Is the Bible 100% truth?

[fightingfat]

In fact, I believe "axe-wielding circumcisionaries" was the term he used, suggesting the Petrine Christians should go all the way and "make eunuchs of themselves".

The phrase "axe-wielding circumcisionaries" comes from

Chapter Summaries of The Jesus Mysteries
http://www.egodeath.com/jesusmysterieschapsumm.htm

Axe-Wielding Circumcisionaries! – 171

The anti-Gnostic letters of Paul have been found to be forgeries, even though his other letters still oppose other people within the early Christian church. These others in the early church are the ones who insist on maintaining the old Jewish laws. He attacks the practice of circumcision, saying that it will do no good with Christ and it would be better going all the way to becoming eunuchs.

Paul places no importance on the externals and maintains the importance of the spiritual. Likewise, the Jesus of the Gnostics tells us: "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

 

[Jenna]

I do not believe there is any possibility that the bible is 100% fact. And I could care less about that. I read Great Expectations or Animal Farm as works of fiction based upon the reality at those times and I read Anna Karenina as a work of fiction based upon plausibly real characters and I read Brave New World or 1984 as fiction based upon a prophetic vision of the future and my point if there is one is that none of these great works claim to be factual to any degree but all have cutting meaning through past present and future and all engender DEEPER thinking in the reader.

Did the bible ever set itself as a great work of fact? Maybe somewhere along the way it was made out that way. I don't know. For those who believe, it is the word of God. Yes it is full of contradiction presumably proofreading was not such a sought after skill back then. Does it matter whether the earth really flooded or whether Noah's mates had taken half a day sticking 600 candles on his big cake at the time? Does it matter that nowhere in the bible did anyone consider the possibility of fossilised remains buried under the ash from 60 million years before and what of the origin of Cain and Abel's wives? These things matter a great deal to the sceptics and critics and those still seeking and those subconsciously angry not to have found. To the faithful these contradictions fallacies and omissions do not matter and if you do not have the faith that is ok. Keep searching or at least keep an open mind. Everyone is different. Some have it. Some do not. Some do not believe at all and some desire only to disprove. There is room for everyone I am certain.

What I believe is that the bible is a great work of meaning and philosophy for life. The discrepancies are there and obvious. And so what? If I had any faith left in me I would not read it with the mind of a scholar or scientist but as an open-minded searcher for a way to live my life.

Oh, I also read Kerrang, LOL

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[heretic888]

I do believe the Bible is 100 percent accurate. All things will come about to prove it to be true in time.

You mean like physically impossible acts such as a person being born in both 4 BCE and 6 CE?? Or, how about non-factual claims such as "the Jews" having an annual tradition of releasing convicted criminals or requiring that the layperson always wash his or her hands before eating?? How about some pretty basic confusion as to where the Resurrection scenes take place: Galilee or Jerusalem??

Sorry, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck --- it probably ain't a friggin' platypus.

 

[heretic888]

I don't even know what apostolic ascension is! Do you mean apostolic succession?

Meh, same thing.

You speak with some authority? And what is your proof for this?

I don't know what "speak with some authority" is supposed to mean, but I have read up on New Testament Scholarship well enough to know what we do and do not have "proof" for.

Seeing as how it is exceedingly unlikely that a "Historical Jesus" even existed in the first place (and please, no more appeals to authority, I've had enough of those), it's a hard sell to pass off the myth of Apostolic Succession with any degree of credulity. But, even if we axiomatically assume Jesus really did exist, the incredible diversity and pluralism of Primitive Christianity attests against any claim for a monolithic succession.

This is evident even as early as Paul's time, when he is having disputes with some of the Christian leaders in Jerusalem (which 2nd century Acts text tries to wash over), namely James and Peter/Cephas.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

The phrase "axe-wielding circumcisionaries" comes from

Chapter Summaries of The Jesus Mysteries
http://www.egodeath.com/jesusmysterieschapsumm.htm

Well, in the NIV Bible in my home, that same passage (Phillipians 3:2) reads:

"Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh."

("Flesh" in this context actually refers to the penis and "mutilation" refers to circumcision).

Also, in Galatians 5:12:

"As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

The translation differs somewhat from Freke and Gandy's, but the message is pretty much the same. In any event, this goes shoes the conflict in Primitive Christianity between the Pauline groups (who felt the Jewish law and customs to be superfluous) and the Jamesian-Petrine groups (who felt Christians should continue practicing Jewish law).

In no way was Primitive Christianity some kind of monolithic or uniform entity. Peter and James clearly didn't have some kind of "apostolic" authority, or Paul wouldn't so vehemently oppose their teachings.

Laterz.

 

[Kacey]

I chose "not sure" because it was the option that came closest to my opinion... which is that "divinely inspired" and "fact" are not synonomous. A quote which expresses my opinion may help"

"I remember a time some year 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 go 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 that 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 asked them whether each of them then did indeed, as the book said they must, take a wooden paddle, when they need 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 over it up 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 the law unless one keeps it all himself. I am afraid," Sarek said, mildly, "that they became more annoyed yet."

from Spock's World, by Diane Duane

I guess I am trying to make a couple of points: one, that things change with time - even divinely inspired things - and two, that even those who claim to follow the Bible in all things are still picking and choosing the "real", "important" parts from the rest. Do I think that the individual books of the Bible represent the truth as perceived by the writer(s) of each book? Yes, I do. Do I think that represents truth in the absolute sense? No. Therefore, "not sure" was the only option available to me on this poll.

 

[heretic888]

I think Pseudo-Dionysius put it best:

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent."

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

Did the bible ever set itself as a great work of fact?

The book did indeed, never 'set itself as a great work of fact', or take an action of any kind. And of course, you know that. I'm sure others have pointed out, that there are those who treat the book as fact; the true word of God.

I mention this only because, today, on a popular radio talk show program, 'Fresh Air, with Terry Gross', the host interviewed one, Michael Farris.

Mr. Farris is the founder of Patrick Henry College. This college has a mandatory 'Statement of Faith', that all students, faculty, and trustees must profess the following.

The College is, and shall always remain, a Christian institution dedicated to bringing honor and glory to the Lord Jesus Christ in all of its activities. Each Trustee, officer, faculty member and student of the College, as well as such other employees and agents of the College as may be specified by resolution of the Board of Trustees, shall fully and enthusiastically subscribe to the following Statement of Faith:

1. There is one God, eternally existent in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
3. Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God come in the flesh.
4. The Bible in its entirety (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the inspired word of God, inerrant in its original autographs, and the only infallible and sufficient authority for faith and Christian living.
5. Man is by nature sinful and is inherently in need of salvation, which is exclusively found by faith alone in Jesus Christ and His shed blood.
6. Christ's death provides substitutionary atonement for our sins.
7. Personal salvation comes to mankind by grace through faith.
8. Jesus Christ literally rose bodily from the dead.
9. Jesus Christ literally will come to earth again in the Second Advent.
10. Satan exists as a personal, malevolent being who acts as tempter and accuser, for whom Hell, the place of eternal punishment, was prepared, where all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.

There are some other items of interest on the schools website.

http://www.phc.edu/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5427797

The foundation of this college is to set the Bible as 100% fact. And to take those who believe this and move them into the halls of power.

 

[heretic888]

Personally, I think the author of the Gospel of Mark saw what he was doing as creative religious literature, not history. I have no idea if the author believed in a "Historical Jesus" or not. It is readily apparent, however, that the author's work in its entirety is basically a series of midrash on Old Testament passages set within the overall context of the Pauline dying-and-rising Christos.

Mark's author knew well what he was doing. Old Testament sources were deliberately used to construct the storyboard for his Jesus Christ character. That the Gospel is essentially written in a similar form as a play (hurried scenes, several monologues, dramatic conclusion, etc.) is testament that the author didn't think what he was doing was actual "history".

Mark, by the way, is the earliest of the canonical Gospels. Matthew, Luke, and John all copied from and are thus dependent on Mark, a hypothesis known as Markan Priority in Biblical scholarship. I don't know if their authors believed in a "Historical Jesus", either, or if they thought what they were writing was "history".

Laterz.

 

[Swordlady]

Okay...I haven't read through all the posts yet, though I have a feeling there has been a good bit of lively debate.

I was raised Catholic, and left that church during my freshman year in college for a nondenominational Christian church. It was during my tenure in that church when I became fairly knowledgeable of the bible. I've read through two different English translations: the New International Version (which was what the great majority of members in my old church used), and the New Living Translation (which is essentially a paraphrased translation, not necessarily the most "accurate" English version).

From what I understand, one of the reasons why the Catholic church accepts the Apocrypha in its canon is because a number of passages in those books supports that church's teaching (the one passage in Maccabees about "praying for the dead" comes immediately to mind).

Most of the Protestant churches do not accept the Apocrypha is because they determined that there are historical discrepencies between some of the books of the Apocrypha and the accepted canon of books. For example, the book of Judith had King Nebuchadnezzar ruling in the wrong country and the wrong time period.

As a Christian, I've been taught that the bible is 100% accurate, no questions asked. For myself and many other Christians, this assertion is more based on faith than empirical evidence. After all, we have faith in other things we cannot see - like gravity - but we don't doubt its existence for a moment.

So what kind of unequivocable proof can I offer about the bible's accuracy? Some Christians talk about how the bible "flows" together, and how Jesus and others in the New Testament constantly refer to passages in the Old Testament. But that is a rather circular argument, isn't it? Proving the validity of a collection of books (which what the bible essentially is) by quoting different passages within that same set of books. Others bring up the Dead Sea scrolls, and how it contained sections of every single book (except Esther) in what is known as the Protestant canon. But these people neglect to mention (or they simply may not know) that there were also other letters and teachings that are not in the widely-accepted canon.

This is where faith comes in. The book of Hebrews says that faith is "belief in the unseen". If you can see something in front of you, then there is no need for faith, right? Faith is the driving force not just for Christianity, but for any kind of deity worship. Ask a Muslim about the origin of the Qu'ran, and he will tell you that Allah himself spoke directly to the prophet Mohammed. Would the Muslim be able to produce physical evidence of such an encounter between Allah and Mohammed? Probably not.

Do I believe the bible is 100% accurate? I still do, but with some caveats. One, I do not think it is a good thing to be too narrow-minded and flatly reject anyone who questions my beliefs about the bible's accuracy. I also do not think that the bible is exhaustive by any stretch. Yes, it is a good starting point for a Christian to build his/her faith, but I also don't think it is good for a Christian to solely depend on the bible for all of his/her answers. It is okay for a Christian - or any other believer - to question his/her own faith, and also the validity of the teachings s/he is following. Especially because there is also a certain danger in "blind faith" (i.e., just following along with the majority, regardless of how right or wrong that group may be). I think we all can readily point out examples of blind faith, and how it can go wrong...

 

[Carol]

I don't know if the Bible is 100% truth or not. Don't want to know, to be honest. Who the heck am I to say? I'm just a mortal and not a particularly good one at that.

What I do know is that the Bible is important to those that love Jesus as their Lord Almighty and that's enough for me.

It's not my place to tell anyone whether their scriptures are truth or not. Personally, I do not want that responsibility...nor do I deserve it.

 

[Ray]

Mark, by the way, is the earliest of the canonical Gospels. Matthew, Luke, and John all copied from and are thus dependent on Mark, a hypothesis known as Markan Priority in Biblical scholarship.

Sure, sure. It is a hypothesis [or some contrived notion] that someone who didn't know the author just figured out 1600 to 1900 years after the book was written.

And then he checked his swag by getting together with like-minded people and bouncing the idea off their heads. Boing.

I don't know if their authors believed in a "Historical Jesus", either, or if they thought what they were writing was "history".

Well why don't you just ask the scholar who told you all about the author of Mark?

 

[Jenna]

http://www.phc.edu/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5427797

The foundation of this college is to set the Bible as 100% fact. And to take those who believe this and move them into the halls of power.

Hey Michael

This is very interesting thank you. Personally I think what these sort of dictates just make a hard thing harder. Faith in itself requires objectivity and common sense in interpretation but yeah there is an element in ANY faith of blind acceptance and that is very much the nature of what faith is, yeah? If I am allowed to widen that out .... say you were on the starting blocks with one hundred metres of track in front of you and seven other competitive athletes by your side scientifically you may win due your superior strength andgreater technique and you may also believe that if you have a modicum of faith in winning that will help you to run your race better and I do not mean faith in your ABILITY to win but instead faith in your ACTUAL winning and this requires some amount of blind acceptance of your winning as FACT coupled with the dismissal of other rational arguments against your winning namely the other competitors

What I am trying not so well to say is that faith in ANYTHING needs some irrationality enforced openness or yeah blind acceptance to a concept. And through relentless questioning and testing we transform some faiths into science -- like astronomy post Galileo Galilei but bible-based christianity is not really set that way. I would say for those who cannot relinquish this questioning or suspend their scepticism even momentarily a true faith in ANYTHING be it religion or winning a fight will NEVER be forthcoming

So if I can remember what I am talking about then it is while a level of acceptance of the irrational or contradictory is almost prerequisite to true faith maybe to found a college on the basis of the bible as 100% FACT necessitates a disproportionately GREATER blind acceptance and a greater and more dogmatic dismissal of other interpretations than christians have to engage and siphon through already. Seems like not only is it making life difficult for students but to set itself this sort of mandate is maybe to flirt with or embrace cultishness???

Anyway, I am sorry if this is tangential to the discussion but you started it, LOL

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[heretic888]

Sure, sure. It is a hypothesis [or some contrived notion] that someone who didn't know the author just figured out 1600 to 1900 years after the book was written.

And then he checked his swag by getting together with like-minded people and bouncing the idea off their heads. Boing.

If you ever get tired of making fallacious Appeals To Belief, Ray, I invite you to review the evidence and reasoning behind this hypothesis yourself:

The Priority of Mark, Part One

The Priority of Mark, Part Two

The following is a scholarly work which shows exactly where the Markan author mined the Old Testament for his storyboard:

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

Well why don't you just ask the scholar who told you all about the author of Mark?

Scholars, Ray. Markan Priority is the most well-established hypothesis of Biblical Scholarship since the 20th century, with the overwhelming majority of scholars (even those that accept a Historical Jesus) supporting it.

Arguing against it is like arguing against the cell theory in biology.

Laterz.

 

[CanuckMA]

Or, how about non-factual claims such as "the Jews" having an annual tradition of releasing convicted criminals

Not true. Although I thought the text implied that the Romans had that tradition (also not true)

or requiring that the layperson always wash his or her hands before eating??

True. Still practiced today.

How about some pretty basic confusion as to where the Resurrection scenes take place: Galilee or Jerusalem??

Or the entire episode around the Last Supper. Of all the Jewish festivals, Pesach is the one that is most celebrated with family. Comes from the imperative in Wxodus that we should teach it to aour children. What were te Apostles doing NOY with their families?

And then, no Jewish court would have sat that night, or following morning. The first and last days of Pesach are prohibited from work.

 

[kamishinkan]

This is a very interesting thread! As for the questions to the validity of the NT texts, I have noted this argument (several times) on other posts. For the most part these questions have been addressed (several times I believe).
As for the last post of the Pesach, If I am not mistaken the Passover meal as noted in the NT with Yeshua and his disciples broke from tradition as far as the day celebrated. Why this happened I am not sure, maybe BECAUSE they were not with there families but with the Messiah. Most people would balk at this but if the Messiah was here today and asked me to go and minister with Him I would go (my wife would gladly take care of the house while I was gone!). I also realize that according to tradition (not the Torah) the Passover has turned into the whole week which is actually Unleavened Bread and Firstfruits (all three seperate feasts).

As far as answering the thread, I believe the Bible (Tanakh and New Testament) to be inspired by God and SPIRITUALLY accurate (not necessarily accurate of the history of the day). This is OK since the Bible is a Spiritual book not a history book. I also believe the truth of the bible is dependant on CORRECT TRANSLATION. I have seen several discrepancies in the texts but have all been proven to be incorrect translations. Thank God for modern computer translation devices .

 

[CanuckMA]

7 days of Pesach is in Torah, Exodus 12:19 -

19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses; for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. 20 Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.'

 

[heretic888]

Not true. Although I thought the text implied that the Romans had that tradition (also not true)

The following passages are from the New International Version (NIV) translation:

"Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd" (Matthew 27:15).

"Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested" (Mark 15:6).

The "Feast" in question, of course, is Passover.

"'What is truth?' Pilate asked. With this he sent out again to the Jews and said, 'I find no basis for a charge against him. But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover'" (John 18:38-39).

These are all in contrast to the version in Luke, which makes no reference at all to such a custom.

True. Still practiced today.

But not in the first century.

Perhaps a little clarification is in order here. With the desctruction of the Temple in 70 CE by the Romans, the sect known as the Pharisees basically established unilateral dominance among the Jewish populace, with other sects such as the Essenes and Sadducees apparently dying out. Modern Judaism, as it is typically known, is an outgrowth of this post-Temple Pharisaic Judaism (which itself was radically changed during the Age of Reason in the West).

The Pharisees had a custom whereby their priests and scribes had to wash their hands before eating a meal. Later, after they took control, this rule extended to the whole of the Jewish populace. However, there was no such "universal" custom at the time that "Jesus Christ" is supposed to have lived.

It would make perfect sense, however, if the narrative account was written by Hellenized Jew after the Temple destruction in 70 CE. He (or she) would simply be commenting on the common practice during his time (but not during the time Jesus would have lived).

Or the entire episode around the Last Supper. Of all the Jewish festivals, Pesach is the one that is most celebrated with family. Comes from the imperative in Wxodus that we should teach it to aour children. What were te Apostles doing NOY with their families?

And then, no Jewish court would have sat that night, or following morning. The first and last days of Pesach are prohibited from work.

Agreed.

Hayyim ben Yehoshua's The Myth of the Historical Jesus gives a good summary of some of the fudge-ups the Gospel narratives make concerning Jewish history and custom:

"The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of Acts presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book Jewish Antiquities, which was used as reference by the author of Luke and Acts.

The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to placate the Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by antisemites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The name 'Barabbas' is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic 'bar Abba' which means 'son of the Father.' Thus 'Jesus Barabbas' originally meant 'Jesus the son of the Father,' in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name 'Barabbas.'"

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

This is a very interesting thread! As for the questions to the validity of the NT texts, I have noted this argument (several times) on other posts. For the most part these questions have been addressed (several times I believe).

Yes, but never satisfactorily.

As for the last post of the Pesach, If I am not mistaken the Passover meal as noted in the NT with Yeshua and his disciples broke from tradition as far as the day celebrated.

It isn't just the meal in question. It is also the fact that the Sanhedrin held a "secret" trial during Passover (apparently pulling their "witnesses" away from their families and festivities in the middle of night) and that a large crowd of Jews appeared before Pilate (again, during Passover) to decide to crucify Jesus. That a criminal (of any sort) would be executed on Passover is the final straw.

The entire account is absurd from a historical point of view and, as ben Yehoshua pointed out, riddled with anti-Semitism.

As far as answering the thread, I believe the Bible (Tanakh and New Testament) to be inspired by God and SPIRITUALLY accurate (not necessarily accurate of the history of the day). This is OK since the Bible is a Spiritual book not a history book.

On this, I would agree completely.

Laterz.

 

[Brother John]

SheSulsa-
I'm unclear on the question:
Are you wanting to know if we feel/believe that the Bible is all True
OR
That we feel/believe that the Bible is to be Literally interpreted??

They are very different.

Thanks

Your Brother
John