Bible Origins -- discussion

[mrswdk]

Bible Origins = The Book of Enki. Read it.

see my response to J.

It is important to understand that this idea of the Bible being fully literal is basically a newer Christian thought and not really a part of ancient Jewish tradition -- or at least, there is variation in how the ancient Jews viewed these texts, and many would say they are not meant to be entirely "literal" in the sense J and many modern churches wish to assert.

One of the earliest argument amongst the gentile academic Christians was whether the bible was meant to be read allegorically or metaphorically. Literalism is only a few hundred years old.

The thing with the Bible is that much theological theory says that it is not supposed to be taken completely literally. It is only relatively recently that people have started saying that it should be.

[jimboston]

if you say the "Bible is the Word of God". Then you must believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. You can't believe the Bible is God's word... and then only believe parts of it that you like. It's illogical. So if there is even ONE LITTLE THING wrong with the Bible... then you must accept that it's not 100% God's word... in which case how do you know which parts are "really" God's word, and which parts aren't.

Not even close to true and here is why:

What exactly is "not even close to true"?

Do you believe the Bible is "the Word of God" or not?

If yes... Everything in there is True.
If no... Then which parts are true, and which parts are not?
If not... Then who decides which parts are true, and which parts are not?

If you don't believe that the "Bible is the Word of God"... then the rest of the paragraph doesn't apply to you.

My issue with your words was that you stated to be fact things that are opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, but say they are fact and I will dispute.

What exactly did I state as fact something that is opinion?

This...

Honestly though... it could all be 100% real.
Well.. no it couldn't.
It could be somewhat real or mostly real.

I can't prove that it's not accurate.
... of course you can't prove it is accurate.

I think these are reasonable statements.

This...

Bible Old Testament - Copied from previous religions... fiction.

Bible New Testament - Nice work of Fiction
Modified at the order of the Roman Emperor Constantine to help him better control his Empire.
He may very well have believed his victories were assisted by God.

Opinion mostly... comment about those books being fiction anyway.
Obviously opinion presented in manner to attempt humor.

Everything else are valid arguments.

[jimboston]

Now the urban legend changes from the council of Nicaea to Constantine. Do you have any evidence for this? No, there isn't any evidence because it never happened.

Constantine formed the Council of Nicaea.

I would also suggest that the God portrayed in the Old Testament is vastly different than the God portrayed in the New Testament. It's like they are two different Gods entirely. You can argue that God was changed when His Son became a man... he was then able to "see" things from our view point. This is logical if you believe the Father and Son are part of One God as the Trinity suggests. Of course it's illogical if you believe God is Omniscient... if he's Omniscient why would he need to experience life as man??? He should be able to just feel what we feel... no? So then why does God change so radically from one book to another??? This just makes no sense to me.

This is actually one of the first heresies dealt with by the early church. Your knowledge of the first 300 years of Christianity is sorely lacking. You should keep the argument to modern Christianity, where you actually have a chance.

So because the early church explained this logical argument away by waiving their arms... that automatically makes my point invalid? You have a logic leap there my friend.

[Bernie Sanders]

--Andy

if there's one fact in this thread it's the dribble aka drivel

[jimboston]

Bible Origins = The Book of Enki. Read it.

see my response to J.

It is important to understand that this idea of the Bible being fully literal is basically a newer Christian thought and not really a part of ancient Jewish tradition -- or at least, there is variation in how the ancient Jews viewed these texts, and many would say they are not meant to be entirely "literal" in the sense J and many modern churches wish to assert.

One of the earliest argument amongst the gentile academic Christians was whether the bible was meant to be read allegorically or metaphorically. Literalism is only a few hundred years old.

The thing with the Bible is that much theological theory says that it is not supposed to be taken completely literally. It is only relatively recently that people have started saying that it should be.

So if it's not literal, then it must be read allegorically? Yes?

So whose job is it to decide how to interpret these allegories?

See, that falls right into the hierarchy of organized religion. Because the Bible needs to be interpreted, only those who are specially trained by Us have the right to interpret the Bible. So We can control the population, by controlling the understanding of the Bible! Yah we win!

... if you were successful with this plan several hundred years ago... Congratulations! You created a valid religion!

... if you try this now... Sorry! Your not really a religion. You're a cult instead. Sorry!

[jgordon1111]

Player you disassemble again or have short memory, here you are saying that the bible was not meant to be taken LITERALLY,in case you forgot in the other thread you said the bible was against homosexuality and gave reference to sections that proved this to be true. Now Admit that is your Personal opinion, or quit changing what you say to fit the moment. Quit using the bible and the creator as a sheild for your religions hate agenda.

[jgordon1111]

Lmao, doom who was invested in the theologians consensus , stating what was said in the old and new testament as being correct, and who picked the theologians that formed this consensus, a little more research is in order doom, try it you might learn something valuable. My point out in both threads has been, do not follow any faith blindly, believe in the almighty, but don't follow just because you feel obligation to your specific faith, learn for yourselves what is correct.and don't espouse any form of hate of any type in the name of religion. That can't be what was meant.

[Dukasaur]

if you say the "Bible is the Word of God". Then you must believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. You can't believe the Bible is God's word... and then only believe parts of it that you like. It's illogical. So if there is even ONE LITTLE THING wrong with the Bible... then you must accept that it's not 100% God's word... in which case how do you know which parts are "really" God's word, and which parts aren't.

Not even close to true and here is why:

What exactly is "not even close to true"?

Do you believe the Bible is "the Word of God" or not?

If yes... Everything in there is True.
If no... Then which parts are true, and which parts are not?
If not... Then who decides which parts are true, and which parts are not?

That's actually the point of Theology and councils and people coming together to study Christ. No one person can decide so things are decided by rhetoric and agreement. Is it really all that alien to you that people might form a consensus opinion?

Except it wasn't a consensus opinion. The African and Asian bishops who represented most Christians at the time were a tiny minority. The deck was stacked in favour of the Byzantine establishment. All kinds of non-entities who had nothing intelligent to say were invited simply because of whom they might know or whom they might blow in Byzantium. The Byzantines were playing with a stacked deck, and their "consensus" was by mob rule, a "consensus" of those who weren't expelled or shouted down.

Arius, who was trying to put Christian theology on a rational basis, was expelled and declared a heretic. The tiny minority supporting him was driven out, and what was left was the logical absurdity of the Nicene creed -- three things that are somehow completely indivisible despite the fact that they are obviously completely different.

It was approved by consensus, of course. Just as Stalin was elected by consensus. A rigged vote, the sane chased out the door with death soon to follow, and only the insane or their army of sycophants remaining.

[jimboston]

That's actually the point of Theology and councils and people coming together to study Christ. No one person can decide so things are decided by rhetoric and agreement. Is it really all that alien to you that people might form a consensus opinion?

So we are supposed to believe the "consensus opinion" of people who lived 1500 years ago?
This consensus opinion then becomes the "Word of God"

Christianity initially was, by any definition, a cult. They were more specifically an apocalyptic cult of Jews.

So what's the difference between a Cult and a Religion?

You know all religions can't be RIGHT. You understand that... right?

You have now proved that you are missing the point entirely:

Because the Law (State, Federal, Tax... etc.; take your pick) needs to be interpreted, only those who are specially trained (and passed their bar exam/went to Police Academy) have the right to interpret the Law. So we can control the population, by controlling the understanding of the (Constitution, Tax Code, etc.)

Christian Theology is a form of knowledge in which the best and brightest of humanity have devoted 2000 years to studying. Do you really hope to overturn it by saying that studying it is impossible? You are the only person magically waving arms here.

I don't know where that quote you have comes from... please label.

1) Why are these past Theologians the "Best and Brightest"? Yes there are period of time where the most educated people where the Priests. That doesn't mean they weren't operating in their own self-interest. Organized Religion in general, and specifically the Catholic are bureaucracies, that are self-perpetuating.
2) The best and brightest from 2000 years before Christ believed in Greek / Roman Gods. Does that me that they were right?
3) Science has advanced substantially... should that not be a factor.
4) General knowledge has also advanced... another factor.
5) How is "Religion" even a "form of knowledge? Prove this statement.

Now the urban legend changes from the council of Nicaea to Constantine. Do you have any evidence for this? No, there isn't any evidence because it never happened.

Constantine formed the Council of Nicaea.

It's still an urban legend... (not to mention - how did one person sneak something through without 300 others noticing...)

Who said anyone "sneaked anything in". Constantine put all these religious leaders in a room... leaders who had vastly different interpretations of the Bible... and said to them; "Make one Bible that is consistent that you can all agree on. If you can't I'll kill you." (Paraphrasing that.) So they argued and debated... and eventual came up with a Creed they could all get behind.

They didn't wave their arms. They wrote countless letters, books and had discussions to form a consensus opinion. Tertullian wrote five books specifically to denounce that argument. You can read them here (in an English or French or German or Latin translation):
http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_marcionem.htm#content
It's not like people blindly accepted his writings, either. Many of his writings were later found to not be accurate (which unfortunately led to him not being sainted since the Medieval church focused on inerrancy).

Again with the "consensus opinion". So our religion is based on opinion. OK. I win. Next!

You seem to fall into a common trap today of assuming that modern people are in some way exceptional or that we are just guessing about the past. If you started reading extant ancient Greek writings as a young lad, you would probably not finish within your lifetime. Thus it is with many other ancient to modern civilizations. The information is out there and much of it still survives.

I don't think I am smarter or more exceptional than past Theologians. I just have a frame of reference they couldn't, and I have access to a much wider array of information.

[jgordon1111]

Damn doom that was a nasty piece of business, I make no secret of being American ( native) by ancestory and heritage, but every thing else you speculated on was so far off the Mark as to be a wild fantasy that much of the world believes as truth, as I don't know you,you don't know me to group me in with a narrow minded point of view such as you tried in your previous post.every culture has those who do the most idiotic shut, not all follow like sheep, now I ask you doom are you a sheep who believes his religion is correct because your religious leaders say it is, or something you FEEL for yourself?

[jimboston]

Player you disassemble again or have short memory, here you are saying that the bible was not meant to be taken LITERALLY,in case you forgot in the other thread you said the bible was against homosexuality and gave reference to sections that proved this to be true. Now Admit that is your Personal opinion, or quit changing what you say to fit the moment. Quit using the bible and the creator as a sheild for your religions hate agenda.

It's only literal in the parts she wants it to be literal.

[jimboston]

We have a word for followers of Arius today. They are called Jehovah's Witnesses.

So are Jehovah's Witnesses the ONE TRUE RELIGION?

I'd like to have consensus on which version of the Bible is RIGHT, and which religion is RIGHT.

[jimboston]

Theology isn't static.

So that means our "understanding" of God evolves?

Does God evolve too?

If our understanding evolves, then that means that previous interpretations of the Bible have flaws... which means it's likely that current interpretations also have flaws. If this is true, how can anyone ever claim to KNOW what the Bible is "saying" on any particular subject?

[jimboston]

You know all religions can't be RIGHT. You understand that... right?

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

OK.

So Christianity is the RIGHT religion then... and ALL OTHER RELIGIONS are therefore wrong?

So Gandi is in Hell right now then, correct?

Oh... can you define Christianity for me? There seems to be some confusion. See Mormons call themselves Christians, but most other Christian religions would call them heretics. So who's right here?

You know, Catholics were burning Protestants at the stake(and vice versa) a few hundred years ago. They called each other heretics. Now they (generally) see there differences as minor and unimportant for access to Heaven. Funny.

[jimboston]

1) Why are these past Theologians the "Best and Brightest"? Yes there are period of time where the most educated people where the Priests. That doesn't mean they weren't operating in their own self-interest. Organized Religion in general, and specifically the Catholic are bureaucracies, that are self-perpetuating.
2) The best and brightest from 2000 years before Christ believed in Greek / Roman Gods. Does that me that they were right?
3) Science has advanced substantially... should that not be a factor.
4) General knowledge has also advanced... another factor.
5) How is "Religion" even a "form of knowledge? Prove this statement.

The quote is what you said except I changed the religious words to words about law. I will answer your questions in reverse order.

5) Science is a form of knowledge. I can do something and recreate the results in an experiment. Law is another form of knowledge. Can you apply the principles of science to the law? I can drive down a street at 100 mph and not get a ticket, therefore according to science, there is no law against speeding. If science is the only form of knowledge, then nobody can know the law (or grammar, for another example). Similarly, one cannot know theology by the scientific method. Can one know theology? If yes, then it is a form of knowledge.

Yawn. Theology is just a subset of Sociology/Psychology.

You can study the precepts of religions; current of historical. That gives you some knowledge of what people THINK. That does not mean that what is written is true or that what some people think is true. You are only studying what people think.

4) Has General Knowledge advanced to the point where loving your neighbour and not committing adultery are bad things for a community?

Moot. I agree that loving you neighbor is good... and that adultery is (sometimes) bad. I don't put myself in place to judge someone else's private actions. You ignore the point... general knowledge now tells me that a worldwide flood is impossible... so I immediately know that the Noah story is not accurate. People 1500... 2500... 4000 years ago didn't know this with certainty.

3) Science doesn't have anything to do with it. God wrote two great books. One is the Bible, the other is reality. I can read both.

So God wrote the Bible? Why are there hundreds of versions then? I'm confused.
Why do most Theologians say it was written by many different people?
If these people were all divinely inspired, couldn't God have simplified it for us... and made all these allegories clear, so we wouldn't need other Theologians or Religious Leaders to interpret it for us. Seems like a clunky system.

2) Like science, theology advances. Here's an ironic tale: I was at an Anglican church and the priest dude said to me: "the church is so antiquated in its beliefs, they won't let us change the order of service to compete with the evangelicals." The irony is that orders of service are barely 1000 years old! The church evolves all the fucking time.

How is this evolving? Barely 1000? How is that irony? I think you are making a lot of assumptions and logical jumps here.

BTW... you didn't even address my point!

1) I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, I did so inadvertently. My point is that there is 2000 years of argument on these points... as someone who hasn't studied the arguments, do you hope to win them?

-> How do you know I haven't studied them?
-> You know, all I need is logic and science to win the argument. I don't care who I'm debating.
When it comes to religion, after you boil away all the BS... all you have left for an answer is;
"Because" or "Because God tells me so." or some such...

Who said anyone "sneaked anything in". Constantine put all these religious leaders in a room... leaders who had vastly different interpretations of the Bible... and said to them; "Make one Bible that is consistent that you can all agree on. If you can't I'll kill you." (Paraphrasing that.) So they argued and debated... and eventual came up with a Creed they could all get behind.

Actually, they didn't discuss the contents of the Bible at all, so your paraphrase is actually a fabrication.

Others have included links about Constantine and Nicaea. I am simplifying the whole thing, I know there were multiple councils, and the editing went on over years. You can call it all lies if you want. The Roman Empire kept very good records, so your decision to call it all a fabrication is informing to me.

Again with the "consensus opinion". So our religion is based on opinion. OK. I win. Next!

How is that winning?

Um... because if our interpretation of the Bible is based on "Consensus Opinion" of "expert" Theologians... then that means it is likely flawed.

The words "Opinion" and "Fact" are not synonyms.

So if the Bible is opinion, then it's not fact.

... and frankly I don't care how "expert" someone is in Theology. I don't believe their opinion is any better than mine. Why should I automatically give someone the right to dictate "God's Law" to me, if that person's just stating their "opinion" of what the Bible is saying?


[quote="DoomYoshi"]
What about the modern theologians?

So modern Theologians have a wider frame of reference and modern science... so that's great.
Many are carrying the burden of thousands of years of doctrine on their backs... that's not helpful.

... before I go further, define "Theologian" for me.

Many modern Theologians are agnostic and/or atheists. They have studied the Bible and have come to the conclusion that it's a nice work of fiction. That is their opinion, and mine... right now I'm a modern Theologian. Why is someone else's OPINION more valid than my OPINION?

THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING. That the opinions that agree with you are more valid than those that disagree.

Meanwhile you ignore those logical arguments you can't answer.

[jgordon1111]

I have seen enough, here is something about me only my family, a priest and the creator know, at one point early in my life, while still in my teens before I joined the army, I was set to take the vows of priesthood, a tribal elder came to me and said do as you will, but do not walk blind into anything of this import learn all you can of the God you seek to serve and of his teachings,So I did, and I read everything I could get my hands on about Catholicism, the priest answered every question I asked to the best of his ability, and if his answer lead to more questions he directed me to where I could get the answers, and encouraged me to read the koran and tanakha and to ask more questions, I do not believe or know of any untruth he ever said to me, and I was glad to see Francise become pope because my mentor was a Jesuit as well.and I have faith he is trying to heal some of the damage that has been done in the name of the Creator, So needless to say I did not take the vows, and walked a different path than what I thought I would, So nothing in this topic is new to me, and some of what I learned might surprise many of those reading or posting,mark my words my faith in the Creator has and will never waiver.

[DaGip]

I don't know where that last flag is from but the script at the bottom is not Chinese. My guess is that it's Nepalese.

The use of the swastika in China has nothing to do with communism. It's a Buddhist symbol, and in China it is used and recognized as a Buddhist symbol. Even during and since the Second World War it has continued to represent Buddhism, not Nazism.

I suspect that pretty much anywhere in the world that the swastika can be found, it has arrived there due to the spread of Buddhism and/or Indian culture and influence.

My point was meaning that that particular symbols can be found not only in China or Asia, but also in Europe and in America.

The human psyche shares similar geometric patterns and then why is it not so with certain myths and stories?

That was my point.

Humans are ingrained with relative psychological baggage that is shared across geographical distances. A story portrayed in the Bible could easily be manifested in another civilization without direct contact.

[jimboston]

I have seen enough, here is something about me only my family, a priest and the creator know, at one point early in my life, while still in my teens before I joined the army, I was set to take the vows of priesthood, a tribal elder came to me and said do as you will, but do not walk blind into anything of this import learn all you can of the God you seek to serve and of his teachings,So I did, and I read everything I could get my hands on about Catholicism, the priest answered every question I asked to the best of his ability, and if his answer lead to more questions he directed me to where I could get the answers, and encouraged me to read the koran and tanakha and to ask more questions, I do not believe or know of any untruth he ever said to me, and I was glad to see Francise become pope because my mentor was a Jesuit as well.and I have faith he is trying to heal some of the damage that has been done in the name of the Creator, So needless to say I did not take the vows, and walked a different path than what I thought I would, So nothing in this topic is new to me, and some of what I learned might surprise many of those reading or posting,mark my words my faith in the Creator has and will never waiver.

There may very well be a Creator.

I also believe in the morals taught by Christianity. The real morals... not the BS stuff the Catholic Church has been shoving down our throats. Of all the orders in the Catholic Church, the Jesuits are probably the most Christ-Like.

I just can't agree with any organized religion... because ultimately they all say "You can only go to Heaven if you believe what We believe." I just can't stomach that. Gandhi was Buddhist... so according to the Catholic Church and MOST organized Christian religions... he isn't in Heaven. Ditto with any Jewish folk... no matter how nice a Jewish guy (or gal) might be, he/she ain't good enough to get through those Pearly Gates. I don't think any Omnipotent Creator would give a flying f**k if I worshiped Him/Her/It... the Creator might care if I am kind and treat others with respect, but He/She/It wouldn't demand that I toss an envelope into a basket every Sunday to perpetuate some bureaucracy.

[Bernie Sanders]

I have seen enough, here is something about me only my family, a priest and the creator know, at one point early in my life, while still in my teens before I joined the army, I was set to take the vows of priesthood, a tribal elder came to me and said do as you will, but do not walk blind into anything of this import learn all you can of the God you seek to serve and of his teachings,So I did, and I read everything I could get my hands on about Catholicism, the priest answered every question I asked to the best of his ability, and if his answer lead to more questions he directed me to where I could get the answers, and encouraged me to read the koran and tanakha and to ask more questions, I do not believe or know of any untruth he ever said to me, and I was glad to see Francise become pope because my mentor was a Jesuit as well.and I have faith he is trying to heal some of the damage that has been done in the name of the Creator, So needless to say I did not take the vows, and walked a different path than what I thought I would, So nothing in this topic is new to me, and some of what I learned might surprise many of those reading or posting,mark my words my faith in the Creator has and will never waiver.

There may very well be a Creator.

I also believe in the morals taught by Christianity. The real morals... not the BS stuff the Catholic Church has been shoving down our throats. Of all the orders in the Catholic Church, the Jesuits are probably the most Christ-Like.

10 things about these Jesuits?



https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/10-facts-you-must-know-about-the-jesuits.html

[jgordon1111]

Thank you for that link Bernie, I notice that the fact Jesuits all take a vow not to seek political power is not mentioned at all. But alot of the information there is fabricated, seriously the Jesuits were responsible for both Lincoln's and Kennedy's assassinations, and conspiracy theorists haven't jumped on this awesome info, go figure. Oh btw another tidbit, since recorded history men have claimed over and over Armageddon is just around the corner, and some new nutcase comes out about once a month with a new prediction of when it will happen, and so far no winner's. Now I will give you mine, the end will come when the Creator decides it, not a minute before or after, you can take that prediction to the bank. No man knows the mind of God, if you believe me wrong, prove it.