Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[leo]

And the problem is that this  littlenipper dude want us to convert to his Christian religion. You must prove that Jesus is the Jewish messiah. First things first. And you must prove your  deity exists.

[Blackleaf]

I have talked to real people who are "Born-Again" Christians, and they do NOT come across usually as unreasonable or hateful to say the least. In fact, they seem very understanding of human weaknesses and far from unforgiving. What some see as hateful is the unwavering absolute conviction that certain forms of behavior need to be forgiven at all and not just another very acceptable way to live without any ramifications.

I was a Christian for the majority of my life. I've had experience with Pentecostals, Lutherans, and Baptists. I wonder what denomination you are, but despite the big differences between all three, in my experience, they all have big weaknesses that are tied to their beliefs. First, the Pentecostals, or to be more specific, the United Pentecostal church, of which the majority of my family identify with... I could write a whole book on how screwed up they are. From senselessly holding on to the social norms of the 1800's (mostly rules applying to what women can wear, do with their hair, etc) to competing in babble free-for-alls in church (their interpretation of "speaking in tongues"), I can find no redeeming qualities in their population.

Then there are the Lutherans. Out of the three, these are the most tolerable of the bunch. Out of the three, they are generally the most open minded. However, despite being a Protestant denomination, they hold onto a lot of the traditions of the Catholics. In my experience, Lutherans are so confused by their self-conflicting beliefs that they often rely on personal experience to find their answers. This makes them highly emotional, as they allow their imagined convictions from God to dictate their life decisions. They're supposedly forgiven, yet they won't stop feeling guilty about all the evil things they do like... Well, most of them never did anything really bad, but they're "sinners" by default no matter what they've done. They strike me as atheists waiting to come out, and they would be much more emotionally healthy if they do.

And lastly, there's the Baptists. At first, I liked this denomination the best because it most accurately teaches and applies Biblical teachings. Now that I'm not a Christian anymore, I loathe it because it most accurately teaches and applies Biblical teachings. Their first weakness comes from trying to apply the Bible, a book written in and for a much more barbaric society, to modern times. They ignore common sense and science in favor of the "truths" of scripture, which were debunked and dismissed by secular people ages ago. But besides being a plague on Western society, holding back progress, they're also incredibly self-righteous. Because they see their personal interpretations as fact, they tend to unapologetically tell everyone else what they should do with their own lives, and judge others "in love." Hell, there was even one who overheard my conversation about the movie "Taken," and chastised me for endorsing violence. Yeah, I'm sure that if his daughter was kidnapped and sold into the sex slave trade, then he would have so much sympathy for the kidnappers.

All in all, my experience with Christians is that they are judgemental, overemotional, and give too much credit to their own opinions. There are good Christians out there, but they are good despite being Christian. The real reason you cannot see this, even though the truth is right in front of you, is that your definition of "goodness" is tied to religious piety. The more "Christian" they are, the better human beings they are in your eyes. But people who are not Christians who look at how Christians behave do not see them as model citizens. Instead, they judge Christians by their actions, and the number one word used to describe them is this: "hypocrites."

[widdershins]

  Did you ever think that there is no other "religious" document that is equal with the Bible? The Bible is not a book of magic. It is a book of salvation and a wise pattern to live by.

So what you're saying is that you are unable to refute a single thing I said, so rather than offer any evidence in support of your beliefs you have once again resorted to nothing more than asserting that you are correct.

As for the Bible not being a book of magic, have you ever read it?  You don't recall Moses vs Pharaohs magician?  You don't recall the woman with "familiar spirits" raising the ghost of Samuel?  You don't recall 10 plagues of Egypt, Jesus healing the sick, water into wine or 2 people being raised from the dead?  I don't care if you prefer to call most of that "miracles", it's just magic by another name, and Pharaoh's "magician" was magic by no other name.

That there is no other religious document equal to the Bible, that's your opinion.  Any high school kid can tell you that whether a book is "good" or "bad" is purely opinion.  I'm not sure why that's hard for you to figure out.  As for it being a "wise pattern to live by", I suppose that depends on which parts you "live by", doesn't it?  Because you don't live by the whole of the Bible.  I'm going to assume you don't go around killing every witch you see per the instructions in Exodus 22:18.  I'm going to assume you don't live in a household with one husband, several wives and several more concubines, legally purchased from their fathers per Biblical teachings.  I'm going to assume this is also not a household where the woman has to go live alone in the forest 7 days out of every month.  I'm also assuming that you don't keep track of how long a woman is "unclean" after having a baby, 7 days if it's a boy, 14 if it's a girl.  If any of that is wrong, please, feel free to correct me.  If all of my assumptions are wrong then congratulations!  You live by even the unpopular parts of the Bible.  I'm sure you'll be very popular in prison after your murder conviction.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It isn't my ideology, because I didn't institute it nor formulate it. I am compelled to accept it because nothing else fills the void in understanding nature for me. The following questions are answered: Why am I here? Where am I headed? And what happens to me if I don't do anything?

If it is what you believe, then it is your ideology.  You do not have to originate it for it to be your ideology.  Quit playing semantic games with me.

It is your belief, it is your religion, it is your ideology.  You didn't create it, but it is yours.

[LittleNipper]

If it is what you believe, then it is your ideology.  You do not have to originate it for it to be your ideology.  Quit playing semantic games with me.

It is your belief, it is your religion, it is your ideology.  You didn't create it, but it is yours.

Is this your ideology?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Is this your ideology?

Did he mention hookers and blackjack? Then no.

[stromboli]

Based on the fact that we get many so-called Christians on here that have different beliefs than the orthodox views, religion is yours. You internalize it and accept it, it is yours. Every church I went to maintained that a relationship with Jesus was a personal one.

You believe in Jesus without any objective or outside evidence. Without the bible and Christian claims, Jesus doesn't exist. to wit:




So guess what? Until you can objectively prove Jesus even existed, your belief is of myth and superstition. Have fun with that.

[Baruch]

This is why a spiritual Jesus (like the spirit of Christmas) trumps the historical Jesus anytime.  As long as children believe in Santa Claus, then spiritually Santa Claus will come alive every December.

[trdsf]

I think the much more interesting and important question is: how many edits and translations have they gone through before the versions currently in circulation?  We don't have any of the source documents; the earliest complete copies of any of the NT books date to 350CE and the earliest fragments to 150-175CE, and those are also in Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic -- translations from the very start.  And not many of us understand Koine Greek to read them for ourselves anyway.

[Mike Cl]

I think the much more interesting and important question is: how many edits and translations have they gone through before the versions currently in circulation?  We don't have any of the source documents; the earliest complete copies of any of the NT books date to 350CE and the earliest fragments to 150-175CE, and those are also in Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic -- translations from the very start.  And not many of us understand Koine Greek to read them for ourselves anyway.

That is so true!  And if I remember correctly, none of the fragments agree with other fragments.  Plus, errors upon errors were compounded when the King James Version was worked on; and that is because the first printings of the bible were hurried for economic reasons, of course.  Not the greatest of care was taken as to the accuracy of of any of the translated bibles first printed.  The bottom line is that 'The Bible' did not just drop out of the sky straight out of God's hands, complete and error free.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is this your ideology?

It's called "English", do you speak it?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

It's called "English", do you speak it?

Works better if you link the video.

[spoiler=The Video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvWDNPriUY8[/spoiler]

[Baruch]

I think the much more interesting and important question is: how many edits and translations have they gone through before the versions currently in circulation?  We don't have any of the source documents; the earliest complete copies of any of the NT books date to 350CE and the earliest fragments to 150-175CE, and those are also in Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic -- translations from the very start.  And not many of us understand Koine Greek to read them for ourselves anyway.

Judeo-Greek ... not Koine (pagan).  But a mere technicality.  There was a whole kaleidoscope of Jesus genre literature ... and before that, oral traditions as well (see Gospel of Thomas).  The version labeled Mark is the closest to the spoken language, but this could have been artificial.  The other synoptics and the Gospel of John are written compositions.  Yet most of the evangelists (who may or may not have known anyone named Jesus) were illiterate.  By tradition, the apostle John was from a priestly family, so he could probably read and write ... Paul was clearly literate, yet not well, because he had to use a secretary that he dictated to.  Jesus is described as someone who knew what the weekly Torah portion was ... but not that he could actually read or write.  This was part of the philosopher game ... Socrates hated books.

Not fluent, but I have studied Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Greek and Pagan Greek off and on over the past 9 years.

We will probably not get much more "buried scrolls" in the future, but you can never say never.  Nobody expected the Nag Hammadhi scrolls.

[trdsf]

That is so true!  And if I remember correctly, none of the fragments agree with other fragments.  Plus, errors upon errors were compounded when the King James Version was worked on; and that is because the first printings of the bible were hurried for economic reasons, of course.  Not the greatest of care was taken as to the accuracy of of any of the translated bibles first printed.  The bottom line is that 'The Bible' did not just drop out of the sky straight out of God's hands, complete and error free.

And the KJV in particular was a political translation, with the English phrases turned in such a way to promote one interpretation over another and one sect of English Protestantism over others.

Pretty much every codification of the bible was political in nature anyway, whether to promote one view, or to crush a "heresy".

[Mike Cl]

And the KJV in particular was a political translation, with the English phrases turned in such a way to promote one interpretation over another and one sect of English Protestantism over others.

Pretty much every codification of the bible was political in nature anyway, whether to promote one view, or to crush a "heresy".

Exactly.  And what most christians don't realize (or want to realize) is that with the invention of the printing press, the bible in all of it's forms was seen as a cash cow.  There was very little concern about the accuracy of the copies, just that they were printed and sold.