Here we go again

[David Lee's Hair]

it's not at all, God is not a man, you're asking how his words have been altered to suit man. All we have are the words of men - the Gospelists included in the Bible, not even all the Gospelists. Given that they contradict they cannot be the true word of God, so we need to know what it is first before we can show the differences and how they've been changed.

Ok what about the black sea scrolls? Actually written at the time.

I've read Holy Blood Holy Grail but I'm not informed enough about what exactly they say, but they are there. But is anyone on here who could perhaps shed some light?

[thebish]

it's not at all, God is not a man, you're asking how his words have been altered to suit man. All we have are the words of men - the Gospelists included in the Bible, not even all the Gospelists. Given that they contradict they cannot be the true word of God, so we need to know what it is first before we can show the differences and how they've been changed.

Ok what about the black sea scrolls? Actually written at the time.

I've read Holy Blood Holy Grail but I'm not informed enough about what exactly they say, but they are there. But is anyone on here who could perhaps shed some light?

Dead sea scrolls - portions of what is now called the Old Testament - not the gospels. Gospels not written until 50 or so years after Jesus died.

[communistworkethic]

we know when the people lived, whe know when the census was carried out, we know under whose orders, it's all document by the officials of the time and has been research and corroborated. Unlike any of the Gospels.

I'm not sure we're as certain of these things as you think we are... sources??? who were these "officials of the time" and where are the documents of which you speak...? you're sounding strangely vague...

and where are the "corroborating" documents...?

sounds a bit like blind faith in Josephus to me...

(don't get me wrong - I don't think there was a census on 25th December, 1AD - or (0AD!) - but I have spent a considerable amount of time studying this - and the cast iron sources and proof that you seem to have have never been apparent to me...

no single documented source can be taken as proof, surely? (or maybe you had a slack history professor, eh? )

I, for one, think that we can know next to nothing about Jesus' birth or the circumstances surrounding it - trying to prove or disprove a detail about largely made up infancy narratives is a waste of time..

next you'll be offering us "scientific proof" about unusual stars in the sky - that's where this argument usually goes next...

I'll come back to you on the earlier points when I'm not a work but I have not sure what you're on about with the last line. The star that the non existent Magi didn't follow?

[thebish]

I'll come back to you on the earlier points when I'm not a work but I have not sure what you're on about with the last line. The star that the non existent Magi didn't follow?

precisely.. much ink is spilled trying to prove the "star" one way or another... as much ink as spent trying to "prove" when the census was held..

I was holding it up as an equivalent waste of time...

[communistworkethic]

I'll come back to you on the earlier points when I'm not a work but I have not sure what you're on about with the last line. The star that the non existent Magi didn't follow?

precisely.. much ink is spilled trying to prove the "star" one way or another... as much ink as spent trying to "prove" when the census was held..

I was holding it up as an equivalent waste of time...

in terms of dating josephus is a main source, he being the main historian to cover this issue but numerous papers exist on the matter but his word is not used alone it is used in conjunction with what is known of Roman census activities and other historical dates.

Whether one goes by this or not, it still remains that the two Gospelists are years apart in their suggested date of Christ's birth and even further apart on lineage.

[thebish]

in terms of dating josephus is a main source, he being the main historian to cover this issue but numerous papers exist on the matter but his word is not used alone it is used in conjunction with what is known of Roman census activities and other historical dates.

thought so!

loosely translated.. it's what Jospehus says.. he's the only "historian" for this period who mentions it (main!)
quite what Josephus's status as a historian is is a subject of much debate...

the "numerous papers" are based on what Josephus said as is what you describe vaguely as "what is known of Roman Census activities."

all of which is fair enough - but to say that this is in any way "provable" would suggest you haven't got a strong scientific or historical background - or if you have, that you are choosing to leave it on the shelf for a moment...

it's not a big deal - and I'm as guilty of it as anyone else - but it's far easier to accept the authority of a source which agrees with my argument without question than it is to accept the authority of a source that disagrees with my opinion.

I suggest that this is what most of us do - we have an opinion and then find a source that supports it (if you don't do that then you are a fine scholar and worthy of praise!)

this is (arguably) precisely what the Govt. did just before we went to war in Iraq...

[enfieldwhite]

it's not at all, God is not a man, you're asking how his words have been altered to suit man. All we have are the words of men - the Gospelists included in the Bible, not even all the Gospelists. Given that they contradict they cannot be the true word of God, so we need to know what it is first before we can show the differences and how they've been changed.

Ok what about the black sea scrolls? Actually written at the time.

I've read Holy Blood Holy Grail but I'm not informed enough about what exactly they say, but they are there. But is anyone on here who could perhaps shed some light?

Dead sea scrolls - portions of what is now called the Old Testament - not the gospels. Gospels not written until 50 or so years after Jesus died.

Some gospels (Mary Magdalene, Judas Iscariot etc) were written at the time, but were excised as being not suitable for the message being portrayed about the life and times of Jesus Christ. The finished article always leaves about as much again on the cutting room floor.

Time for The New Testament - the Director's Cut include bonus DVD!

[thebish]

Time for The New Testament - the Director's Cut include bonus DVD!

with out-takes??

[TANGODANCER]

Ethnic Cleansing

Exodus:
12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

Incest:

Genesis:
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

Rape

Numbers:
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

It took about 5 minutes to find those examples. And a waste of 5 minutes it was.

Like Commie, I couldn't spend any more time on this at work. But I'm back now, and this is going to be painful, so:

Have I read the Bible, do I know it word for word from cover to cover? Have I hell, I read passages of it and try to relate those passages to my time, and do I hell as know it word for word. Do you?. Have you read all the Bible or are you just taking convenient snatches of it and quoting them to suit. If you claim to have read it all you must be a Christian or why would you do that? I've also read parts of the Torrah and the Koran. There are lots there also that don't make much sense to me in the second millennium. Mainly because all three were written so long ago in the language and meaning of the times.

Reason: A lot of what is said is light years away from where we are now. What happened then was a life and time of continuous war in one area of the world. Why God chose that area is as baffling as to why so much emphasis is put on the Isrealites when the world is so vast and all of it God's creation.
A lot of what Moses is written as saying seems to make little sense now, but maybe it did at the time of writing to the people who lived in strange and mysterious fashion.. What I get from Moses, in conjunction with the whole of the Christian world, is the ten commandments and the legacy that has passed on from before the birth of Christ. The ten commandments make total sense in that they need no evcolvement; they apply to our own lives in a straightforward way. Do I break any of these commandments? Bet your life I've broken a few. Know anyone who hasn't? The difference nbeing a Chritian is, I suppose in believing in forgivness if true repentance is in your soul, but I won't bore you with that.

You seem to want to refute Christianity on three five minute dabs at the Bible using words that are a million miles away in context to those of today. Are you completely au-fait with the life and times and customs of ancient Egypt as to life today? They had camel tracks where we have motorways and used asses to travel where we use cars. They lived in camps and were nomads where we have cities and semi-detached houses, their social life was confined to their home territory and not a night out at Icon or Rizzys. Adultry, as you have yourself highlighted, could cost and divorce didn't exist.

We could argue the clock round using these examples and I have admitted some aspects of Christianity leave room for doubt. I still believe those aspects are man made and might even go back to the times of Moses. Who knows? . Bottom line is you either believe in God or you don't. As I have said to the point of boredom; faith needs no proof, that's left to those without it. We all share one thing; the right to choose our paths.

[communistworkethic]

the thing is TD, you admit the Bible is flawed in various contexts, that you haven't read it all yet you are prepared to accept what you are told it says and what you are told it means, without questioning it all. This is blind faith, it is not a rational train of thought to not question those flaws or to seek out the full picture, you would not do this in any other aspect of life.

If I told you that I could cure you of your ills by laying my hands on you, you wouldn't believe me. If I said I was the son of God, you wouldn't believe me, so why believe someone else that makes these claims or even someone who tells you that there's this bloke he's heard of that such claims are made of?

You point out that the bible dates from a time long ago and frankly what it says just isn't relevant to modern life, yet it provides the maxims which you apply to life in modern times, contradictory? The bible doesn't say peadophilia is a sin, wrong or slightly naughty even but you believe it is wrong, a heinous act. On what did you base that wrong/right decision if not your religious book and it's teachings? And if you can do it without your religion saying this is how you should view it, why can't you make that decision for other situations?

To read a book cover to cover does not mean you believe it, it just means it interests you. I've read Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods cover to cover, doesn't mean I believe his theory of a lost technologically advanced civilisation, any more that reading the Bible makes me Christian. What it does is supply me with information to compare against other sources and make my own mind up about its validity rather than the word of a man in a pulpit.

[thebish]

Ethnic Cleansing

(etc.. some grisley gruesomeness snipped...

This is an interesting question (though often simply used as a tool for flame wars.. - so apologies if that's what was intended rather than a serious attempt to understand...)

if you view the Old Testment (or - to be more PC - the Hebrew Scriptures) as (in some sense) the inerrant word of God - then these passages (and many others) will be a a big problem for you - and it is very difficult to wiggle away from them... you will huff and puff and bluster and end up sounding a bit desperate...

if, however, you view the Old Testament as a journal charting the ways that people (and in particular one nation) have struggled and wrestled with what it might mean if there was a God - and along the way they have learned some stuff - and made some big mistakes - and moved forwards and backwards.. and they have compared themselves to their neighbours - and asked where God is in times of warfare - and when they are made refugees - and when their sons and daughters are dragged away in chains... (etc.)

then there is much to ponder in the Old Testament - there is great beauty and great sadness - and people wrestling with how to respond to the real depths of human pain and existence...

I take the latter view - and so these oft-quoted passages don't trouble me. In fact it would trouble me far more if the God of the Bible was presented any other way.. the fact that God is often portrayed as a monster suggests to me that this is, in fact, largely speaking, an honest record of humankind's struggle to understand God...

If it were all made up in one go then I would expect God always to be presented in his/her best light.. (which is patently not the case!)

[TANGODANCER]

Commie.

I know little about you or you about me. I believe in certain things (along with the other two billion Christians in the world) you believe in others. I was born and baptised a Catholic. I was raised as a Catholic, I am a Catholic. I didn't say the Bible was flawed, just that some aspects of it I don't understand and probably never will. Throughout this debate I have never once said I am right and you are wrong, only insisted on my right to go my own path. You want to know what Christians believe in, it's all here.

Apostles' Creed--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting.

Amen.

You believe what you will. I've just about run my course because further argument is futile.

[TANGODANCER]

Ethnic Cleansing

(etc.. some grisley gruesomeness snipped...

This is an interesting question (though often simply used as a tool for flame wars.. - so apologies if that's what was intended rather than a serious attempt to understand...)

if you view the Old Testment (or - to be more PC - the Hebrew Scriptures) as (in some sense) the inerrant word of God - then these passages (and many others) will be a a big problem for you - and it is very difficult to wiggle away from them... you will huff and puff and bluster and end up sounding a bit desperate...

if, however, you view the Old Testament as a journal charting the ways that people (and in particular one nation) have struggled and wrestled with what it might mean if there was a God - and along the way they have learned some stuff - and made some big mistakes - and moved forwards and backwards.. and they have compared themselves to their neighbours - and asked where God is in times of warfare - and when they are made refugees - and when their sons and daughters are dragged away in chains... (etc.)

then there is much to ponder in the Old Testament - there is great beauty and great sadness - and people wrestling with how to respond to the real depths of human pain and existence...

I take the latter view - and so these oft-quoted passages don't trouble me. In fact it would trouble me far more if the God of the Bible was presented any other way.. the fact that God is often portrayed as a monster suggests to me that this is, in fact, largely speaking, an honest record of humankind's struggle to understand God...

If it were all made up in one go then I would expect God always to be presented in his/her best light.. (which is patently not the case!)

Well put Bish, and not too far away from what I just said except in different words. Our twentieth century minds find most of the books of ancient wisdom a little extraordinary becuse of the life and times in which they were written and appertain to. Hard to imagine God advocating killing on one hand and yet telling you to turn the other cheek to abuse and commanding "Thou shalt not kill" on the other. Hard to understand being told to give the coat from your back to someone less fortunate than yourself yet those who aquire riches being praised. Thereis no real answer to anything that depends on faith without proof, but that's the whole concept of God. Maybe the bible itself is a huge riddle. Who really knows? And thereby faith appears.

[communistworkethic]

The question is, why have faith in it any more than tales of fairies, unicorns, goblins, loch ness monsters, mothman, springheeled jack or Eric Von Danikens - Alien descendancy theory? Why have these Gospels any more basis in fact than those left out or have greater worth of your faith?

Having faith in something is one thing, having blind faith is another. My last thought on the matter; If you cannot question your beliefs or the word on which they are given is that a strong faith or a or one which fears the challenge?

[thebish]

Having faith in something is one thing, having blind faith is another. My last thought on the matter; If you cannot question your beliefs or the word on which they are given is that a strong faith or a or one which fears the challenge?

as this is Commies last thought - here's an opportunity to have the last word!!

to be not-entirely-serious, but at the same time slightly serious...

Some of the most penetrating questioning/doubting of the Bible/Faith/Creeds comes from within the Church. It might not be apparent from "outside" - except when the Daily Mail blows a fuse when it realizes that Vicars don't really believe in the "Virgin Birth" anymore (or much of the creed that Tango posts above!) - and haven't done for a long time.....

I wonder whether it's a bit like football. We can criticize our own players - and tear them to shreds (poor Hunty!!) - but if a ManU fan dares to have a go at one of our players - then it's different - and we get all defensive and embarass ourselves a bit...

(OK - it's not exactly like that - but it's wise not to waste a chance for a last word!!)

The Bible never calls for blind faith - and Commie is bob-on to highlight it... "blind faith" never buttered no parsnips - it leads to intolerance and extremism because it so often tries to shut the door on reasonable discussion...

[enfieldwhite]

Surely the last word should be 'Amen'?

[thebish]

Surely the last word should be 'Amen'?

[communistworkethic]

Amen to that

[thebish]

y'see - now Commie got the last word... (errr... oh!)

[David Lee's Hair]

it's not at all, God is not a man, you're asking how his words have been altered to suit man. All we have are the words of men - the Gospelists included in the Bible, not even all the Gospelists. Given that they contradict they cannot be the true word of God, so we need to know what it is first before we can show the differences and how they've been changed.

Ok what about the black sea scrolls? Actually written at the time.

I've read Holy Blood Holy Grail but I'm not informed enough about what exactly they say, but they are there. But is anyone on here who could perhaps shed some light?

Dead sea scrolls - portions of what is now called the Old Testament - not the gospels. Gospels not written until 50 or so years after Jesus died.