Actually, that's not in the Bible
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
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....
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....
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
Sean
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. :/
"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. :/
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??
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
All weight is underside
So...you're saying...God gives you a headache..IS THAT IT!!!!!! :uhyeah:
No :uhyeah:
Yes, yes they should... but they generally don't
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,062
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.
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.
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.
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.
: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".
semantics
don't matter, all women are whores. You missed that in catechism 666
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...)
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.
Last edited:
Sensei Payne
Black Belt
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.
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.
LOL, actually they are very sure he did exist. Roman sources I believe did mention that revolutionary trouble maker.
Just the stories around him....
Google Zeitgeist, and watch the first half... you are welcome to watch the second half but watch the first half for sure.
Sean
OP
- Thread Starter
- #16
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.
Nope. Zip. Nanna. Nothing anywhere till the first book of the bible.
Sensei Payne
Black Belt
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,062
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #20
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.
Similar threads
