You think the Bible is little more than pious fairy stories? That’s probably because you’ve 1. been listening to Christians, which is always a mistake and to be frank they shouldn’t be let any near the scripture or 2. you’ve read too many ‘clever’ refutations of the bible by some intellectual.

Anyway I get sick of people spouting crap about the Bible here so I thought I’d give you all a little example of what can happen when you actually read the fucking book the same way you’d read a newspaper.

You know the bit about how Satan tempts Christ? You probably seen pictures like THIS (http://tinyurl.com/yhkqtr)

Well that’s what happens when artists listen to Christians.

So lets read this together. I’ve put in some explanations. I have purposely avoided adding scholarly sources, if you’re that interested then its all out there . I have just tried to explain things the way I would if we were discussing a newspaper article…although I have spared you a transliteration of my cockney vowels :P

Matthew 4

quote:1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Leaving aside the identity of the devil for a moment (I’ll come back to that) what we have here is a fairly bog standard cleansing/preparation ritual, common to all cults of the time. Jesus fucks off to some lonely place, fasts and contemplates his navel or whatever. Nothing mystical really. The only point to notice is that it was planned

quote: 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Its interesting that the ‘devil’ is actually referred to here as ‘the tempter’. Remember please that in the entire bible there is no Uber evil being known as Satan. ‘Satan’ simply means ‘the enemy or adversary. Nothing supernatural about it. So at the moment we see no reason to assume that the ‘tempter’ is anything but a normal mortal.

So lets now look at the Question and Answer session. Without wanting to go too deep in the theology and history of this, what we basically have here is a ritual. A testing of any prospective ‘messiah’.

quote: 5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

Please, please , please could we forget about all those ‘Children’s Bible’ pictures of Satan bearing Jesus aloft and flying around Israel! Read what it says: The tempter took or ‘led’ him to Jerusalem and they went up to the top (the ‘pinnacle’) of the Temple, where we know there was a balconey/viewing gallery. Nothing supernatural here.

What however is important to note is that the ‘tempter’ had access to the temple. This tells scholars things, that I won’t bore you with now, about the identity of the ‘devil’ in this piece.

quote: 6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

More ritual Q&A’s, the passages quoted are of interest to scholars but please don’t assume that Jesus was answering ‘off the cuff’. Chances are that these were fairly standard responses for any would be messiah.

quote: 8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Once again NOWHERE is flying mentioned! They fucking walked! I’ve never had the chance to stand on top of the highest mountain in that area but I’m betting on a clear day you can see most of the Kingdoms of the ‘world’ from it. You must remember that the ‘world’ was defined very differently back then and that definition depended on who you were. A Roman defined the world as basically the countries of the Med. A Jew usually meant the Near East , as we know it today.

So not really anything supernatural there either.

quote:10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Yet more Q&A’s, all very clever and all very standard type of ritual. And his work being done the ’tempter’ buggers off again and ‘angels’ (ie nice people who followed Jesus) came and fed him. Nowhere are winged beings with halos mentioned.

So what do we have now?

Jesus performs a ‘test’.All very common and believable for the time and place. Nothing supernatural and is infact probably a fairly accurate historical account.

No fairy story about a flying devil and esoteric crap like that. Just history, like any other historical document. The Bible is fine (to a large extent) what isn’t is the way people place meanings on things that the original authors could never have dreamed of.

Next time you hear Christians spouting some paranormal shite then just take the time to actually read the book for yourself. Just read it the way you’d read any historical document. Google up stuff you don’t understand.

You may be surprised.

(btw for those sad people who are interested , the clever money is on the ‘Devil’ being a high priest ..maybe even Caiaphas himself)



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 12-11-2006).]

Dont you belive in magic?

quote:Originally posted by Pat_Macrotch:

Dont you belive in magic?

Lol. Serious question?

Sounds like it's fairy tales to me. No matter how much you try to corporalize it, it still sounds like a load of shit. I have a question for you, buddy. What the fuck does a two thousand year old book have to do with life today and what makes you think that story hasn't been rewriten SO many times that it isn't even CLOSE to what it orginaly was?

AND

Santa clause is a much more convincing story.

AND

The Earth is older than six thousand years old.

AND

Ok, seriously this "AND" shit could go on for ever so I'm just going to say: NO, your wrong and the bible is a waste of perfectly good toilet paper........or rolling paper http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by THE ONLY SANE MAN:

Sounds like it's fairy tales to me. No matter how much you try to corporalize it, it still sounds like a load of shit. I have a question for you, buddy. What the fuck does a two thousand year old book have to do with life today and what makes you think that story hasn't been rewriten SO many times that it isn't even CLOSE to what it orginaly was?

AND

Santa clause is a much more convincing story.

AND

The Earth is older than six thousand years old.

AND

Ok, seriously this "AND" shit could go on for ever so I'm just going to say: NO, your wrong and the bible is a waste of perfectly good toilet paper........or rolling paper http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



Did i say the bible had anything to do with life today? No I bloody well didn't.

Personally I think it has a lot of relevance but that's just my personal belief and I ain't here to preach none. I don't save no souls.

Also ain't nowhere in the book that says that the earth is 6000 years old. That piece of nonsense is mainly due to a christian by the name of Usher.

Infact the Bible make sit pretty clear that the Earth is real old.

Now your last point was a good one. Yes some parts of the bible have been rewritten, 'edited' (ie forged), copied, "lost, found, recycled as fire lighters" and 'expanded' (ie forged!).

But most of the time any half way decent scholar can tell. He may not be certain of what it originally said, mind, but he can sure as fuck tell you that someone has played silly buggers with the text.

Whole branch of scholarship just devoted to that.

quote:Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

How can he see all the kingdoms in the world from the top of a mountain? The world is round, not flat. He could have in no way seen China.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

How can he see all the kingdoms in the world from the top of a mountain? The world is round, not flat. He could have in no way seen China.



Read what I wrote.

you didnt read the post did you... idiot

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

you didnt read the post did you... idiot

I was browsing. My bad.

Did you even read the fucking post?

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

I was browsing. My bad.



No actually your point was good and a great example of what i wa stalking about. Because its crap like the belief shown here (http://tinyurl.com/yyhgrq) that makes rational people reject the bible out of hand.





[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 12-11-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by THE ONLY SANE MAN:

Sounds like it's fairy tales to me. No matter how much you try to corporalize it, it still sounds like a load of shit. I have a question for you, buddy. What the fuck does a two thousand year old book have to do with life today and what makes you think that story hasn't been rewriten SO many times that it isn't even CLOSE to what it orginaly was?



That's a pretty dumb way to look at something. Because its 2000 years old, it doesn't have anything to do with how to live your life today?

How exactly could the Bible be rewritten? First, it wasn't written all at once, and it wasn't put together at one time. They find old manuscripts that are basically the same, as what we have. And whenever they were put together, more people had acces to them. Not just locked away in the Vatican. How exactly would you change the book if some Jewish or Muslim scholar had copies of it.

Not to mention all the references in writer's a different time periods quoting the Bible. In fact, you can practically copy the Bible from those references.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

That's a pretty dumb way to look at something. Because its 2000 years old, it doesn't have anything to do with how to live your life today?

How exactly could the Bible be rewritten? First, it wasn't written all at once, and it wasn't put together at one time. They find old manuscripts that are basically the same, as what we have. And whenever they were put together, more people had acces to them. Not just locked away in the Vatican. How exactly would you change the book if some Jewish or Muslim scholar had copies of it.

Not to mention all the references in writer's a different time periods quoting the Bible. In fact, you can practically copy the Bible from those references.



Good points and I should have pointed out that the '2000 year old' bit only applies to the NT. The oral traditions behind parts of the OT go back so far that its just telephone numbers.

Some scholars reckon the 'Job' goes back past Sumeria (ie that the so-called 'Babylonian Job' was based on an accountmuch much older.)

Read the old testament like a newspaper - that'll reflect well on your beloved God.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Read the old testament like a newspaper - that'll reflect well on your beloved God.



You mean the fact that 'he' makes hitler look like an inept amatuer?

quote:Originally posted by Kooper0:

Lol. Serious question?

Yeah, Im being serious.

I give this thread two thumbs up. Finally, someone who isn't half brain dead has made an actual contribution to the board. Thanks jackketch!

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Also ain't nowhere in the book that says that the earth is 6000 years old. That piece of nonsense is mainly due to a christian by the name of Usher.

It doesn't have to say it outright. It's very strongly implied that the Earth is young by tracing the genealogy from Adam to Jesus.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Infact the Bible make sit pretty clear that the Earth is real old.

Where?

Personally, I believe the stories of the Bible should not be taken literally but represent a guide for good living.

For example, the metaphor of the loaves and the fishes.

There was enough for a few, but in distributing it between the masses, everyone was satisfied!

For those disputing the impact of the Bible, just look at the difference between western 'Christian' nations and the middle east/far east.

I believe that fundimental difference in ethics and morality to be a side-effect of religion.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I give this thread two thumbs up. Finally, someone who isn't half brain dead has made an actual contribution to the board. Thanks jackketch!

Cheers,

Lost

I agree. Some good god damn critical thinking. When one actually READS the bible, it becomes much more clear.

so theres less supernatural/paranormal in the bible then some would make you think.

except, heaven, god, son of god, resurection and angels is a supernatural/paranormal thing.....

what would happen if all literature was destroyed tomorrow, and the only thing that was left was Lord of the Rings books that were lost for 500 years then found again?

quote:You mean the fact that 'he' makes hitler look like an inept amatuer?



If that is the case then it would be our moral responsibility to rebel against such a tyranical ruler...

quote:I give this thread two thumbs up. Finally, someone who isn't half brain dead has made an actual contribution to the board. Thanks jackketch!



Thanks for contributing something meaningless to the conversation.

quote:I agree. Some good god damn critical thinking. When one actually READS the bible, it becomes much more clear.



Critical thinking?? Fuck off - anyone who thinks that the bible is a reputable historical document is not thinking critacally at all. Also... Is 'READING' different from 'reading'?? The more i read into it the more inconsistencies, contradictions and paradoxes i find; the only thing that becomes clear is the falsity of scripture.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I give this thread two thumbs up. Finally, someone who isn't half brain dead has made an actual contribution to the board. Thanks jackketch!

Cheers,

Lost

That's just rude.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Critical thinking?? Fuck off - anyone who thinks that the bible is a reputable historical document is not thinking critacally at all.

QFT

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 12-12-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

Critical thinking?? Fuck off - anyone who thinks that the bible is a reputable historical document is not thinking critacally at all. Also... Is 'READING' different from 'reading'?? The more i read into it the more inconsistencies, contradictions and paradoxes i find; the only thing that becomes clear is the falsity of scripture.

You are perhaps unaware that 'critical' has a slightly different meaning in theology?

You find 'more inconsistencies, contradictions', thats good. Shows at least that you are thinking about what you read.

However I would lay money that most of the things you label thus are infact something different.

For example, a lot of the contradicitons in the OT are due to the fact that it isn't a single coherent account. There are numerous places where up to 4 accounts were welded together. It is the job of a'critical' theologian to forst identify where the 'welds' are and then to check the historicity of each etc etc. (thats part of what 'criticism' means in a theological sense ).

And the 'falsity' of scripture? When judged as what?

With what preconception are you reading it with? That it is the supposedly infallible word of god or something?

Tell you what, post something in the bible that really seems 'wrong' to you, something that you feel shows how unhistorical the book is. Give me the chance to show you that you may be judging overly harshly.

SOrry if my English seems stilted, only just got up.Not enough coffee.

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 12-12-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

That's a pretty dumb way to look at something. Because its 2000 years old, it doesn't have anything to do with how to live your life today?

How exactly could the Bible be rewritten? First, it wasn't written all at once, and it wasn't put together at one time. They find old manuscripts that are basically the same, as what we have. And whenever they were put together, more people had access to them. Not just locked away in the Vatican. How exactly would you change the book if some Jewish or Muslim scholar had copies of it.

Not to mention all the references in writer's a different time periods quoting the Bible. In fact, you can practically copy the Bible from those references.



The New Testament is under 2000 years old, actually. It was canonized circa 400 AD, if memory serves.

quote:Originally posted by socratic:

The New Testament is under 2000 years old, actually. It was canonized circa 400 AD, if memory serves.

I think he knows that. The oldest part of the NT was probably written around 50-70 AD although that is a matter of GREAT debate among scholars.

quote:Originally posted by socratic:

The New Testament is under 2000 years old, actually. It was canonized circa 400 AD, if memory serves.

ok, just because something is 1600 years old doesn't mean its not relevant

If you read some early buddhist writing you'll find out that the bible is a fucking ripoff. the buddhist stuff is much older but almost worded the same.

quote:Originally posted by realty0is0a0lie:

If you read some early buddhist writing you'll find out that the bible is a fucking ripoff. the buddhist stuff is much older but almost worded the same.

UHm as some of the Old Testament demonstrably goes back to (at least Sumer) I find that a bit hard to believe.

Buddha was born when, 500 BCE? Something like that?

jackketch--AWESOME post. Congrats and a tip of the Greyfox fedora to you.

As I have said many times, the Bible (especially the OT) is mostly myth and metaphor.

What resonates most with me is "The kingdom of God is within you." That implies to me that there is no such place as Heaven, and that each of us is an Individuation of the divine.

Also--"All these things I have done, ye shall do also--all these and more." In other words, Jesus is saying that he is nothing special--anyone can do what he has done.

[This message has been edited by ArmsMerchant (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:



What resonates most with me is "The kingdom of God is within you." That implies to me that there is no such place as Heaven, and that each of us is an Individuation of the divine.

The headmaster of my primary school was a professed heretic and he taught us the exact same thing. Never forgot that.

However I should point out that the Kingdom Of God is according to the scripture also a physical place (an earthly theocracy).

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

UHm as some of the Old Testament demonstrably goes back to (at least Sumer) I find that a bit hard to believe.

Buddha was born when, 500 BCE? Something like that?

Buddhists borrow large portions of their religion from the pre-existing Vedic texts, which pre-date a lot of civilizations.

Anyways, I for one agree that there is at least SOME historical elements to the Bible, and not all just supernatural mumbojumbo. I mean, a lot of the OT was probably cautionary tales and metaphysical ramblings (e.g. Book of Job), but there's some events which genuinely happened. All those times the Hebrews conquered over other tribes probably happened (but were greatly overexagerated- I mean, Angel of Death? Come on...), and is probably why many of these tribes didn't continue on for very long.

god doesnt have to be the answer to how, but to why.

You can find a lot of the same kind of tales in other texts, older texts than the bible contain stories such as ones found in the bible...a lot are word of mouth which get twisted and turned out of shape.

I wouldn't read the bible as literal, i think to do so would be naive, i would then ask...so why cant other fairytale books be true.

It also says in the bible that Jesus rose from the dead and was then ascended into heaven...... sounds paranormal to me and thats not the only case paranormal incidents happen in the bible.

I think the bible is just stories that had a lot to do with the time it was written. An interesting theory is proposed in the book Ishmael. The author suggests that the story of the garden of eden was really about the agricultural evolution.

quote:Originally posted by THE ONLY SANE MAN:

What the fuck does a two thousand year old book have to do with life today



You'd be surprised.

its almost prophetic.

[This message has been edited by Uncle Phil (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:



You mean the fact that 'he' makes hitler look like an inept amatuer?



Crimes commited in the name of God do not mean God is to blame. God is creditted and blamed far too much.

Good thread.



[This message has been edited by mrparks (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Tell you what, post something in the bible that really seems 'wrong' to you, something that you feel shows how unhistorical the book is. Give me the chance to show you that you may be judging overly harshly.



The ressurection of Jesus Christ.

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

The ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Me and my big mouth. That's one of the trickier ones.

OK sometime today I'll see what I can do (still on first coffee of the morning).

I'll start a fresh thread on that one.

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 12-14-2006).]

As you probably know, there is a great deal of contradiction among the four gospels--not to mention the dozen or so which didn't make the final cut (personally, I really like the gospel of Thomas, and the gospel of Judas).

One of them (at least when read in the original Greek) strongly implies that Jesus did not die on the cross--it was a hoax. This makes a lot of sense to me, but my sweety--who puts a lot of credence in the Urantia Book--disagrees.

[This message has been edited by ArmsMerchant (edited 12-15-2006).]

jackketch whats your view on the bible?

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

jackketch whats your view on the bible?

In what way? You mean do I think it is the WORD OF GOD 'rit large and each letter is holy and not to be questioned by mere mortals?

Well doctrinally are an affirmer of Sola Scripturea, or are you more liberal eg:critique and contrast... do you see it as a secular document?

And what theological doctrine do you hold? My first guess Gnostic or liberal? amirite



[This message has been edited by madamwench (edited 12-14-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

Well doctrinally are an affirmer of Sola Scripturea, or are you more liberal eg:critique and contrast... do you see it as a secular document?

And what theological doctrine do you hold? My first guess Gnostic or liberal? amirite







I describe myself varyingly as a 'heretic','gnostic','arian','ger toshab'. All of which mean that my main interest is what did Jesus really do, what did he teach and what was the faith of those first christians.

I see the NT as a source document for that. Or rather as a series of source documents which should be subject to all the normal rules of evidence to ascertain their validity and accuracy etc.

My pet hate is evangelical christians who arse rape the scripture to back up their doctrines (which are more often than not of non-biblical origin).

so your a diest im guessing...and what doctrines do you mean?

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

so your a diest im guessing...and what doctrines do you mean?



If you mean do I believe in the god of Abraham, David and Jesus; the Great I AM and uber poo-bah ? Then ,yep.

Doctrines? I hope I don't hold any.

no i mean the Doctrines that evangelicas have that have no biblical support...

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

no i mean the Doctrines that evangelicas have that have no biblical support...



UHm it would be easier to list their beliefs that are 'biblical' cos they are bloody few.

But off the top of my head ( and IMO) there is no biblical basis for the whole thing about having an immortal soul, nor for heaven or hell as they proclaim it, nor for the need to subscribe to certain doctrines to be 'saved',nor for you to need to 'let jesus into your life', nor for the trinity or the eucharist.

Also the sunday sabbath is unbiblical, as is most of what they call prophecy. Nor for the NT itself as being the untouchable word of God.

And and and and and .....

ad nauseum

mmmmmm thats intresting i agree with you mostly

the imortal soul came from greco/roman philoshphy

i recomend you read a book "velvet elvis" you will connect with it alot...

the two that got me thinking was the comment on heaven and hell how would you describe it anilationism? and the trinity? what alternitives do you pose?

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

mmmmmm thats intresting i agree with you mostly

the imortal soul came from greco/roman philoshphy

i recomend you read a book "velvet elvis" you will connect with it alot...

the two that got me thinking was the comment on heaven and hell how would you describe it anilationism? and the trinity? what alternitives do you pose?

You mean "Annihilationism"? And the honest answer is to both questions that I don't know.

As regards Heaven and Hell I tend towards what it says in Job about 'remembering the work of thy hands' ie a physical resurrection . But I find no biblical base for any 'final judgement'.

And I pose nothing about the trinity, neither do I save any souls. The first christians simply believed that Jesus was a man. No more and no less. A man who became the 'son of god' at his baptism. That works for me.

so do you feel that there will be no great judgement.... at all?

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

so do you feel that there will be no great judgement.... at all?



No, i'm with the 'Allversoehnler' on that one.

His thesis was?

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

His thesis was?



Sorry my bad (its late and I'm away to my bed), it's the theological name (German) for christians who believe that all shall be redeemed/saved and then live forever in paradise/heaven/a quaint tuscan village with good local vineyards.

like hyper arminism or pelegalism?

quote:Originally posted by madamwench:

so do you feel that there will be no great judgement.... at all?



In my view--and that of many others who generally subscribe to what Walsch calls the New Gospel, what Chopra calls the New Paradigm)--God does not judge, reward, or punish.

The whole notion of "the resurrection of the body" thing (as in the Apostles Creed) creeps me out--shades of Night of the Living Dead.