. While there is mention of a rock in the Torah, nowhere does it say it followed them. St. Paul is almost certainly referring a later rabbinic tradition that the rock/well followed the Israelites during the 40 year period. So, was Paul wrong? If so that means that even Christology is not inerrant in the scriptures. Jude also quotes 1 Enoch.
Adding on… this may be *also taken from 1st Enoch describing Noah this way. From multiple references from Peter’s books it seems pretty obvious that he’s referencing the 1st book of Enoch. Although it’s much more difficult to see that clearly if we haven’t read 1st Enoch yet. I recently acquired it and it makes a lot of things mentioned much more clear. Since it’s not biblical canon, I am reading it as such, but it makes a lot that is biblical canon more understandable.
The idea that Christians will be raptured and removed from earth while everyone else is left to endure a “tribulation”. The idea was born in the 1800’s and didn’t get mainstream evangelical attention until the mid/late 1900’s. It conflates a couple of verses and morphs them into a whole doctrine that is not actually found in scripture, and has never been believed in all of church history. … in contrast, scripture teaches that when Jesus does return, that will be the end.
Yes, thanks for that mentioned. It needs to get mention every so often.
I’ve also noticed that some people will use “the rapture” to refer to the second coming, while others will use it to refer to the concept you mentioned. I think using the rapture as a shorthand for the second coming is…unhelpful at best. It makes it hard to know which way someone means it, even though only one is correct
Ugh there fights and church splits in the Church of Christ I grew up in over this.
Not to mention horrible fiction books and even worse movies
Exactly this
God won’t give you more than you can handle.
Here’s a close one;
You CAN get more than you can handle, you HAVE TO rely on God!
1 Corinthians 10:13
“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”
EXACTLY!
For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. - 2 Cor 1:8-10
It's not Biblical, but I have always liked the saying "I know God doesn't give me any more than I can handle... I just wish He didn't trust me so much."
Only God can judge me.
Scripture tells us to exhort one another and to judge righteously.
But again, the line between judging righteously and unrighteously is too thin. One can end up like the Westboro crowd without realizing one-self
In Matthew, Jesus says not to look for the speck in our brother's eye, but to focus on removing the log in our own eye first.
This, but also the opposite belief that as Christians we’re supposed to point out sin in nonbelievers’ lives. Scripture says it’s not our place to judge people from outside the church, but that we should instead focus on warning our brothers (and sisters) in the faith and ensure that no evil is allowed to corrupt our own community from within (1 Corinthians 5:12).
Yesssss this should be higher up
Jesus never said to follow your heart. He said to follow Him
in fact, He says do not follow the heart because it deceives. Jeremiah 17:9
Well, the prophet Jeremiah said that, not Jesus.
The prophets told the people what God revealed to them. That's what they did. Jeremiah spoke on behalf of God who dwells in Heaven. Jeremiah was a messenger. So the message was from God, through Jeremiah.
Though Jeremiah was saying it for God.
Yes
This one is mostly anecdotal rather than a hard belief, but the thought that believing and trusting in God means you have to deny science.
Asking Jesus into your heart.
This is said metaphorically. The bible says that Jesus stands at the door and knocks. Thus, an easy way to grasp salvation is to invite Him in. It’s meant for children and new believers. I don’t think you would find anyone who genuinely defended this.
Ummm…yeah you would. The entirety of the evangelical doctrine is based around this assumption of the mechanics of salvation.
That belief is quite literally the entirety of the evangelical/baptist theology
That we must worship the government state of Israel lmao
This is an American problem, not Christian.
I can’t think of any other people group that does that
I think it’s both. It seems to be primarily American evangelicals, which is almost more a cultural or political group than one truly based on faith anymore.
It’s evangelicals, I never said it’s what the bible teaches I’m saying that it DOES not. Most politicians in US and even UK justify their aid to Israel through the bible eg ted Cruz
Don’t worry, I get you, was just tagging the comment to add
God bless eh
May America’s Christian serve God, not Israel
It's a problem for millions of American Christians. It's an EXTREMELY valid answer.
Sadly, given that many protestant denominations are based on conservative evangelicals denominations from the USA, they hold this very same idea in other countries, like many others that came from there, also believing in things like the rapture and satanizing things like video games and or secular music in general, etc.
It's pretty widespread I think. My anecdote: The bible says that Israel was (and still is) God's chosen people and therefore the Christians must support Israel (mostly so that JC's second coming will happen in their lifetimes)
It's an idea started in the American evangelical Christian circle, and then they spread it to international students who went back to their own countries and planted their own churches there with Americanisms sprinkled in..
This is an American Protestant problem
And their interpretation of the bible…
This one is really sad… Because it shows that there are a large number of people calling themselves Christians… Meaning they claim to follow Jesus Christ… And yet they seem to just be following other Christians… Jesus himself said in Jerusalem just days before his crucifixion “for this reason, the kingdom of heaven will be taken from you, and given to people who will bear its fruits.”
Furthermore, I typically like to ask a question to Christians who have been brainwashed into thinking that we are supposed to mindlessly submit to Israel… I ask them “so you’re telling me that you would have been in the crowd shouting “crucify him” if you had lived back then…? And most of them are quick to shoot that down… And then I remind them, “you would’ve been going against the people of Israel if you did not want to crucify Jesus… even the Roman government did not want to crucify Jesus… But the Israelites were absolutely adamant… They were the reason it happened. They pushed and they pushed… I don’t think there’s another group of people in the Bible, who have a history of anger in God, more than the Israelites… Granted, I can’t say we would have done any better in their shoes… I can’t say we’re doing any better now, actually. We really give those people a bad rap… but most of us would literally tell a lie just to put $10 in our pockets because that’s how little we trust God to supply our needs…
But I digress… The Bible is abundantly clear that our loyalty is to be to God and God alone. Anybody using common sense can tell that we should not be supporting many of the things Israel is doing right now… that does not mean that I support Hamas either… both sides are doing evil things and there are lots of innocent people in the middle getting hurt…
But yeah, it’s really sad to see how many people have been conditioned to think that they are supposed to blindly follow Israel, no matter what … even though the Bible actually states the opposite… and they would know that if they ever bother to read it… that is how bad of a state western Christianity is in Wright right now. We have pagan our faith and have wondered very far from the original teachings. And the crazy part is, what is said and taught on the surface isn’t all that different… It’s the things that are not said that are causing people to think they have a relationship with God when they do not.
lol this one gets me. 😂😂 ughhh the government of Israel. I’m still shocked that pastors are over there colluding with the actual government of Israel… NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE does it say that… the nation of Israel… not the nations government lol 😂
Who believes that?
Also for "lm*o" Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
Have you never heard a pro Israel politician talk?
Free will isn’t discussed at all basically.
And a lot of the lore about Satan and demons isn’t in the Bible.
Oh, and also the modern doctrine of Hell. There are a lot of verses about final judgment, but they really have to be mixed and matched to make Hell.
I was permanently removed from teaching Sunday School at my long-time Wesleyan church because, during a warm-up exercise, I mentioned that nowhere in the Bible is "Lucifer" given as a name for Satan. Even the senior pastor stood up for me and said I was 100% correct, but the parents and the people in charge of volunteer positions were apoplectic over it, and I was drummed out after many years of teaching middle- and high-school Sunday School every single Sunday morning.
That sucks. It’s just a plain fact, and it’s wild church members wouldn’t accept that
It was so bizarre, to have lived through it.
For context, I made the comment one Sunday morning, and it really was an off-handed comment in a warm-up exercise, not actually the point of a lesson or anything. But a couple of the students were like "yes it is, that's absolutely in the Bible." And, sensing engagement, I challenged them to find it and show me. Most of the class got caught up in the chance to prove me wrong, and they poured over their Bibles and the commentaries on the shelf, but even after most of the hour they hadn't come up with anything. So I told them they could spend the next week tracking down where the Bible says that Satan's name is Lucifer, and if any of them found someplace that said that, I would buy that student or students a dozen doughnuts each.
So that first week, I got multiple calls from parents (at my home) who were so happy that their kids were engaged and digging through Bibles and commentaries and asking questions. Like, the feedback the parents gave me in the first week was "this was a fantastic lesson, good job!" They were totally happy that I'd stumbled across a "hook" to get the kids so engaged, to the point that they were spending hours in their Bibles instead of anything else they might normally have spent the evening engaged with.
It was only a week and a half later, after the dust had (mostly) settled. I was at a community dinner with people from the church and neighborhood, and one of the parents asked me "you're just messing with them though, right?" And she had a big grin like we were in on some joke together, but I was...unclear what she was asking? So I said as much, and then she clarified, "the Lucifer thing, you're just messing with the kids, right? Like you're going to tell them that it really is Satan and show them where it really is in the Bible, right?"
And I said "uh, no, I wasn't messing with them, it's really not anywhere in the Bible, sorry..."
And then her facial expression changed, and then a couple of days later I get a heads' up from the youth pastor that the senior pastor has had multiple calls and visits from angry parents about the "heresy" that I'm teaching in class, and pretty soon there's a meeting, and then another meeting, and then...even though the senior pastor (allegedly) backed me up every time, his own wife was in charge of who taught what Sunday School classes. And within a month I was invited to a meeting of parents, Sunday School teachers, the pastor's wife, and me, at somebody's house, where they let me know that my "6-12th grade Sunday School class" was being split up. 6-8th graders would join a class for younger kids, the 10th-12th graders would be going to one of the adult classes, and I could continue to teach "9th grade" Sunday School.
I then pointed out that zero of the 16 students in my class were 9th graders. Several of the parents were like "oh, we didn't know that. Anyway..." and that was the end of my Sunday School volunteer teaching career. Relegated to a single class with zero students. As far as I was ever made aware, literally the only complaint had ever been raised was the Lucifer question, and that after a week of calls about what a great job I was doing.
That's insane. It's not like even integral doctrine, it's just a name. It's not like you said Jesus never existed or the Flood never happened (even if you don't believe the last one, people hold it dear so it'd make sense they'd get mad)
That's very sad to hear. Everyone should be searching the Scriptures for the Truth and not just assume that everything that is spoken from the pulpit is truth!
And you have given an excellent example of why I choose not to get involved with the local "church"
Yep. Most scholars seem to agree it refers to an unnamed Babylonian king. Some think it was Nebuchadnezzar III, but I last time I checked I don't think were able to fully detail the reasoning so officially it goes unnamed.
Even there “Lucifer” is entirely an artifact of the Latin translation and won’t appear in better translations. If we look in NRSVUE
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014%3A12&version=NRSVUE
To go even further: Morning Star was a Hebrew reference to Venus. In Latin: Venus, during it's morning phase, is referred to as Lucifer.
From Wikipedia:
In Roman folklore, Lucifer ("light-bringer" in Latin) was the name of the planet Venus, though it was often personified as a male figure bearing a torch.
The bible in one place mentions Isaiah 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star [another name for Venus], son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"
Some people attribute this verse to the enemy, thus Lucifer got connected to Satan.
In other pictures Venus is a symbol for messengers coming from / going to heaven. Revelation 22:16 says “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”
The problem with the Isaiah 14:12 reference is that Isaiah 14:3 explicitly says that this a taunt aimed at the current king of Babylon. The King of Babylon (whichever king was kingin') is "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14, and anyone attributing it to "Satan" instead is choosing fan fiction over what is otherwise a very straightforward passage.
Most of our concept of Hell actually comes from Dante.
I’d say John Milton more than Dante.
Common myth, but Dante was elaborating on earlier Christian beliefs that existed within 100 years of the crucifixion. The Apocalypse of Peter was well known text (may have even influenced the Quran), that is also a guided tour of the hell, including the different regions, and punishments therein.
Don't forget Walt Disney's contribution!
It’s refreshing to see a Christian acknowledge this. Everything from free will to all the demon stuff. A lot of horrible apologetics comes out of these beliefs.
At least not explicitly in the modern sense, but there are passages that heavily imply that the authors thought there is no free will more often then that there is.
The traditional Christmas narrative. It blends together different gospel accounts and adds in details found in no gospel.
Like the 3 wise men… it just mentions 3 gifts!
The Magi came from the east with gifts. The Magi were considered wise men because of their knowledge. They were probably not kings. The Bible doesn't say how many there were. The assumption has always been three because they brought three gifts.
The assumption by MOST of the church has been that there were three. Some Eastern churches have always held there were twelve.
Myrrh is native Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya Yemen, and Oman). Frankincense, largely the same. The Bible also states that fine gold comes from Ophir, which could be in several different locations but similar region. Just a fun fact.
Someone trying to sing with the sick melody they just wrote.
"We three ma-gi... wait, no... we three wise m-... no, that's just too long. Eff it, we ball. Kings."
It makes sense to have three different people play the Magi because of the gifts; a fourth would stand on the stage and be empty-handed. In reality it would maybe a group of people and the three most noble or most senior guys would present the donations.
Notably, some of the details are from non canonical gospels or similar texts.
Do you have any examples of things that aren't in any of the gospels?
3 wise men. A group of people and animals gathered around the newborn infant. The kid with the drum... ;-)
3 wise men: True, it’s an unspecified number.
Group of people & animals gathered around the newborn infant: False. The Magi might’ve ended up getting to Jesus in Egypt, but at the very least Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, & the animals in the stable were gathered around Jesus. Though the animals were probably in their stalls.
The kid with the drum: Only turns up in 1 song. I’ve never heard him being part of the traditional Christmas story.
An inn. The word used there is actually something more like 'spare room.' More likely that they just showed up last and didn't have any space in the family home so they crashed in the barn.
Mary on a donkey
That at Christmas there were three wise men. The Bible only says there were plural wise men.
God helps those who helps himself.
The idea that Christianity validates violence against others. It does not.
This is correct. No New Testament teaching condones violence in any form, much less a direct teaching of Christ.
It is staggering how many people pull out the passage about buying swords in the Garden of Gethsemane or Luke 11:21 with guarding your house and don't even bother to glance at the rest of the passage which sends the complete opposite message about taking up arms to defend yourself and your property.
Jesus forbids retaliation, escalation, and revenge. Protecting oneself and others is in the Bible. We are not supposed to go around starting wars or fights.
Could you expand upon “protecting oneself and others is in the bible”? Just curious, because I was talking to my friend about her wanting to get a shotgun in the house in case her house was broken into, but I feel like murdering someone that is robbing you, doesn’t feel Christ like to me. I don’t know what the bible says about this.
Christ said to love your enemy and to do good and pray for those that mean you harm.
This is simply not true.
But please, show me the teaching of Christ or any of his followers where violence is condoned for a christian.
What about all the times God commanded Israel to go to war?
What about when Peter tried to defend The LORD? Do you not remember what happened immediately after? “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.”
Boy the Old Treatment was full of it though 😅
The interesting thing about the OT is that every instance of violence in the OT that was not punished or labeled a sin was in obedience to a direct command from God through a physical or auditory manifestation wither to the people themselves or through the designated representative of that time (prophet, high priest, king, etc).
Not saying that I agree with the violent methods or that I do not have trouble reconciling those accounts with who God claims to be, but it is not just wanton, random violence.
On a large scale, yes. Leviticus is filled with individual violence and prescriptions for how and why to use it, as well.
Maybe I am just not aware of who would believe that Christ condones violence, but is this really a widely held belief?
Too many. Examples: crusades, Christian nationalism, nazism, just war theory.
In America it absolutely is a normal teaching that you can commit violence as a christian as long as it is somehow justified. It is primarily a conservative belief. It ranges from justifying christian soldiers and cops to executions to killing people in self-defense.
However, it is a constant throughout history. Most wars committed throughout history (at least ones involving Europe) were at least claimed to be partially motivated by christian principles.
If you’re a trinitarian, how can you NOT believe it? God in the OT was as violent as a deity can get—committing and commanding genocide. So if Jesus is God, and you believe the stories of the OT, then you have to accept Jesus did all those things too.
Sorry, what's a "trinitarian"?
Someone who believes that Jesus, God, and Holy Spirit are one and the same.
Three unitarians that combine all their power to become something greater than themselves.
Once saved always saved, you’re saved by grace, but He can blot your name out of the Book of Life if He wants too, especially these verses “Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ “But He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know you, or where you come from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’” Luke 13:26-27 ”“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21 ”He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels” Rev 3:5
To confirm this: Romans 11:17
If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
It's wolf and the lamb, not lion and the lamb.
[deleted]
Same rod as thy rod and thy staff comfort me
"Boy, I'll comfort you upside the head"
- Some sassy mom, somewhere
I fear you're not right about the rod referring to a shepherd's staff... The word is this one and it the shepherds staff is indeed one possible translation, and used as such in Psalm 23:4. But as you can see in String's concordance, the link I provided, it ranges from a king's scepter (Gen 49:10) to a battle weapon (2 Samuel 18:14)... And as a cane for corporal punishment used by slave master (Exodus 21:20), a parent (2 Samuel 7:24), or even God himself (Isaiah 11:4).
And strikingly, if we look at the instances of proverbs itself, they're either not clear... Or extremely clear like Proverbs 23:13-14 (KJV if you're that kind of person). Similarly, this sentiment is found in other texts of the time, and it's not surprising that they share the same... Advice.
All that being said, I'm glad that you seem that you feel like it's a bad thing to do because it demonstrably is. Don't beat your or any child, period.
I've often thought about and had questions about the rod and staff. I appreciate your comment, thank you!
It does mean to strike your children. But it's also a morally wrong passage.
Satan being God’s chief angel Lucifer, rebelling against God and being cast out for it.
That’s actually in various places in the Old and new testaments. It’s just not told the way we talk about it today.
It really isn’t though. It’s drawn from a condemnation against the King of Tyre and post-biblical theological developments and folklore.
And Paradise Lost
I think Jesus is being pretty literal when he talks about Satan's fall, but the idea of a chief angel and many of the details are clearly additions
That, combined with the passages in Revelation and the OT at least hint towards something but what that something is is vague and not fleshed out.
I frankly don’t think we should count revelation since the evidence supports that it’s really just early Christian apocalypse literature aimed at Caesar and Rome and not the end of the world.
Nero, more precisely.
I personally wouldn't say Caesar because that's not where the 636/666 solely comes from and Caesar makes people think it's about Gaius Julius I guess.
While I hold more to a both/and with regard to Revelation, that's still fair! The passage I quoted is from Luke and that might be the only reference to Satan "falling" in the NT (at least off the top of my head, unless an Epistle references it)
Not in the OT at all, Satan is under direct command from God.
I think you're thinking of Enoch. Which, sadly, hasnt been canonised despite being quoted.
This story actually has striking similarities to Christ‘s death and resurrection. Seems to be how this act was witnessed in the heavenly realm and not a separate event.
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
That when Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of the needle than for a rich man to go to heaven, he was referring to a low gate on a city wall. There is no evidence a gate like this ever existed.
That Job is the oldest book on the Old Testament. It is most likely one of the newest (more a misconception that’s often taught about the book).
The Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. This is never stated in the Bible.
God helps those that help themselves
Noah being taunted.
7 Deadly Sins
A lot of the nativity scene
Mary riding a donkey
There being 3 wise men (no number is given and “wise men” is magi, they also arrive on the scene later)
Jesus in a manger (more like feeding trough)
No animals are mentioned as present at the birth
It seems unlikely that she was 8-9 months pregnant and walked all the way from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
When I was growing up, I heard that some people think "neither a borrower nor a lender be" is in the Bible.
Right, the opposite is here: Luke 6:34 "And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full."
...That does sound like "don't lend, give."
Money is the root of all evil.
The actual quote is “The love of money is the root of all evil.”
Yes. My quote isn’t in the Bible
Christ and the rest of the New Testament authors never taught that christians are responsible for calling out sin in the lives of others or society.
There is exactly one passage that applies to average, every day christians when it comes to confronting the sins of others. And that is when Christ taught that if another christian sins against you specifically that you are to confront them.
Inversely, Christ taught multiple lessons where minding your own business is either the central or a strong sub-theme in the teaching. The older brother of the prodigal son, the people paid the same amount while working different hours, the beam in your own eye, and casting the first stone.
There is no mandate to judge the sins of others and definitely not any direction whatsoever to try to force your own views of morality onto other people through laws and government policies.
Purgatory
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
How would you explain what is meant here that some "works" will be burned up after our death, but we may still be saved through fire?
Hebrews 9:27-28 ESV And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
It is in the bible, it’s just in the books that Martin Luther took out since he disagreed with the Catholic Church
Please don't lie.
Sodom's sin being homosexuality, rather than breaking sacred hospitality.
God never changing His mind.
Hell being eternal.
Not just sacred hospitality, but rabid covetousness
For Sodom and Gomorrah I typically tend to think it is more about the raping of innocent travelers that enter the city. They literally gathered in large numbers to sexually assault and rape new people that visited them.
I guess that falls under breaking sacred hospitality but it feels like it is worth noting in and of itself. I am sure there are lot's of cities throughout history that were not very hospitable, but the mass rape of travelers is a whole other level.
This doesn't work as an explanation of why the city was wicked. The city had already been called wicked before that happened.
Do you think that the group with Lot was the first group to ever be sexually assaulted en masse in that city?
The story shows that these people didn't just come up with this practice. They all gathered because it was an expectation to sexually assault people new to the city.
For the author of Ezekiel at least, it is more about wealth inequality than it is the sexual act.
Fair enough. But again, many cities and nations in that time and place did not help the poor and needy. Many had wealth inequality. The question is what set these two cities apart.
Well, to my knowledge, they are the only cities in recorded history to spontaneously generate a mob of citizens that showed up expecting to rape newcomers to the city.
But, who knows. Maybe that was just a coincidence.
You've never heard of lynchings? They frequently raped the victims. Sodom was not an isolated incident and rape is about power, not sex. Keeping the foreigners in line, keeping the Black people in line, keeping the immigrants in line. The lynch mobs that raped Black people didn't do it because they were gay, they did it as a display and exercise of power over those that they viewed as property. The same as Sodom, it's about social inequality, not the sexual act itself.
I’m not sure where you’re getting those ideas from. This set of verses disproves both your first and last claim (please read them, just putting the specific verse for less text)
Jude 5-7 (not ignoring Ezekiel 16:49, as it and Jude give a full picture together; tons of wicked sin of all kinds)
“7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
Serving as an example shows that their acts were detestable, the practices are mentioned, and then it says the punishment is “eternal fire.”
What do you mean by your second point? Why do you say hell isn’t eternal? Source(s)?
“Sexual immorality” includes rape.
'Indulged in sexual immorality and unnatural desire' means the rape, not the sexual orientation of the rapists
Jude 7 is about sex with angels.
How do you think that is relevant?
The people who were requesting the strangers be sent out had no clue the strangers were angels.
Jude did.
Which is why he brings up the Genesis 19 story as part of his point about human / angel relations, in his discussion about the book of 1 Enoch.
Hell gets chucked into the lake of fire (a separate environment) at the very end of Revelation.
That the serpent in the garden of Eden is the Devil. That’s an extra biblical addition and interpretation.
That Noah went around warning people about the flood. Maybe he did, but it’s not in the Bible.
That there were three wise men. Bible never tells the number.
That Jesus was a newborn infant when the wisemen visited. He was most likely closer to two. (Imagine a Jesus in his “terrible two’s” running around causing a ruckus, killing plants in the house that don’t have flowers. 😂)
Um, on the serpent, it’s not extrabiblical. It’s mentioned in Revelation.
This is actually mentioned first in the Talmud and then in Revelation so it is not purely traditional.
Satan ruling Hell. It’s stated that “the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone …” - to be tormented himself in the destination, not sent for dominion or rulership.
The idea that hell is a fiery pit ruled by Satan. That's Dante.
The rapture is some version of believers getting zapped out of thier clothes to rise to heaven. That's the Left Behind series. That is a modern American idea.
Most of what we have in our nativity scene is made up. Mary had a baby, wrapped him in cloth, and laid him in a manger. That is all. Nothing about animals. Nothing about angels or glowing stars overhead. Not enough room in the guest room of a family member's house is more likely than an inn or a shed. An unknown number of magi came later to his home (like he was a child later) not the manger.
The Bible does not define "biblical marriage" as one universal model.
The Bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuality was not even a concept for them to define as a sin. The Leviticus verse does not use the Hebrew word for sin. It uses a word tied to ritual purity aka the same category that covers food laws and temple practices. And when you look at the context of the ancient world, those passages line up far more with exploitation and idolatry than with anything that looks like a loving, consensual adult same sex relationship today.
The Bible doesnt ban abortion or say life begins at conception.
Homosexuality
The word itself, “homosexuality” was made in English (language evolves and words get made) yet the act is described quite clearly, and is labelled as a sin, not for a follower of Christ.
Check out 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul is listing sin (and it encompasses all)!
If you disagree, I’d encourage you to see how Jesus’ defines marriage in Matthew 19.
Any sexual activity outside of husband and wife (married) is sinful, called fornication, sexual immorality, or adultery. Ergo, any sexual activity outside of marriage is… Sin.
>!This shouldn’t have to be stated, but I feel obligated people look for any excuse to diminish others, and that’s ungodly imo.
This does not condone any violence/hate/etc against those who practice. Those who do that must repent, in 1 Corinthians 5 it says God is to judge those outside, and the church is to judge within.
If you’d like further clarification, lmk !<
Thank you for the perfect examples of why people incorrectly believe this:
1 Corinthians 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality and any translation that uses that word is a mistranslation.
In Matthew 19 Jesus isn’t defining marriage, he’s rebuking divorce.
In the OT, sex is analogous to marriage. It was the two becoming one. This issue was taking another’s wife. If she was unmarried or widowed, she was available. Which is why prostitution was prohibited, she would be with different men. The word fornication comes from porne, which is prostitution or sex with multiple people and where we get our word pornography.
Otherwise I agree, we have no justification for hating on people or committing violence against them.
In reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9. There is no consensus that homosexuality is the only thing these words refer to. There is also no serious scholarly consensus that they have nothing to do with male/male sex.
One understanding is that Paul is condemning same-sex behavior, but especially exploitative, commercial, or adulterous forms. I don't think he is talking about sexual orientation. That is a more modern concept.
In Matthew 19, Jesus simultaneously rebukes divorce (his primary purpose) and affirms the created pattern of marriage.
The word, porneia can refer to prostitution. That's true. But it also refers more broadly to any sexual immorality outside marriage (adultery, incest, premarital sex, etc.).
The moral conclusion is true. Christianity absolutely forbids hatred and violence. We are to love our neighbors and our enemies. We are also expected to do good to those that hate us.
The modern American Catholic bible, NABRE, translates the words in Corinthians as "boy prostitute" and "sodomite" with a note that the sodomite is a man that has sex with the boy prostitute. Not one can say with certainty whether they are right or not, but the translators involved were very well educated.
"Homosexuality" is not an "act".
Homosexuality is not an act. It is an innate orientation.
You don't refer to adultery as "the heterosexual act" I presume.
Abortion really isn't talked about other than when God instructs dudes how to brew a "bitter brew" that would cause their wives would miscarry in the event she was unfaithful.
Condemnation of LGBT++
A godly marriage is only between one man and one woman. It is, in theory, not a sin to simply be homosexual (although a born again Christian would no more be one), but you can't marry the same gender, so it's not the straight issue that you're gay, rather that you will have sex outside of marriage, no matter if you are married to the same gender or not .
A "godly marriage" according to the Bible also includes child marriage, slavery, enforced marriage, and rape.
Multiple wives is very much encouraged by god in the bible
Nothing in the bible says this.
That’s not how it works.
Yes you can. I know of many examples.
Speaking of what’s nowhere in scripture…
(It’s in there - Any identity someone has that is not founded in Christ is not for a Christian. It’d be like trying to serve two masters, which Jesus’ also teaches about)
I'm sorry to hear you are so limited that you can only identify as one thing at a time.
Quite a lot of our standard Christian theology. If we read NT texts and let them speak for themselves, they present a variety of views on the nature of Jesus. He might have been just human, or a heavenly being, or maybe even God himself. He might have been promoted in status, and people place this promotion at various different times- his baptism, after his death, etc.
The early church tried to synthesize this all together and blended in some other ideas and eventually came up with the now-standard trinitarian model.
In all the Gospels Christ is depicted as God (as He is). The NT writings, early church father writings, and secular texts, are resources to read to see what has been consistent about the teachings within early Christianity.
I recommend St Ignatius, the Didache, and “Against Heresies” by Irenaeus. By reading those you’ll see that Christ is known as God, and is worshipped as such within Christianity.
It seems comments like these usually stem from people who think American Evangelicalism is a full, proper, all encompassing description of Christianity. So saying “standard Christian theology” is quite misleading; there are so many beliefs that have been consistent throughout the ages - People claiming otherwise usually are making bad faith arguments, or they’re genuinely ignorant (unaware, and fun ruin off their limited knowledge) of the development of the church (stating that for others, not you)
I'm very aware that our Christian theology says Jesus is God.
I wasn't talking about that though- I was talking about a pretty different topic- what the NT texts say.
I think the New Testament is fairly consistent that in some sense Jesus is to be identified with the God of Israel
The word "rapture". There is also no specific reference to a rapture-like event occurring before the tribulation period (please spare me the 1 Thess Ch. 4 references, there is nothing specific there). Nor is there clarity about a mid-trib or post-trib rapture to be fair. The rapture was a doctrine popularized in the 1800's by an Irish teacher named John Darby.
God doesn't give you any more than you can handle (2 Cor 1:8-9).
Some say the Trinity is not in the Bible directly, and has to be inferred. Which may not matter, since the Trinity is clearly in the tradition, but it could be important if you are a Biblical literalist.
Cleanliness is next to godliness, not in the Bible but it should be lol
"Money is the root of all evil" it's actually the LOVE of money.
Don't judge people.
Jesus actually said not to judge others, unless you then also accept the judgement of others. That said, the apostle Paul wrote to only judge other believers, but not those outside the church.
“God works in mysterious ways”. Not found in the Bible anywhere, but anyone who has read the Bible will know that in fact God does work in mysterious ways. And of course there’s this verse to back up the sentiment:
““For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8 NKJV
The other one is “Money is the root of all evil”.
The actual verse says:
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” I Timothy 6:10 NKJV
The “love of” is missing from the popular quote.
Wives must submit to their husbands. It goes on to say husbands are to submit to their wives as well. It was never meant to promote a one sided dynamic where the woman is always at a disadvantage
That Jesus is white. You’d be surprised how many people assume Jesus is European or have fair skin with long brown hair and soft hands, handsome too..which is ironic. If Jesus came back today, MAGA or some equivalent (ICE) would absolutely have him crucified AGAIN and the world would be as blind as it was in the past bc we’d all be focused on how he looks bc we didn’t learn shit as a whole since we still askin the same damn questions..
Praying to Saints and Mary — not in the bible and completely false. The Bible does not instruct Christians to honor saints, seek their intercession, or keep their relics.
Mary having a role in salvation or redemption. She is blessed among women, not above or equal to God.
Yeah, her only role in salvation or redemption is being how Jesus entered the world.
God made you the way you are.
Doctrine of the Trinity
(I know Im making folks mad with this one but it's the truest answer)
Apostolic succession.