Priest today said lusting for someone (thoughts) is just as bad as actually cheating (sex)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not religious, but rebranding occasionally having a sexy thought about someone you're not married to (which literally every single married person has done) to "just as bad as actually cheating" sounds like a great way for a patriarchal institution to convince women to stay with their cheating jerks of husbands.

Just one perspective.

Correct. I am the PP who quoted catechisms, etc. to point out that the traditional position of the church is that some sins are much more serious than others. Christ himself spoke of "greater sin" in comparison to lesser. The posts here show just how far the culture has infected the church (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) in flattening all offenses to be the same. It is capitulation to moral relativism and it is NOT Christianity.

Yes, any sin separates a person from God. That is why we need a Savior. It does NOT mean that these sins are the same in gravity (either eternally or temporally).

To the poster who was claiming to speak for Orthodoxy: He is absolutely wrong. Orthodoxy does not teach that all sin is the same.

Except a passing thought is a venial sin and letting that thought grow is a mortal sin. So yes, lust is a mortal sin.

It's only a sin if your intent is not marital procreation or if you are committing adultery. Jesus approves of breeding kink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not religious, but rebranding occasionally having a sexy thought about someone you're not married to (which literally every single married person has done) to "just as bad as actually cheating" sounds like a great way for a patriarchal institution to convince women to stay with their cheating jerks of husbands.

Just one perspective.

Correct. I am the PP who quoted catechisms, etc. to point out that the traditional position of the church is that some sins are much more serious than others. Christ himself spoke of "greater sin" in comparison to lesser. The posts here show just how far the culture has infected the church (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) in flattening all offenses to be the same. It is capitulation to moral relativism and it is NOT Christianity.

Yes, any sin separates a person from God. That is why we need a Savior. It does NOT mean that these sins are the same in gravity (either eternally or temporally).

To the poster who was claiming to speak for Orthodoxy: He is absolutely wrong. Orthodoxy does not teach that all sin is the same.

I am Coptic Orthodox and we do not rank sin. As far as I am aware that is not something any orthodox Christian denomination does but I have been going only to Coptic churches as an adult. I grew up going to Eastern Orthodox Churches and the ranking of sin was never mentioned, so it’s not really a common teaching if it is one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sin is sin. there are no levels of sin. all sin is bad.

This is a stupid take.

Would you rather be r*ped or have someone think dirty thoughts about you?

Actually this is the theological position of many Christian denominations. I am Orthodox and this is our position. Sin is not measured by harm done. When the Pharisees brought the woman who had committed adultery to Jesus he did not measure her sin, he told her that she is forgiven and to sin no more.

All sin separates you from God and Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for all sinners, including murderers and rapists. That doesn’t mean murder and rape is ok, it means that there isn’t a hierarchy of sin in God’s eyes and that no matter how broken you are, God loves you. You don’t look at your kids and measure all of the bad things they have done. You want them to be better and you love them.

This is more of an evangelical teaching. Just accept Jesus as your savior and you are good to go.

In Catholicism, you have to be good to get to heaven.

No, just “accepting” Jesus is not enough in Orthodoxy, because the argument goes that even demons know Jesus is the savior. There has to be genuine love and repentance, not just poof you believe in Jesus and you’re good to go. Nor are there ranked sins and bean counting and checklists. It’s just your heart, not “acting” good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sin is sin. there are no levels of sin. all sin is bad.

This is a stupid take.

Would you rather be r*ped or have someone think dirty thoughts about you?

Actually this is the theological position of many Christian denominations. I am Orthodox and this is our position. Sin is not measured by harm done. When the Pharisees brought the woman who had committed adultery to Jesus he did not measure her sin, he told her that she is forgiven and to sin no more.

All sin separates you from God and Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for all sinners, including murderers and rapists. That doesn’t mean murder and rape is ok, it means that there isn’t a hierarchy of sin in God’s eyes and that no matter how broken you are, God loves you. You don’t look at your kids and measure all of the bad things they have done. You want them to be better and you love them.

PP is right that all sin is sin. What they dont point out is that murder and rape are the same as telling a white lie or thinking of your neighbor while masturbating.

Just think of how many "sins" you commit on a daily basis. Kind of difficult to seek forgiveness for everything yet everyone thinks they are going to heaven. 🙄

This is the entire point of Christianity. All of us will constantly fall short because there IS daily sin. That is why Jesus died for us. Jesus lived the perfect life we should have lived. He took the punishment that we deserve for our sin. And when you believe in Jesus sincerely in your heart and repent from your sin — you get his perfect record before God. This is the entire basis of substitionary atonement.

2 Corthinians 5:21 — For God made him sin who knew no sin so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

That’s why the Gospel is available to rapists and murderers.

However, I agree — if rapists and murders simply say “I believe in Jesus” — but there is no actual change in their heart — then they are not saved. God knows the difference.

As for people who do trust in Jesus and repent — it becomes a life long sanctification process. Your new heart grows every day and you become less and less like your old self and more and more like your new self. There is still sin in your life but again it is covered by the blood of Jesus and your legal status before God has changed. You change your behavior in order to reflect love back towards Jesus — not because you are trying really hard to follow a bunch of rules.

You might not agree with any of what I just wrote. But this is what Christianity teaches. It is the foundation of the religion. It is important just to have a clear understanding of what the faith teaches and your prior comment showed a lot of misinterpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Priests with sex and marriage advice can literally go…well, you know.

It’s just dumb. If my husband came to me and said he had thoughts about someone else but no action, that would be one form of hurt and one real conversation. If he acted on those thoughts, that would be another much deeper form of hurt and another more serious conversation.

Plus, a priest has no clue that spiciness in the marital bed might even get a boost from flirting or fantasy. So really, they can honesty just stick to topics where their guidance is more appropriate and relevant.

It’s wild how much of this thread is misinterpreted. Christianity does not teach that every single sexual “thought” means you are going to hell. The issue is whether you have lust in your heart. I posted earlier but to reiterate the example I used then — a lot of men know guys who constantly make crude sexual remarks, who comment on women, who seem to find a way to turn everything into sex. And the point is — these guys might not be cheating on their wives physically. But they have lust in their heart. And that’s what the sin is.

The verses in the Bible come from the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges overly legalistic interpretations of the law by the Pharisees. So the Pharisees thought — as long as you didn’t physically cheat — everything else was OK. And Jesus was showing them — you can refrain from physical cheating but still be living a life polluted by sexual sin because of constant lust for others. He was both reaffirming the Mosiac law but holding people to a higher standard.

And it’s actually the same standard that you would likely hold your husband to as well. If you found out that your husband was the type of guy who was constantly making crude comments about women, etc — you probably would be ticked off, even if he never physically cheated.

So in many ways you likely agree with what the priest and Jesus are teaching with this passage.

Martin Luther famously said — you cannot prevent a bird from flying over your head but you can prevent the bird from building a nest in your hair. That quote is especially true of sexual thoughts/lust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else's priest discuss similar today in the reading and homily?

Fantasizing about cheating is "adultery in your heart..." i.e. just as bad as the actual act of sleeping with someone. Is that genuine Catholic doctrine? He also segued into something about viewing pornography is essentially cheating too.

I think porn is disgusting, exploitative, and should be outlawed but I had never heard the argument that you shouldn't watch it because it's literally cheating on your spouse.

You shouldn’t watch it because it depicts rape of trafficked humans a significant portion of the time. And otherwise, it’s exploitive.

I agree with the priest. Everything starts in the mind. I pray for myself when I have lustful thoughts.

God bless you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Priests with sex and marriage advice can literally go…well, you know.

It’s just dumb. If my husband came to me and said he had thoughts about someone else but no action, that would be one form of hurt and one real conversation. If he acted on those thoughts, that would be another much deeper form of hurt and another more serious conversation.

Plus, a priest has no clue that spiciness in the marital bed might even get a boost from flirting or fantasy. So really, they can honesty just stick to topics where their guidance is more appropriate and relevant.

It’s wild how much of this thread is misinterpreted. Christianity does not teach that every single sexual “thought” means you are going to hell. The issue is whether you have lust in your heart. I posted earlier but to reiterate the example I used then — a lot of men know guys who constantly make crude sexual remarks, who comment on women, who seem to find a way to turn everything into sex. And the point is — these guys might not be cheating on their wives physically. But they have lust in their heart. And that’s what the sin is.

The verses in the Bible come from the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges overly legalistic interpretations of the law by the Pharisees. So the Pharisees thought — as long as you didn’t physically cheat — everything else was OK. And Jesus was showing them — you can refrain from physical cheating but still be living a life polluted by sexual sin because of constant lust for others. He was both reaffirming the Mosiac law but holding people to a higher standard.

And it’s actually the same standard that you would likely hold your husband to as well. If you found out that your husband was the type of guy who was constantly making crude comments about women, etc — you probably would be ticked off, even if he never physically cheated.

So in many ways you likely agree with what the priest and Jesus are teaching with this passage.

Martin Luther famously said — you cannot prevent a bird from flying over your head but you can prevent the bird from building a nest in your hair. That quote is especially true of sexual thoughts/lust.

For such an important speech, why is there zero record of it from the actual Jewish community in Judea? Why was Paul silent on it?

What is Paul silent on exactly? Paul speaks an LOT about this general topic. Are you saying Paul should talk directly about biblical quotes? Paul did not have access to the Gospel accounts. Are there “records” of speeches in Judea? Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus.

I posted the longer analysis last night. I agree with this, but, also, the OP was not asking about the historicity of Jesus. She was at a church on a Sunday morning. That much can be assumed from her message. She was asking other believers how to interpret a biblical passage. And then we have people like this poster jump in from the atheist camp and try to address a question that isn’t even being answered at all and distracts from the actual question. This is what frequently happens on this board. It’s tiring, annoying, and convinces nobody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not religious, but rebranding occasionally having a sexy thought about someone you're not married to (which literally every single married person has done) to "just as bad as actually cheating" sounds like a great way for a patriarchal institution to convince women to stay with their cheating jerks of husbands.

Just one perspective.

Correct. I am the PP who quoted catechisms, etc. to point out that the traditional position of the church is that some sins are much more serious than others. Christ himself spoke of "greater sin" in comparison to lesser. The posts here show just how far the culture has infected the church (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) in flattening all offenses to be the same. It is capitulation to moral relativism and it is NOT Christianity.

Yes, any sin separates a person from God. That is why we need a Savior. It does NOT mean that these sins are the same in gravity (either eternally or temporally).

To the poster who was claiming to speak for Orthodoxy: He is absolutely wrong. Orthodoxy does not teach that all sin is the same.

Except a passing thought is a venial sin and letting that thought grow is a mortal sin. So yes, lust is a mortal sin.

It's only a sin if your intent is not marital procreation or if you are committing adultery. Jesus approves of breeding kink.

A Catholic friend of mine says "when you're married, you can do anything." She and her now husband had sex on the first date. They knew it was a sin. Sex means a lot in their marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Priests with sex and marriage advice can literally go…well, you know.

It’s just dumb. If my husband came to me and said he had thoughts about someone else but no action, that would be one form of hurt and one real conversation. If he acted on those thoughts, that would be another much deeper form of hurt and another more serious conversation.

Plus, a priest has no clue that spiciness in the marital bed might even get a boost from flirting or fantasy. So really, they can honesty just stick to topics where their guidance is more appropriate and relevant.

It’s wild how much of this thread is misinterpreted. Christianity does not teach that every single sexual “thought” means you are going to hell. The issue is whether you have lust in your heart. I posted earlier but to reiterate the example I used then — a lot of men know guys who constantly make crude sexual remarks, who comment on women, who seem to find a way to turn everything into sex. And the point is — these guys might not be cheating on their wives physically. But they have lust in their heart. And that’s what the sin is.

The verses in the Bible come from the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges overly legalistic interpretations of the law by the Pharisees. So the Pharisees thought — as long as you didn’t physically cheat — everything else was OK. And Jesus was showing them — you can refrain from physical cheating but still be living a life polluted by sexual sin because of constant lust for others. He was both reaffirming the Mosiac law but holding people to a higher standard.

And it’s actually the same standard that you would likely hold your husband to as well. If you found out that your husband was the type of guy who was constantly making crude comments about women, etc — you probably would be ticked off, even if he never physically cheated.

So in many ways you likely agree with what the priest and Jesus are teaching with this passage.

Martin Luther famously said — you cannot prevent a bird from flying over your head but you can prevent the bird from building a nest in your hair. That quote is especially true of sexual thoughts/lust.

For such an important speech, why is there zero record of it from the actual Jewish community in Judea? Why was Paul silent on it?

What is Paul silent on exactly? Paul speaks an LOT about this general topic. Are you saying Paul should talk directly about biblical quotes? Paul did not have access to the Gospel accounts. Are there “records” of speeches in Judea? Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus.

LOL - "Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus." Typical lack of knowledge of actual facts. Herodotus lived nearly 500 years before the alleged time of Jesus.

Where does Paul mention anything from the Sermon on the Mount? Go ahead. Show one specific and matching reference that shows he knew the full content of the sermon as written later in the gospels. I would wait, but I don't have forever for you to find one since it doesn't exist.

What's more likely is that the gospel authors took concepts that were circulating among those early christian communities and turned it into the sermon. This is the epitome of storytelling. Taking different pieces and weaving them into one story to try to get a point across, especially when delivered by your perfect, fictional character.

It’s such a tedious debate.

By this logic — if Paul DOES include something in his letters — then it must be true! He talks extensively about the resurrection. Therefore, it must have happened. For some reason, I don’t believe you will agree with that. But that’s exactly where your logic lands you.

Moreover, all of Paul’s letters — every single one — has the same theme as the Sermon on the Mount — that the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders adhered to an overally legalistic interpretation of the law to achieve salvation and that this interpretation missed the entire point of Jesus — who was our sacrifice for salvation. The point is faith in Jesus and how this changes your heart — or the fruit of the spirit to use Paul’s metaphor. Beyond that, Paul writes extensively about sexual immorality in a way that is completely consistent with the Sermon on the Mount and shows that he very well probably heard Jesus’s teaching on this point.

Paul was the first church planter. We have no idea if when he was setting up and talking to his churches he talked about the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe he did? You certainly can’t prove that he didn’t. The letters are written back to the churches he pastored, many of which were written in response to concerns or issues raised by his new believers. His purpose with the letters was not to recite the entire account of Jesus’s life. It was to provide a combination of practical advice and theological underpinning to their faith.

These are very basic issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Priests with sex and marriage advice can literally go…well, you know.

It’s just dumb. If my husband came to me and said he had thoughts about someone else but no action, that would be one form of hurt and one real conversation. If he acted on those thoughts, that would be another much deeper form of hurt and another more serious conversation.

Plus, a priest has no clue that spiciness in the marital bed might even get a boost from flirting or fantasy. So really, they can honesty just stick to topics where their guidance is more appropriate and relevant.

It’s wild how much of this thread is misinterpreted. Christianity does not teach that every single sexual “thought” means you are going to hell. The issue is whether you have lust in your heart. I posted earlier but to reiterate the example I used then — a lot of men know guys who constantly make crude sexual remarks, who comment on women, who seem to find a way to turn everything into sex. And the point is — these guys might not be cheating on their wives physically. But they have lust in their heart. And that’s what the sin is.

The verses in the Bible come from the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges overly legalistic interpretations of the law by the Pharisees. So the Pharisees thought — as long as you didn’t physically cheat — everything else was OK. And Jesus was showing them — you can refrain from physical cheating but still be living a life polluted by sexual sin because of constant lust for others. He was both reaffirming the Mosiac law but holding people to a higher standard.

And it’s actually the same standard that you would likely hold your husband to as well. If you found out that your husband was the type of guy who was constantly making crude comments about women, etc — you probably would be ticked off, even if he never physically cheated.

So in many ways you likely agree with what the priest and Jesus are teaching with this passage.

Martin Luther famously said — you cannot prevent a bird from flying over your head but you can prevent the bird from building a nest in your hair. That quote is especially true of sexual thoughts/lust.

For such an important speech, why is there zero record of it from the actual Jewish community in Judea? Why was Paul silent on it?

What is Paul silent on exactly? Paul speaks an LOT about this general topic. Are you saying Paul should talk directly about biblical quotes? Paul did not have access to the Gospel accounts. Are there “records” of speeches in Judea? Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus.

LOL - "Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus." Typical lack of knowledge of actual facts. Herodotus lived nearly 500 years before the alleged time of Jesus.

Where does Paul mention anything from the Sermon on the Mount? Go ahead. Show one specific and matching reference that shows he knew the full content of the sermon as written later in the gospels. I would wait, but I don't have forever for you to find one since it doesn't exist.

What's more likely is that the gospel authors took concepts that were circulating among those early christian communities and turned it into the sermon. This is the epitome of storytelling. Taking different pieces and weaving them into one story to try to get a point across, especially when delivered by your perfect, fictional character.

It’s such a tedious debate.

By this logic — if Paul DOES include something in his letters — then it must be true! He talks extensively about the resurrection. Therefore, it must have happened. For some reason, I don’t believe you will agree with that. But that’s exactly where your logic lands you.

Moreover, all of Paul’s letters — every single one — has the same theme as the Sermon on the Mount — that the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders adhered to an overally legalistic interpretation of the law to achieve salvation and that this interpretation missed the entire point of Jesus — who was our sacrifice for salvation. The point is faith in Jesus and how this changes your heart — or the fruit of the spirit to use Paul’s metaphor. Beyond that, Paul writes extensively about sexual immorality in a way that is completely consistent with the Sermon on the Mount and shows that he very well probably heard Jesus’s teaching on this point.

Paul was the first church planter. We have no idea if when he was setting up and talking to his churches he talked about the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe he did? You certainly can’t prove that he didn’t. The letters are written back to the churches he pastored, many of which were written in response to concerns or issues raised by his new believers. His purpose with the letters was not to recite the entire account of Jesus’s life. It was to provide a combination of practical advice and theological underpinning to their faith.

These are very basic issues.

Paul talks extensively about a celestial Jesus. An event he learned about through "revelation", not from an oral history passed on by actual witnesses. Your logic fails.

Paul was trying to convert Greco-Roman gentiles to his new faith. These people knew practically nothing about Jewish law and custom. They spoke a different language. They lived in a different area. They had different customs. But, they did know about "sons of god". They knew about dying and rising gods. They knew about making sacrifices in temples.

Paul's very conflict with the actual "jewish christians" in Judea and their rejection of Paul's teachings is why Christianity spread among the gentiles, but was a dead end among Jesus' supposed actual community. For those that supposedly were around to see his sermons, witness his deeds, etc, very few converted. Meanwhile, the Greco-Roman's were primed to adopt Paul's new "revealed" story.

Which of the following makes more sense: 1) Paul, who's job was to evangelize among the gentiles, used absolutely nothing attributed to Jesus in ANY of his writings or 2) the gospel authors who were exposed to Paul's teachings created a story to fit the pieces into a single narrative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Priests with sex and marriage advice can literally go…well, you know.

It’s just dumb. If my husband came to me and said he had thoughts about someone else but no action, that would be one form of hurt and one real conversation. If he acted on those thoughts, that would be another much deeper form of hurt and another more serious conversation.

Plus, a priest has no clue that spiciness in the marital bed might even get a boost from flirting or fantasy. So really, they can honesty just stick to topics where their guidance is more appropriate and relevant.

It’s wild how much of this thread is misinterpreted. Christianity does not teach that every single sexual “thought” means you are going to hell. The issue is whether you have lust in your heart. I posted earlier but to reiterate the example I used then — a lot of men know guys who constantly make crude sexual remarks, who comment on women, who seem to find a way to turn everything into sex. And the point is — these guys might not be cheating on their wives physically. But they have lust in their heart. And that’s what the sin is.

The verses in the Bible come from the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges overly legalistic interpretations of the law by the Pharisees. So the Pharisees thought — as long as you didn’t physically cheat — everything else was OK. And Jesus was showing them — you can refrain from physical cheating but still be living a life polluted by sexual sin because of constant lust for others. He was both reaffirming the Mosiac law but holding people to a higher standard.

And it’s actually the same standard that you would likely hold your husband to as well. If you found out that your husband was the type of guy who was constantly making crude comments about women, etc — you probably would be ticked off, even if he never physically cheated.

So in many ways you likely agree with what the priest and Jesus are teaching with this passage.

Martin Luther famously said — you cannot prevent a bird from flying over your head but you can prevent the bird from building a nest in your hair. That quote is especially true of sexual thoughts/lust.

For such an important speech, why is there zero record of it from the actual Jewish community in Judea? Why was Paul silent on it?

What is Paul silent on exactly? Paul speaks an LOT about this general topic. Are you saying Paul should talk directly about biblical quotes? Paul did not have access to the Gospel accounts. Are there “records” of speeches in Judea? Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus.

LOL - "Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus." Typical lack of knowledge of actual facts. Herodotus lived nearly 500 years before the alleged time of Jesus.

Where does Paul mention anything from the Sermon on the Mount? Go ahead. Show one specific and matching reference that shows he knew the full content of the sermon as written later in the gospels. I would wait, but I don't have forever for you to find one since it doesn't exist.

What's more likely is that the gospel authors took concepts that were circulating among those early christian communities and turned it into the sermon. This is the epitome of storytelling. Taking different pieces and weaving them into one story to try to get a point across, especially when delivered by your perfect, fictional character.

It’s such a tedious debate.

By this logic — if Paul DOES include something in his letters — then it must be true! He talks extensively about the resurrection. Therefore, it must have happened. For some reason, I don’t believe you will agree with that. But that’s exactly where your logic lands you.

Moreover, all of Paul’s letters — every single one — has the same theme as the Sermon on the Mount — that the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders adhered to an overally legalistic interpretation of the law to achieve salvation and that this interpretation missed the entire point of Jesus — who was our sacrifice for salvation. The point is faith in Jesus and how this changes your heart — or the fruit of the spirit to use Paul’s metaphor. Beyond that, Paul writes extensively about sexual immorality in a way that is completely consistent with the Sermon on the Mount and shows that he very well probably heard Jesus’s teaching on this point.

Paul was the first church planter. We have no idea if when he was setting up and talking to his churches he talked about the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe he did? You certainly can’t prove that he didn’t. The letters are written back to the churches he pastored, many of which were written in response to concerns or issues raised by his new believers. His purpose with the letters was not to recite the entire account of Jesus’s life. It was to provide a combination of practical advice and theological underpinning to their faith.

These are very basic issues.

Paul talks extensively about a celestial Jesus. An event he learned about through "revelation", not from an oral history passed on by actual witnesses. Your logic fails.

Paul was trying to convert Greco-Roman gentiles to his new faith. These people knew practically nothing about Jewish law and custom. They spoke a different language. They lived in a different area. They had different customs. But, they did know about "sons of god". They knew about dying and rising gods. They knew about making sacrifices in temples.

Paul's very conflict with the actual "jewish christians" in Judea and their rejection of Paul's teachings is why Christianity spread among the gentiles, but was a dead end among Jesus' supposed actual community. For those that supposedly were around to see his sermons, witness his deeds, etc, very few converted. Meanwhile, the Greco-Roman's were primed to adopt Paul's new "revealed" story.

Which of the following makes more sense: 1) Paul, who's job was to evangelize among the gentiles, used absolutely nothing attributed to Jesus in ANY of his writings or 2) the gospel authors who were exposed to Paul's teachings created a story to fit the pieces into a single narrative?

This is empirically not true. Yes, there was divine revelation. But Paul was also in touch with Jesus’s other early followers — it is a combination. Acts is clear about this as are numerous letters (1 Corthinians 15 for instance). Moreover, Paul’s ministry was not confined to gentiles. Many of his churches were mixed.

Hey, if you want to believe that Paul just made the entire thing up — and then the authors of the Gospels decided to create all kinds of fanciful stories about Jesus with extraordinary detail including people, places, and things — and they did all of this at the peril of their own death — just for the heck of it all — that’s fine.

The reality is this — Paul could have recited the entire Sermon on the Mount verbatim in every single letter and it wouldn’t make you a believer. So don’t cite this as some sort of “smoking gun” to “prove” that the Sermon on the Mount never occurred. Just be honest and say you would never believe any of this regardless of what Paul wrote or didn’t write. That’s the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Priests with sex and marriage advice can literally go…well, you know.

It’s just dumb. If my husband came to me and said he had thoughts about someone else but no action, that would be one form of hurt and one real conversation. If he acted on those thoughts, that would be another much deeper form of hurt and another more serious conversation.

Plus, a priest has no clue that spiciness in the marital bed might even get a boost from flirting or fantasy. So really, they can honesty just stick to topics where their guidance is more appropriate and relevant.

It’s wild how much of this thread is misinterpreted. Christianity does not teach that every single sexual “thought” means you are going to hell. The issue is whether you have lust in your heart. I posted earlier but to reiterate the example I used then — a lot of men know guys who constantly make crude sexual remarks, who comment on women, who seem to find a way to turn everything into sex. And the point is — these guys might not be cheating on their wives physically. But they have lust in their heart. And that’s what the sin is.

The verses in the Bible come from the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges overly legalistic interpretations of the law by the Pharisees. So the Pharisees thought — as long as you didn’t physically cheat — everything else was OK. And Jesus was showing them — you can refrain from physical cheating but still be living a life polluted by sexual sin because of constant lust for others. He was both reaffirming the Mosiac law but holding people to a higher standard.

And it’s actually the same standard that you would likely hold your husband to as well. If you found out that your husband was the type of guy who was constantly making crude comments about women, etc — you probably would be ticked off, even if he never physically cheated.

So in many ways you likely agree with what the priest and Jesus are teaching with this passage.

Martin Luther famously said — you cannot prevent a bird from flying over your head but you can prevent the bird from building a nest in your hair. That quote is especially true of sexual thoughts/lust.

For such an important speech, why is there zero record of it from the actual Jewish community in Judea? Why was Paul silent on it?

What is Paul silent on exactly? Paul speaks an LOT about this general topic. Are you saying Paul should talk directly about biblical quotes? Paul did not have access to the Gospel accounts. Are there “records” of speeches in Judea? Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus.

LOL - "Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus." Typical lack of knowledge of actual facts. Herodotus lived nearly 500 years before the alleged time of Jesus.

Where does Paul mention anything from the Sermon on the Mount? Go ahead. Show one specific and matching reference that shows he knew the full content of the sermon as written later in the gospels. I would wait, but I don't have forever for you to find one since it doesn't exist.

What's more likely is that the gospel authors took concepts that were circulating among those early christian communities and turned it into the sermon. This is the epitome of storytelling. Taking different pieces and weaving them into one story to try to get a point across, especially when delivered by your perfect, fictional character.

It’s such a tedious debate.

By this logic — if Paul DOES include something in his letters — then it must be true! He talks extensively about the resurrection. Therefore, it must have happened. For some reason, I don’t believe you will agree with that. But that’s exactly where your logic lands you.

Moreover, all of Paul’s letters — every single one — has the same theme as the Sermon on the Mount — that the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders adhered to an overally legalistic interpretation of the law to achieve salvation and that this interpretation missed the entire point of Jesus — who was our sacrifice for salvation. The point is faith in Jesus and how this changes your heart — or the fruit of the spirit to use Paul’s metaphor. Beyond that, Paul writes extensively about sexual immorality in a way that is completely consistent with the Sermon on the Mount and shows that he very well probably heard Jesus’s teaching on this point.

Paul was the first church planter. We have no idea if when he was setting up and talking to his churches he talked about the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe he did? You certainly can’t prove that he didn’t. The letters are written back to the churches he pastored, many of which were written in response to concerns or issues raised by his new believers. His purpose with the letters was not to recite the entire account of Jesus’s life. It was to provide a combination of practical advice and theological underpinning to their faith.

These are very basic issues.

Paul talks extensively about a celestial Jesus. An event he learned about through "revelation", not from an oral history passed on by actual witnesses. Your logic fails.

Paul was trying to convert Greco-Roman gentiles to his new faith. These people knew practically nothing about Jewish law and custom. They spoke a different language. They lived in a different area. They had different customs. But, they did know about "sons of god". They knew about dying and rising gods. They knew about making sacrifices in temples.

Paul's very conflict with the actual "jewish christians" in Judea and their rejection of Paul's teachings is why Christianity spread among the gentiles, but was a dead end among Jesus' supposed actual community. For those that supposedly were around to see his sermons, witness his deeds, etc, very few converted. Meanwhile, the Greco-Roman's were primed to adopt Paul's new "revealed" story.

Which of the following makes more sense: 1) Paul, who's job was to evangelize among the gentiles, used absolutely nothing attributed to Jesus in ANY of his writings or 2) the gospel authors who were exposed to Paul's teachings created a story to fit the pieces into a single narrative?

DP, and I take your points. Your reasoning is flawed. You seem to be trying to show that Paul's testimony is spurious by accepting that his writings are not. It is an incoherent way to approach ancient texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Priests with sex and marriage advice can literally go…well, you know.

It’s just dumb. If my husband came to me and said he had thoughts about someone else but no action, that would be one form of hurt and one real conversation. If he acted on those thoughts, that would be another much deeper form of hurt and another more serious conversation.

Plus, a priest has no clue that spiciness in the marital bed might even get a boost from flirting or fantasy. So really, they can honesty just stick to topics where their guidance is more appropriate and relevant.

It’s wild how much of this thread is misinterpreted. Christianity does not teach that every single sexual “thought” means you are going to hell. The issue is whether you have lust in your heart. I posted earlier but to reiterate the example I used then — a lot of men know guys who constantly make crude sexual remarks, who comment on women, who seem to find a way to turn everything into sex. And the point is — these guys might not be cheating on their wives physically. But they have lust in their heart. And that’s what the sin is.

The verses in the Bible come from the Sermon on the Mount. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus challenges overly legalistic interpretations of the law by the Pharisees. So the Pharisees thought — as long as you didn’t physically cheat — everything else was OK. And Jesus was showing them — you can refrain from physical cheating but still be living a life polluted by sexual sin because of constant lust for others. He was both reaffirming the Mosiac law but holding people to a higher standard.

And it’s actually the same standard that you would likely hold your husband to as well. If you found out that your husband was the type of guy who was constantly making crude comments about women, etc — you probably would be ticked off, even if he never physically cheated.

So in many ways you likely agree with what the priest and Jesus are teaching with this passage.

Martin Luther famously said — you cannot prevent a bird from flying over your head but you can prevent the bird from building a nest in your hair. That quote is especially true of sexual thoughts/lust.

For such an important speech, why is there zero record of it from the actual Jewish community in Judea? Why was Paul silent on it?

What is Paul silent on exactly? Paul speaks an LOT about this general topic. Are you saying Paul should talk directly about biblical quotes? Paul did not have access to the Gospel accounts. Are there “records” of speeches in Judea? Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus.

LOL - "Contemporary historians like Herodotus do mention Jesus." Typical lack of knowledge of actual facts. Herodotus lived nearly 500 years before the alleged time of Jesus.

Where does Paul mention anything from the Sermon on the Mount? Go ahead. Show one specific and matching reference that shows he knew the full content of the sermon as written later in the gospels. I would wait, but I don't have forever for you to find one since it doesn't exist.

What's more likely is that the gospel authors took concepts that were circulating among those early christian communities and turned it into the sermon. This is the epitome of storytelling. Taking different pieces and weaving them into one story to try to get a point across, especially when delivered by your perfect, fictional character.

Sorry, you’re right, I confused Herodotus and Josephus. Here are the ancient historians who mentioned Jesus according to Google:

Key Historians and Sources:
Flavius Josephus (c. 37–100 AD): A Jewish historian who mentioned Jesus twice in Antiquities of the Jews, including the "Testimonium Flavianum". He also references James, the brother of Jesus.
Tacitus (c. 56–120 AD): A Roman historian who reported that "Christus" was executed by procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, noting the spread of the "superstition".
Pliny the Younger (c. 61–113 AD): A Roman governor who wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding trials of early Christians who worshipped Jesus as a god.
Suetonius (c. 69–122 AD): A Roman historian who mentioned disturbances among the Jews in Rome caused by "Chrestus".
Mara bar Serapion: A Syrian philosopher who wrote a letter comparing the execution of their "wise king" to others.

Chill. This is a super weak way to approach this. You are not proving the existence of Jesus as a historical figure by name checking a few Roman Empire historians.

Every modern historian accepts the historicity of a real person Jesus. It is one of the most knowable facts of antiquity. Christianity does not follow from the mere existence of Jesus.

I'm a Christian. So I'm just saying argue better.

Argue what better exactly? On DCUM? . I copied a google result, it was not terribly consuming. Pp does not care about the historicity of Jesus but I was responding to her point about Herodotus- I mixed up historians.