# Actually, that's not in the Bible



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 5, 2011)

> Most people who profess a deep love of the Bible have never actually  read the book, says Rabbi Rami Shapiro, who once had to persuade a  student in his Bible class at Middle Tennessee State University that the  saying this dog wont hunt doesnt appear in the Book of Proverbs.
> They have memorized parts of texts that they can string together to  prove the biblical basis for whatever it is they believe in, he says,  but they ignore the vast majority of the text."


Interesting article.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/thats-not-in-the-bible/?hpt=hp_c1


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 5, 2011)

Doesn't surprise me.
Most people are quite ignorant of recent history/events, so to be able to know what is in multiple ironage stories translated from 2000 year old Greek, 500 years ago....


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 5, 2011)

I never thought that, "The Lord helps those who help themselves"  saying was about a person's worth to God; in fact, this is the first time I have heard that.
Sean


----------



## fangjian (Jun 5, 2011)

It amazes me how many people refer back to the bible for _evidence_ of what they are claiming, yet are extremely ignorant to the text itself. I've read the whole thing once, and go to certain sections on occasion if the need arises. Actually now that I think about it, reading it for the first time decades ago, is what turned me into a non believer. 


"spare the rod, spoil the child"  That has to be the dumbest advice not found in the bible. Because we all _know_ that the best way to _communicate_ with a fellow human being, is to hold them in one place and beat them without allowing them to defend themselves. Now that makes sense. :/


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 5, 2011)

I myself having read through the KJV of the Bible once and found it gave me a headache. 
But re-reading and doing some meditation of certain events have helped me understand it better. That and knowing that the guys who translated the bible for King James probably edited the crap out of it... leaving out many important details that would change what the dominating church was presently teaching. In other words... edit to suit. Granted the guys who translated the bible weren't Catholic (because the church didn't want anyone else to learn how to read anyway (see Victor Hugo's Hunchback Of Norte Dame) but either way with no-one to contradict them or point out errors or mysteriously vanishing text... they could've translated them any ole' way they wanted to now couldnt they? 

Anyway... I don't take anyone's word as gospel (pardon the pun) when they say this or that is in the bible... I'll make note of it and check it out myself and decide for myself... isn't this what everyone else should do??


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 5, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> I myself having read through the KJV of the Bible once and found it gave me a headache.


 
So...you're saying...God gives you a headache..IS THAT IT!!!!!! :uhyeah:



MA-Caver said:


> Anyway... I don't take anyone's word as gospel (pardon the pun)


 
No :uhyeah:



MA-Caver said:


> isn't this what everyone else should do??


 
Yes, yes they should... but they generally don't


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 5, 2011)

I can see paraphrasing, "whoever spares the rod, hates his child" into "spare the rod, spoil the child".  BUT, you should know where it comes from and the full text.

The other things mentioned, I knew were not biblical verses.  Some of my pet peeves when it comes to this...

1) The Book of Revelations: NO!  It is not plural, there was only one Revelation. The book is singular.

2) Mary Magdalene (sp?):  She was not a hooker, the Bible never says she was.  She is introduced in the gospels and then there is a story about a hooker, never says she is/was one.

3) Jesus entering into Hell:  After Jesus' death, he spends his 3 days going into Hell and taking the keys from Satan to have power over life and death.  Sorry, not in the Bible.  Some apocryphal stories tell of this though along with Jesus making clay birds and then making them come to life.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 5, 2011)

If I was to say that the Bible is work of fiction I would annoy the believers here at MT beyond all measure and, odd as it might sound, I don't like to do that.  But it is not a work of fact.  It is a social control propoganda instrument that has been rewritten several times to better maintain that control as the social setting evolved.

Compare the present day versions (the very existence of different versions is a signal of the problem) to the oldest complete text that was found a while back.  The differences are astounding, particularly with regard to those pivotal points about Christ the Saviour and the Resurection.

As I ever say, people are free to believe in whatever mythos they want and are free to substantiate that for themselves on whatever premis they wish.  It only becomes a problem when it becomes more than that and groups begin to 'interpret' scripture to suit their purposes and 'damn' those that will not adhere to that interpretation.

Science does much the same thing except that that philosophy of thought is very deliberately based upon falsifiability not infallability.  To my mind, as I've said before, the phrase "Divinely inspired by God" equates to "The Abrogation of Reason", that is most especially so when the entire ediface stands upon a book the provenance of which is utterly discredited.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 5, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> If I was to say that the Bible is work of fiction I would annoy the believers here at MT beyond all measure and, odd as it might sound, I don't like to do that. But it is not a work of fact. It is a social control propoganda instrument that has been rewritten several times to better maintain that control as the social setting evolved.
> 
> Compare the present day versions (the very existence of different versions is a signal of the problem) to the oldest complete text that was found a while back. The differences are astounding, particularly with regard to those pivotal points about Christ the Saviour and the Resurection.
> 
> ...


 
:asian:

I owe you a rep....won't let me give you one just yet! Nice post.

And don't forget there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed at all. The first mention of him occurs 40 -50 years after his "death".


----------



## granfire (Jun 5, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I can see paraphrasing, "whoever spares the rod, hates his child" into "spare the rod, spoil the child".  BUT, you should know where it comes from and the full text.
> 
> The other things mentioned, I knew were not biblical verses.  Some of my pet peeves when it comes to this...
> 
> 1) The Book of Revelations: NO!  It is not plural, there was only one Revelation. The book is singular.


 semantics


> 2) Mary Magdalene (sp?):  She was not a hooker, the Bible never says she was.  She is introduced in the gospels and then there is a story about a hooker, never says she is/was one.


don't matter, all women are whores. You missed that in catechism 666



> 3) Jesus entering into Hell:  After Jesus' death, he spends his 3 days going into Hell and taking the keys from Satan to have power over life and death.  Sorry, not in the Bible.  Some apocryphal stories tell of this though along with Jesus making clay birds and then making them come to life.


well, in all fairness, there are a  lot of stories that did not make it into the Good Book, but were part of the gospel at one time. Like the Gospel According to Mary, and another apocalyptic story, but that other guy, so some of the bible stories lost context...(interestingly, some branches of Christianity still have some of those forgotten books in their bibles...)


----------



## fangjian (Jun 6, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> And don't forget there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed at all. The first mention of him occurs 40 -50 years after his "death".



I usually tend to be on the side of the fence that believe he at least existed. That's probably only because he is so popular now, though.

 It is odd, there is no cross referencing in anything outside the bible. He raised such a ruckus with the Romans, and the Romans never mentioned this @ hole, who was bothering them. You'd imagine they would write down with glee, how they dealt with him.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 6, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I usually tend to be on the side of the fence that believe he at least existed. That's probably only because he is so popular now, though.
> 
> It is odd, there is no cross referencing in anything outside the bible. He raised such a ruckus with the Romans, and the Romans never mentioned this @ hole, who was bothering them. You'd imagine they would write down with glee, how they dealt with him.


Did Christ Himself really raise the ruckus with the Romans, or was it his followers?

This was a period where there was a lot of hunting in the Jewish community for a messiah to liberate them from Roman rule.  There were a fair number of groups around, promoting various people, and Jesus Christ would have been simply one more in the crowd, and the first Christians simply an offshoot of Judaism (which is what they considered themselves).  Bluntly, he wouldn't have been much more than one more gnat against Rome.  Over time, his followers influenced more and more people and the early Christians became a problem for the Romans.  (For some, myself included, this speaks rather strongly to the difference and authority of his teaching.)

Regarding the Bible itself...  My belief is that it is the inspired Word of God.  It is true -- but not necessarily literally.  There are, for example, two accounts of creation.  Which one is "true" if it is literal truth.  I trust and believe that the Church Fathers who assembled the Bible were steered to protect the truth of the message.  It's also not complete by itself.  Church tradition and teaching is also part of the message.  This actually reflects Jewish tradition of how to read scripture.  I really found a book by Fr. Andrew Greeley and Rabbi Jacob Nuesner; I read it as *The Bible and Us* but it looks like it's been republished and renamed as Common Ground: A Priest and a Rabbi Read Scripture Together.  In it, they alternate chapters and discuss how they read the scriptures, and why they do it that way.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

IDK, all around I think Jesus was an OK guy...did some cool stuff, said some smart stuff..

but why are most of his so called "followers" so hell bent on distorting what he truely said and meant.

Well maybe its because humans have this way about them...greed, hate and the Obsessiveness over how others should live there lives.

If you truely want to know Chirst, then read not only the Bible, but also the Gnostic books, that were left out by the council of nicea...If Jesus said/did it, it must be good.


----------



## granfire (Jun 6, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> :asian:
> 
> I owe you a rep....won't let me give you one just yet! Nice post.
> 
> And don't forget there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed at all. The first mention of him occurs 40 -50 years after his "death".




LOL, actually they are very sure he did exist. Roman sources I believe did mention that revolutionary trouble maker.

Just the stories around him....


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 6, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> IDK, all around I think Jesus was an OK guy...did some cool stuff, said some smart stuff..
> 
> but why are most of his so called "followers" so hell bent on distorting what he truely said and meant.
> 
> ...


Google Zeitgeist, and watch the first half... you are welcome to watch the second half but watch the first half for sure.
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

Most of the Roman sources that mention Jesus have been discredited. Tactius for example, the portions of his works that referenced Jesus were additions added centuries after his death. Earlier versions of the same writings made no mention. Longer discussion on that is buried here somewhere.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL, actually they are very sure he did exist. Roman sources I believe did mention that revolutionary trouble maker.
> 
> Just the stories around him....


 
Nope. Zip. Nanna. Nothing anywhere till the first book of the bible.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 6, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Google Zeitgeist, and watch the first half... you are welcome to watch the second half but watch the first half for sure.
> Sean


 

Seen it...and yep..lol


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 6, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> :asian:
> 
> I owe you a rep....won't let me give you one just yet! Nice post.
> 
> And don't forget there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed at all. The first mention of him occurs 40 -50 years after his "death".


 
What would you accept as historical evidence?  The Romans destroyed most of Jerusalem and most of it's people in 70AD, how much was lost that was written by the Jews.  You have accounts from eyewitnesses that lived with Jesus and followed him (Gospel of Mark--Peter's account).

Also, why would anyone outside of the early Christians record about him anyways?  Look at the history of this country, did we record all of the leaders of Indian tribes that conducted raids etc. in small outposts against us?  Most things like that are left out of history.  To the Romans, this was no different.  At the time it was something small in a remote part of the empire and had no bearing on them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

Eyewitness accounts, that according to many biblical scholars were often written years after the alleged author died.  Then there are the other Gospels that weren't selected for inclusion when the Bible was assembled. Books left out are often found in the Gnostic and Coptic versions, or left orphaned as it were as they contradict other books.  An argument for their legitimacy is the lack of mentioning of the sacking of the Temple in 70ad, however actual authorship is disputed.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 6, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> What would you accept as historical evidence? The Romans destroyed most of Jerusalem and most of it's people in 70AD, how much was lost that was written by the Jews. You have accounts from eyewitnesses that lived with Jesus and followed him (Gospel of Mark--Peter's account).
> 
> Also, why would anyone outside of the early Christians record about him anyways? Look at the history of this country, did we record all of the leaders of Indian tribes that conducted raids etc. in small outposts against us? Most things like that are left out of history. To the Romans, this was no different. At the time it was something small in a remote part of the empire and had no bearing on them.


 
Its all second and third hand accounts

There are tonnes of Roman/Greek/Egyptian/whatever historical accounts of what happened in that area, at that time. Most of it boring bureaucratic stuff about taxes, wills, letters between people, legal contracts, court cases, and there is no mention at all about anything going on about a guy named Jesus or his followers.

Are you saying I should take it all on faith?  :angel:


----------



## Balrog (Jun 6, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> And don't forget there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed at all. The first mention of him occurs 40 -50 years after his "death".


This has always been an issue.  If Jesus had existed and had been even half the pain in the butt to both the Jewish and Roman power structures that the bible makes him out to be, there would be a record of him.  The Romans were anal about it (probably some faceless, nameless Roman bureaucrat came up with "defenda primoris fundamentum vestrum").

If we can find contemporary list of the names of gladiators killed in the arena, why can we not find one single list with JC's name on it that is not a forgery?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

I want to make a statement that I don't think Jesus was fictional. The lack of evidence isn't a conclusive lack of evidence, especially if you trace things back.
Islam is an offshoot of Christianity, which is an offshoot of Judaism.
We have tombs for Islamic prophets, Jewish notables, and early Christian's. 
A lack of proof doesn't invalidate faith. 
Jesus's existence is plausible, but not proven nor conclusively disproven, in my opinion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I want to make a statement that I don't think Jesus was fictional. The lack of evidence isn't a conclusive lack of evidence, especially if you trace things back.
> Islam is an offshoot of Christianity, which is an offshoot of Judaism.
> We have tombs for Islamic prophets, Jewish notables, and early Christian's.
> A lack of proof doesn't invalidate faith.
> Jesus's existence is plausible, but not proven nor conclusively disproven, in my opinion.


 
I don't think you will find a whole lot of reputable historians that will say Jesus was fictional either, however the stories around him may be in question. But the fact that he was not fictional does not make any religion true of false.

As to my religious feelings and beliefs they are my own and I shall not discuss them further


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> I don't think you will find a whole lot of reputable historians that will say Jesus was fictional either, however the stories around him may be in question. But the fact that he was not fictional does not make any religion true of false.
> 
> As to my religious feelings and beliefs they are my own and I shall not discuss them further


 
lol the stories around todays politicians are in question and we have the best recording and reporting technology in the history of the planet.
it comes as no surprise to me that controversial and polarizing figures back over 2000 years ago are hard to find specific information on other then what specific groups want you to believe. 
Until we make a time machine adn go back and witness it ourselves.... its never going to proven one way or the other.... hence we have faith, and lack of faith.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 7, 2011)

Balrog said:


> This has always been an issue. If Jesus had existed and had been even half the pain in the butt to both the Jewish and Roman power structures that the bible makes him out to be, there would be a record of him. The Romans were anal about it (probably some faceless, nameless Roman bureaucrat came up with "defenda primoris fundamentum vestrum").
> 
> If we can find contemporary list of the names of gladiators killed in the arena, *why can we not find one single list with JC's name on it that is not a forgery*?


 
There in lies much of the confusion and red herrings when pointing to the Roman records. Jesus WASN'T a pain in the butt to the Romans, in fact, if you read the gospels Jesus never said anything against Rome (give to Caesar what is Caesar's). Even in the gospels the romans were trying to push the issue aside and let the Jews deal with their own problem. They did not want to be involved in Jewish religious politics.

Jesus only made problems for the religious leaders of that time. Again, did Rome record every little thing done in a far corner of their empire or did they record the name of every single person executed? Nope, it wasn't until after Jesus died and the disciples started to preach and the movement grew and grew did it come to the attention of the empire and then they started to record things regarding Christianity. Did the Jews record the name of every single person who said that they were the Messiah? We know based on historical fact that there were other people who did, where are all those names at?

There were plenty of people who were eyewitnesses that started to preach what Jesus taught. Things weren't written down right off the bat because they believed that Jesus return was going to be RIGHT THEN. It wasn't until later when the message started to spread to the "gentiles" that the gospels were written to show what and who Jesus was.  Again, a popular misconception, the gospes are not biographies of Jesus, they are sermons for a specific audience.  That is why Matthew (which was written for the Jews) spends so much time on Jewish law and how things were fullfilled and the book of John (which was written for the Greeks) has such a different flavor.  Same message, just different audiences.

In the Babylonian Talmud, they talk about Jesus and that he was a sorceror and practiced black magic. Don't you think if he wasn't an actual person, they would have just stated that instead of writing scathing accounts of his behavior?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 7, 2011)

Well if you are looking for references to Jesus you'd probably better start with his name which was Joshua bar Joseph. You might like to consider too that when those who read the Bible read either out loud or silently 'Barabbas' they are actually saying 'bastard'... Bar = son of, Abbas =Father. so it's 'son of the father', a sarcastic way of saying he didn't know who his father was, it's not a name, it's an insult. If that's been misunderstood or skwed, what else has been?


----------



## Balrog (Jun 19, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> There in lies much of the confusion and red herrings when pointing to the Roman records. Jesus WASN'T a pain in the butt to the Romans, in fact, if you read the gospels Jesus never said anything against Rome (give to Caesar what is Caesar's). Even in the gospels the romans were trying to push the issue aside and let the Jews deal with their own problem. They did not want to be involved in Jewish religious politics.


 Except that he would have been a pain in the butt specifically because he *was* causing unrest with the local Jewish power structure.  That would have threatened the Roman rule.




> In the Babylonian Talmud, they talk about Jesus and that he was a sorceror and practiced black magic. Don't you think if he wasn't an actual person, they would have just stated that instead of writing scathing accounts of his behavior?


A study of mythology indicates that at the core of most myths, there is sometimes a seed of truth.  There very well may have been a living, breathing human being at that time whose name was Yeshua bar Yussup, who worked as a carpenter, and who was a very highly respected Jewish rabbi.  But supernatural?  Not so much.


----------



## cdunn (Jun 20, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> In the Babylonian Talmud, they talk about Jesus and that he was a sorceror and practiced black magic. Don't you think if he wasn't an actual person, they would have just stated that instead of writing scathing accounts of his behavior?


 
Consider that: The first portions of the Talmud were written two centuries beyond the alleged death of Joshua bar Joseph. They had little to no evidence one way or another about his actual existance, while the Jews have had uncountable claimants to the title of messiah, many of them leaders of greater or lesser distinction. Meanwhile, they were dealing with the accusations of, you know, deicide. So, you've got a long history of false gods, you're getting killed for one 15 generations ago - You claim he's not a god, existence be damned!


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 20, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Jesus's existence is plausible, but not proven nor conclusively disproven, in my opinion.


 

Like Bigfoot, and Aliens?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 20, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Consider that: The first portions of the Talmud were written two centuries beyond the alleged death of Joshua bar Joseph. They had little to no evidence one way or another about his actual existance, while the Jews have had uncountable claimants to the title of messiah, many of them leaders of greater or lesser distinction. Meanwhile, they were dealing with the accusations of, you know, deicide. So, you've got a long history of false gods, you're getting killed for one 15 generations ago - You claim he's not a god, existence be damned!


 
Consider that there are no references to Jesus in the Talmud. There are refences that can be stretched to appear that way, but no real references.


----------



## granfire (Jun 20, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Consider that there are no references to Jesus in the Talmud. There are refences that can be stretched to appear that way, but no real references.




Hmmm
many thoughts....(I hope Yentl was right, the more questions you got the better the student you are...)

To me it makes sense (but then I think/thought the Talmud was pretty much finished 2000 years ago...)
Also, he was not really out to found a new religion...(kind of like Martin Luther did not intend to split the church) though he must have caused quiet a ruckus.
(I am of the position though not much is know of him from his time, to have such an impact, there had to have been a guy with charisma).

Which brings me in turn to the bible (again) all the fun stuff churches do around here these days, they must not have read the Good Book, cos the man would kick their money grabbin hateful behinds a few rounds around the temple! :lfao:


----------



## cdunn (Jun 20, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Consider that there are no references to Jesus in the Talmud. There are refences that can be stretched to appear that way, but no real references.


 
Sounds even better to me! 

Edited: I guess my memory lodged on some fragments of Maimonides I read once upon a time. Never mind me, carry on~


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 20, 2011)

granfire said:


> To me it makes sense (but then I think/thought the Talmud was pretty much finished 2000 years ago...)


 

Talmud is 2 works, Mishna and Gemara.

Mishna is sometimes reffered as 'Oral Torah'. At Sinai, G-d gave Moses both the 'Written' Torah, the 5 books that make up a Torah scrool, and an 'Oral' Torah, Essentially expounding on the scrools. That was passed orally through the the line of High Priests until it was written down around 200 CE, that is Mishna. Gemara is the assortment of discussions on Torah and Mishna. There are 2 Talmuds, Babylonian and Jerusalem. The Babylonian Talmud is most often quoted and becomes de facto authoritative. The Gemara was finished around 500 CE.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 20, 2011)

What concerns me as much - if not more than - the people who misquote the Bible to include things that are not there, are the people who pick and choose _which_ quotes to follow... while stating categorically that they are "true believers" who live the way the Bible mandates.  The following quote demonstrates the concept:

Spock's World, Diane Duane, pg 96



> I remember a time some years ago, on Earth, Sarek said, when I was  invited to attend a religious gathering as part of a cultural exchange  program. The people at the gathering were professing their belief in one  of your people's holy books, and stating that the only way to be saved-I  am still unclear as to what they felt they needed saving from:  we never  got as far as an explanation-the only way to be saved was to follow the  book's directions implicitly, to the letter. Now that book is a notable  one, in my opinion, and filled with wise advices for those who will read  them and act on them wisely. But some of the advices have less bearing  on the present times than others; at least, so it seemed to me. I asked  these people whether they felt that all the book must be obeyed, and  they said yes. Then I asked them whether each of them then did indeed,  as the book said they must, take a wooden paddle, when they needed to  evacuate their bowels, and go out the prescribed distance from the city  where they lived and dig a hole with the paddle, and relieve themselves  into the hole and cover it over again? They were rather annoyed with me.  And I said to them that it seemed to me that one had no right to insist  that others keep all of a law unless one keeps it all himself. I am  afraid, Sarek said, mildly, that they became more annoyed yet.



And yet - there are people who state that they follow the advice of the Bible literally in all things (while misquoting it horribly), who use that to decry everything from homosexuality to other religions, while happily violating the laws about food and personal modesty.


----------

