Only if simultaneously being willfully obtuse and ignorant.
For example, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus forbids those going out to minister from brining a purse or money.
This necessarily prevents monetary collections.
So why is the church okay with taking your money today?
In part, rationalized by Paul’s arguments in 1 Cor 9 against the earlier Christian community there that don’t think it’s appropriate to profiteer off ministering.
But then even more, at the last supper in Luke, Jesus explicitly says “Hey guys, remember when I said not to carry purses? Let’s reverse that and now definitely carry purses.”
Except this addition to the last super in Luke-Acts is missing in Marcion’s version of that gospel, which is probably preserving the earliest extant version of it.
So while yes, you could in theory fit Jesus in the NT to agree with Paul that churches and those ministering have a right to profit from it and should definitely collect money from people (like they do in Acts 5 where an older couple who holds back money are both struck dead before Peter) - an even halfway critical eye should see that the historical Jesus was far more likely to have been against such practices given the widespread accounts of his ban, the earlier attitudes in Corinth, its embarrassing nature to be added in after already collecting money, and the late nature of the reversal.
And to see that much like biological evolution, ideas evolve over time too, and the version of Christianity we have today isn’t necessarily the one closest to the original form, but simply the form that was most adaptive through the fall of the Jerusalem temple, the endorsement of Rome, etc.
So yes, few people might know or see it this way, but that is largely because they don’t bother looking into their preconceptions and would rather believe a superficial picture that agrees with what they think they know (and I’m not only talking about Christians here either).
I’m saying the opposite. That the ways in which contradictions are layered, coupled with the extensive degrees of academic study of the text, should reasonably reduce the scope of worldviews that it can be used to support dramatically.
Yeah a lot of people miss things like context, knowledge of the time period, and a proper understanding of theology when they talk shit about the Bible. I’m not Christian myself, but a close friend of mine is Catholic, and after hearing his clarifications on supposed Biblical Plotholes and how much more complicated the subject is… Well it definitely made me start squinting at oversimplifications concerning theology with a little more scrutiny.
Also there have been many problems with text being lost in translation or altered like several letters by Paul were merged at some point by a scribe and it was copied over as is.
The fact that anyone says “Ah, but if I word for word cite this part of the bible and ignore any allegorical or contextual meaning, it looks dumb! An entire 2000 year old faith DESTROYED FOREVER!” and they aren’t kidding cringes the heck out of me
Only if simultaneously being willfully obtuse and ignorant.
For example, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus forbids those going out to minister from brining a purse or money.
This necessarily prevents monetary collections.
So why is the church okay with taking your money today?
In part, rationalized by Paul’s arguments in 1 Cor 9 against the earlier Christian community there that don’t think it’s appropriate to profiteer off ministering.
But then even more, at the last supper in Luke, Jesus explicitly says “Hey guys, remember when I said not to carry purses? Let’s reverse that and now definitely carry purses.”
Except this addition to the last super in Luke-Acts is missing in Marcion’s version of that gospel, which is probably preserving the earliest extant version of it.
So while yes, you could in theory fit Jesus in the NT to agree with Paul that churches and those ministering have a right to profit from it and should definitely collect money from people (like they do in Acts 5 where an older couple who holds back money are both struck dead before Peter) - an even halfway critical eye should see that the historical Jesus was far more likely to have been against such practices given the widespread accounts of his ban, the earlier attitudes in Corinth, its embarrassing nature to be added in after already collecting money, and the late nature of the reversal.
And to see that much like biological evolution, ideas evolve over time too, and the version of Christianity we have today isn’t necessarily the one closest to the original form, but simply the form that was most adaptive through the fall of the Jerusalem temple, the endorsement of Rome, etc.
So yes, few people might know or see it this way, but that is largely because they don’t bother looking into their preconceptions and would rather believe a superficial picture that agrees with what they think they know (and I’m not only talking about Christians here either).
deleted by creator
I’m saying the opposite. That the ways in which contradictions are layered, coupled with the extensive degrees of academic study of the text, should reasonably reduce the scope of worldviews that it can be used to support dramatically.
Yeah a lot of people miss things like context, knowledge of the time period, and a proper understanding of theology when they talk shit about the Bible. I’m not Christian myself, but a close friend of mine is Catholic, and after hearing his clarifications on supposed Biblical Plotholes and how much more complicated the subject is… Well it definitely made me start squinting at oversimplifications concerning theology with a little more scrutiny.
Also there have been many problems with text being lost in translation or altered like several letters by Paul were merged at some point by a scribe and it was copied over as is.
The fact that anyone says “Ah, but if I word for word cite this part of the bible and ignore any allegorical or contextual meaning, it looks dumb! An entire 2000 year old faith DESTROYED FOREVER!” and they aren’t kidding cringes the heck out of me