Checking a bible fact

Thanks Sayswho, that's something more like i was looking for.
It was actually me who was thinking that the bible we read today was constructed some time after his life.
So what the da vinci code says about the bible in regards to this is true?
I find it very difficult to find solid facts about the bibles history on the internet, probably more so than any other topic lol
How confirmed is this? How much evidence is there for it?
If it is true, that is quite bad news for christianity/cathlicism. I would not dare be so foolish to follow a religion constructed in this way!

I often wonder what it is like to be so heavily involved in religion that it would stop me from asking these questions I am. It only seems natural to me to be asking these questions. Has the strong underlying theme of 'faith' brainwashed so many into having undying faith against logic?

To those people as i mention above can i say something.
If you were born into a world that believed god resided on mars, you can be damn sure you would believe it. Many would.
If you lived in the nazi era, and were in the german army at that time, you would commit the same atrocities. Many did. Normal, otherwise peaceful people did.
It's all about beliefs, and you need to question your deepest set 'logical' beliefs.

It feels real, other people believing the same thing make it seem real, that feeling of goodness from the lord you get from your religion feels real. It is real. But it's just a feeling.

Remember your mind can be moulded into whatever, and i mean WHATEVER belief system your circumstances and environment allow it to be.

I have nothing against religions, apart from the fact that they limit peoples belief systems so much. Mine is mostly made up from what i can see around me, and from what i read that makes sense.
If Jesus were to show up in front of me today and tell me the bible is all true then fine, I would follow it. That is logic.
A very old unproven book, derived from the political motives of a committee hundreds of years ago, twisted and distorted beyond all recognition from the actual events? Yes, to follow that seems to me to be illogical.

Even if religion promotes peace and harmony, that's nice. Im glad it can make people do good things sometimes.
BUT I WANT THE TRUTH.
Even if it means discovering we are all lab experiments in some aliens bottle. I WANT TO KNOW. And i will not settle for fairy tales!


[edit on 4-7-2006 by T0by]

As I recall ( and It has been some time since i have read them) There are some
of the DSS that are contemporary with the OT ( I think you are correct Isaiah is one),
There are also several Peshars ( i think that is the term used) , Discussions of parts or
passages of the OT and much that could be considered Laws and Ordinances.


The real questions asscoiated with the DSS have to due with The RCC and The Holy office of The Inquisition hid and/or destroyed during the ca.30 years they had control
over the translation project. As I recall The Current pope benny16 was the head of the inquisition during part of that time.

Originally posted by T0by

I often wonder what it is like to be so heavily involved in religion that it would stop me from asking these questions I am.

It feels real, other people believing the same thing make it seem real, that feeling of goodness from the lord you get from your religion feels real. It is real. But it's just a feeling.

Since you are wondering what it would be like to be involved in religion, it seems safe to assume you are not. So what gives you the status to be able to tell those who are "involved" in beliefs you don't share that it is "just a feeling"?

I've been in your place of unbelief and I can tell you with humility that "it" is real, God is real, and that the feelings, though important, are superseded by the understanding of His wisdom, power, and grace which comes only through faith.

By the way, it is not that "religion" prohibits questions, it's that God answers them.

For anyone interested in the way the Bible was translated and how it appears today, I recommend reading a book. It is called "Misquoting Jesus". by Bart D. Ehrman.

It really opened my eyes to how everything has been translated throughout history. Mr. Ehrman is a christian, but he actually writes in a way that lets the research speak for itself.

A must read for anyone who knows what the Bible is.

As I was reading through this thread, one thing came to mind:

First off, the Bible (from what I understand) is a collection of stories passed down and written by men. Not God. Men. That being said, looking at all of the different Christian religions, has anyone noticed that the Bible differs from one to another? Surely, the methodist Bible is slightly different than the Lutheran One. Same goes for the Presbyterian. So who is right? Which one is a correct translation?

As I am a firm believer in the Christian faith, I tend to lean towards the Bible being a guide, rather than a historical document that accounted for Jesus's life.

Take the Bible for what its worth: A useful tool to help you through your own life's problems.

See this article on Bible era timelines from wikipedia...
time line of the bible stories

It should answer some questions...
and it points out that the letters of the apostles were "supposidly" taken from letters written about 50 odd years after JC's resurection. but they are unsure... the actual biblical accounts weren't there until much later...

Pauls letters (religious propaganda to hebrew elders of the time) were the first documents actually written, regarding Christ, and were moderated for the audience they were meant for (to appeal permission to spread the word).

IMO gnostism was the original cast of Christ, but was taken by Paul, and manipulated by the roman church.
See more of gnostism here... it was the prevalent enlightened controversial beleif at the exact time of Jesus growth, and is heavily influenced by Monotheistic beleifs of zorastroism, and claims to decend from Adam and Eves child Seth.

Written records of this "Christian" perspective survive from the librarys at Nag Hammadi, so in essence, it is one of the oldest records of written scripture that is used in the bible...

and the funny thing is, the coptic church took so much of the gnostic influence out, that you can hardly see the connection.
To learn more of this possible connection:

Gnostic history, during christs time.

hope this helps bring the whole question into focus

At least three of the four Gospels were most likely derived from a single common source (The Lost "Q" Gospel), which may have been written within a hundred years or so of the events recounted.

But you have to remember something about this stuff. Some of the Greek historians tried for objectivity and accuracy, but there was no set standard that anyone felt like they had to follow as far as reporting the facts went. They were almost always willing to make things up or incorporate older legends and tales in order to make a point. So we're not talking about objective journalism like we have today. We're talking about people mixing a little bit of fact with a lot of fiction in order to make a good story.

That's why after a century and a half of relatively good archeology, most of the stuff in either the Old Testament or New Testament can't be backed up by any solid archeological evidence. Whole towns, like "Nazareth," for instance, never even existed.

Along those same lines, the most likely scenario is that there was no specific "Jesus" person as depicted in the Bible. He was probably a semi-fictional character, based on maybe dozens of different people, to whom a lot of sayings and stories of miracles were attributed, with the goal of giving some kind of hope to the people whose land was being occupied by the Romans.

That people would take it so far and read so much into it is more of an accident of history than any indication of its "rightness."

Originally posted by Enkidu
Along those same lines, the most likely scenario is that there was no specific "Jesus" person as depicted in the Bible. He was probably a semi-fictional character, based on maybe dozens of different people

I will have to disagree on this one.

Jesus is referenced all over the place in a variety of secular historical documents...a few examples (all written within 100 years or so of Christ's death)...

From a Roman historian named Tacitus:

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.

From Flavius Josephus's book "Jewish Antiquities" (written under Roman patronage):

He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.

One of my favorites is a from a letter written by Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan that discusses the "Christian Problem." That is, Pliny has to keep executing these darn Christians who refuse to curse the name of Christ:

[Non-christians] called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are ready Christians be compelled to do;

This is all, of course, off the original topic by a bit. But I think it's worth clearing up. You can say that the bible has the fingerprints of man all over it, but you can't really call it fiction...or say that Jesus never existed.

Those arguments just don't really hold water (or wine).

Originally posted by Essedarius
This is all, of course, off the original topic by a bit. But I think it's worth clearing up. You can say that the bible has the fingerprints of man all over it, but you can't really call it fiction...or say that Jesus never existed.

Those arguments just don't really hold water (or wine).

Oh, I don't think it's off-topic. We're discussing "facts" associated with the Bible, aren't we?

Anyway, all I can suggest is that you Google up a little more research on these "historical" references to Jesus, and you'll find that they were either added long after the fact (see my comments about the lack of objective journalism), or they can't be specifically associated with the Jesus who was called "Christ" in the Bible. Jesus ("Yeshua"), was a relatively common name at the time, and just like today there were a lot of freelance preachers roaming around.

LINK

As it stands, besides the dubious stories in the New Testament, there are no artifacts or other evidence available that proves Jesus, as a specific person, ever existed. If you know of any, I'm sure the folks over at Biblical Archeology Magazine would be very interested.

Originally posted by Mouth
First off, the Bible (from what I understand) is a collection of stories passed down and written by men. Not God.

Wrong. It was transcribed by men, Spirit-breathed by God, and protected throughout the ages by the same Spirit.

Originally posted by Mouth...looking at all of the different Christian religions, has anyone noticed that the Bible differs from one to another? Surely, the methodist Bible is slightly different than the Lutheran One. Same goes for the Presbyterian. So who is right? Which one is a correct translation?

Wrong. Protestant Bibles do not differ significantly according to denominations though there are some cults, like Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, whose mis-leaders have "created" a separate book or changed the Bible itself. Lutheran and Presbyterian Bibles are to all practical purposes the same, the only difference might be the variety of translations that are used, such as the paraphrased "Message" or "Living Bible" and so on, or the Revised Edition, King James version, New King James version, etc.

The versions are based on the original scrolls or earliest writings and the paraphrases are based on the King James Bible for the most part, although the "Message" is rather liberal in its poetic reinterpretation of the intent of the verses; and one version, the NIV, is strictly not appreciated throughout much of Christianity because it leaves out important words that clarify the meaning of certain verses.

For those of us who do not read the original languages or have access to the original documents, or who are not strongly learned in ancient history, that is, nearly 100% of Christians, many have chosen to use only the KJV, as the most reliable and accurate translation.

Because of today's access to so much information, however, the original words can be looked up and the definitions read so that we can see for ourselves what the intent of the words, verses and chapters were. In addition, sites like Crosswalk.com gives free access to a wide variety of versions of the Bible, Lexicons, dictionaries, and commentaries on the Bible

If one is a Christian, they also have the Spirit of Christ who Jesus said would lead us into all truth. And it is also written that the Spirit would bring to our remembrance all things Jesus said. The Bible further says we have the mind of Christ, if indeed Christ lives within us.

Given all this, I don't think it is a matter of which translation is accurate, but how much time we give to the study of the translation and seeking the Holy Spirit to lead into truth and out of deception that controls the amount of Truth we imbibe and keep in our hearts.

Originally posted by curiousity



Wrong. It was transcribed by men, Spirit-breathed by God, and protected throughout the ages by the same Spirit.

Wrong? OK. I forgot. You were there. You know beyond a reasonable doubt. Please, I have faith, but I am not a moron. Just because some people say they were instruments of God for writing the Bible does not actually make them instruments of God.

Wrong. Protestant Bibles do not differ significantly according to denominations though there are some cults, like Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, whose mis-leaders have "created" a separate book or changed the Bible itself. Lutheran and Presbyterian Bibles are to all practical purposes the same, the only difference might be the variety of translations that are used, such as the paraphrased "Message" or "Living Bible" and so on, or the Revised Edition, King James version, New King James version, etc.

First, I didn't say significantly differed, I just said they differed. And by you saying "do not differ significantly" states that you are agreeing with me. THank you. I understand that the KJV is the most accepted... BUT, just the fact that the Gospels differ so much, should but stock in the claim that they are more stories than historical documents.

The versions are based on the original scrolls or earliest writings and the paraphrases are based on the King James Bible for the most part, although the "Message" is rather liberal in its poetic reinterpretation of the intent of the verses; and one version, the NIV, is strictly not appreciated throughout much of Christianity because it leaves out important words that clarify the meaning of certain verses.

That does not change the fact that:
a) The new testament was writting after Jesus' death
b) that alot of information was edited out
c) that many years out of jesus' life is not accounted for, reducing more credibility.

For those of us who do not read the original languages or have access to the original documents, or who are not strongly learned in ancient history, that is, nearly 100% of Christians, many have chosen to use only the KJV, as the most reliable and accurate translation.

OK....

Because of today's access to so much information, however, the original words can be looked up and the definitions read so that we can see for ourselves what the intent of the words, verses and chapters were. In addition, sites like Crosswalk.com gives free access to a wide variety of versions of the Bible, Lexicons, dictionaries, and commentaries on the Bible

Thats great and all. Still doesn't change the fact that the Bible was writtem by men.

If one is a Christian, they also have the Spirit of Christ who Jesus said would lead us into all truth. And it is also written that the Spirit would bring to our remembrance all things Jesus said. The Bible further says we have the mind of Christ, if indeed Christ lives within us.

Ok some more.....

Given all this, I don't think it is a matter of which translation is accurate, but how much time we give to the study of the translation and seeking the Holy Spirit to lead into truth and out of deception that controls the amount of Truth we imbibe and keep in our hearts.

ok a little better for me here. Again, I restate: I am a firm believer, but I take what the Bible is, a guide. A way of life. If someone wrote down a paragraph stating that some dude lived for 900 years, and 1000 years later someone else read that paragraph, just because it is 1000 years old does it make it true?

An interesting link...I'm not sure I consider "Athiests.org" to be an unbiased source for this conversation, but I'll roll with it...

Originally posted by Enkidu

Anyway, all I can suggest is that you Google up a little more research on these "historical" references to Jesus, and you'll find that they were either added long after the fact

I will concede that the Josephus reference doesn't really fall in line with that author's background, as long as you concede that it was the Messianic references that were supposedly added to his work, not the references to Jesus as a whole. The fact that Josephus referenced Christ in any way makes him a valid reference when opposing the fictional-Jesus camp, no?

I can argue the others too, but I will save the energy and concede that your "tampering" argument is foolproof and a crutch that will probably never fail you. (For the record, I choose to believe that someone has tampered with your posting and that somewhere you are actually agreeing with me vehemently.)

So I guess it becomes a question of motive.

Why would people choose to die for a fad...not just in the first century when it would have been relatively easy to debunk...but in the 2nd, the 3rd, the 17th, the 21st?

Why would Christians rewrite the letters of Jewish Pharisees like Flavius, when getting a negative Jesus review from an "evil Pharisee" would do nothing but add stones to their sling?

Where are all the writings that talk about the wierd legend of Yeshua Nester and how it's all bunk? Surely there should be a ton of those you could produce...

If Jesus is actually a legend like the sun-god Mithra, then where are all the churches to Mithra and Helios and all the other fictional characters?

You have to provide me a with a decent reason why people over the last 2000 years have decided to back this particular (completely made up) horse.

There has to be something sustaining there.

(...and if you provide a link to "Nietzsche.org", I won't click on it. I really won't.)

Originally posted by Essedarius
You have to provide me a with a decent reason why people over the last 2000 years have decided to back this particular (completely made up) horse.

There has to be something sustaining there.

Well, aside from the fact that Christianity was literally beaten into half of the world, do you really think that the more people believe in something, the better or "righter" the idea must be? Really? Have you noticed how thick and stupid and simian most people are? I mean, come on! Most people can't think their way out of a paper bag. And you want to go along with them, just because a bunch of them decide something must be right? You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. "If everybody jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?"

What the Jesus myth basically does is give losers hope. And, as you know, there are a lot of losers in the world. Christianity basically says that if you're a good person, and accept Jesus as your savior, then even if you're kicked around now, you'll be rewarded in Heaven after you die, and all the bad people who were mean to you will get their comeuppance. Sweet!

It's an appealing concept, in a very childish, unsophisticated way. For the powers that be, it also grants authority and discourages people from rising up and acting impulsively to overthrow their lousy, corrupt or evil church or government (the same thing in many cases) while they're still alive. Hey, it'll all be made good after I'm dead!

What a lousy philosophy. Seriously. What would you say if I stole 5 bucks from you and told you I'd pay you back after you were dead? My guess is that you wouldn't be too thrilled with the idea, and you'd be right to think that way. Yet, you are perfectly willing to remain peaceful and pious while all kinds of people run roughshod over you your whole life, because it'll all even out after you die. Hah! What a sucker!

You're not a loser, are you? Somebody who has absolutely no resources, who is basically at the total mercy of other people, or the state? Then Christianity is not for you. But if you have essentially zero self-esteem, and you can only gain some small measure of self-worth from believing that in spite of your current powerlessness you're actually a superior person who will be handsomely rewarded after you die, then by all means stick with Christianity. You and all the other total suckers, losers and failures.

Originally posted by Enkidu


Well, aside from the fact that Christianity was literally beaten into half of the world,

News Flash: Christianity is a minority across the world. half, I am assuming is a serious overstatement.

do you really think that the more people believe in something, the better or "righter" the idea must be? Really? Have you noticed how thick and stupid and simian most people are? I mean, come on! Most people can't think their way out of a paper bag. And you want to go along with them, just because a bunch of them decide something must be right? You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. "If everybody jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?"

Only if Jesus Himself did. just kidding. but it doesn't matter how many people believe one certain way, it matters what you believe. Nothing else. At least in this country (USA) you arew given the right to freedom of religion. So believe what you want. You shouldn't bash others for what they believe, as I won't to you.

What the Jesus myth basically does is give losers hope. And, as you know, there are a lot of losers in the world. Christianity basically says that if you're a good person, and accept Jesus as your savior, then even if you're kicked around now, you'll be rewarded in Heaven after you die, and all the bad people who were mean to you will get their comeuppance. Sweet!

Losers? Tell that to the masses and see what kind of reaction you get.

It's an appealing concept, in a very childish, unsophisticated way. For the powers that be, it also grants authority and discourages people from rising up and acting impulsively to overthrow their lousy, corrupt or evil church or government (the same thing in many cases) while they're still alive. Hey, it'll all be made good after I'm dead!

What a lousy philosophy. Seriously. What would you say if I stole 5 bucks from you and told you I'd pay you back after you were dead? My guess is that you wouldn't be too thrilled with the idea, and you'd be right to think that way. Yet, you are perfectly willing to remain peaceful and pious while all kinds of people run roughshod over you your whole life, because it'll all even out after you die. Hah! What a sucker!

You are obviously missing (or not reading) my point, which is that the purpose of the Bible is a guide to living. We, as a species, have no idea what happens after death, and hope is all we can hold on to. People with hope are not "losers," they are just people with hope. Just because some humans throughout history manipulated the ideals of religion for their own good does not discount what religion stands for. It does not matter what everyone else thinks or says, only what you think should matter to you.

You're not a loser, are you? Somebody who has absolutely no resources, who is basically at the total mercy of other people, or the state? Then Christianity is not for you. But if you have essentially zero self-esteem, and you can only gain some small measure of self-worth from believing that in spite of your current powerlessness you're actually a superior person who will be handsomely rewarded after you die, then by all means stick with Christianity. You and all the other total suckers, losers and failures.

Why must you be so angry? Why do you hate the christian religion so much? Is it not ok to be of the christian faith and live a happy life, grow old, have grandkids, etc? It is not fair of you to so quickly attack the christian religion, when many people lean on it for hope, happiness, and sect of rules to live life by. All I can say is, God be with you.

Originally posted by Mouth
Why must you be so angry? Why do you hate the christian religion so much? Is it not ok to be of the christian faith and live a happy life, grow old, have grandkids, etc? It is not fair of you to so quickly attack the christian religion, when many people lean on it for hope, happiness, and sect of rules to live life by. All I can say is, God be with you.

Are you catching this, Essedarius? This is one of those millions of people you were talking about who think Christianity is the way to go.

Hey, do whatever you want. It's not easy to take a good, hard objective look at a philosophy you grew up with and pretty much take for granted. I understand. It's just beyond some people. For some people, everything's cool as long as it makes them happy and keeps them off the streets. Wonderful.

Hey, heroin or a lobotomy can make you happy, too.

Originally posted by Enkidu
You and all the other total suckers, losers and failures.

Huh.

Here's another way to look at the decision to be a sucker, loser, and failure:
(I'm stealing this, by the way, from a 17th century french mathematician named Pascal because I am too dumb a losing sucker to come up with anything this well thought out.)

People adhere to a world view (and an afterworld view) in an attempt to give some kind of meaning and structure to this whole mess here in our reality. Some people adhere to a world view that includes a God and hope and meaning and that makes their life happy. Some people decide that God is a joke and an opiate and that they would rather live in the anguished belief that life is really devoid of any meaning at all.

Everyone in both groups dies. (It's true.)
And one of those groups is right and one is wrong.

If the people who believe that God is waiting for them and that there was a reason to be decent to people while they were alive were right, then they can rejoice in eternal bliss. Meanwhile, the people who did nothing but berate believers and dismiss God will have a lot of 'splaining to do. (Some people would throw in some fire and brimstone here...I'm going to avoid that. It sounds like I'm trying to scare you into agreeing with me and that really isn't my bag.)

If the people who thought that we blink out of existence at the end of our run here on earth are right then...well...so much for gloating. You were right. Congratulations. Those years of touting the meaningless emptiness of existence were well spent.

The bottom line is, if I am wrong for believing that there is a reason for me to have hope, or to treat people decent...all I will get out of it is a pretty happy life and...here's the best part: If I'm wrong, I will never ever ever know.

Sucker? Loser? Failure?

Logic doesn't really back that up.

ITs so annoying reading this thread as I am studing church history now and am only at about 70 AD. already I can tell you some information here is not true and is close but not accurate to the point it is needed.

Its annoying beacase I am really early in church history still and dont know enough to give a good answer.

ugh.... so annoying.

Originally posted by Enkidu


Are you catching this, Essedarius? This is one of those millions of people you were talking about who think Christianity is the way to go.

It is really sad how closed minded you are. I mean, why do you give a flying hoot about what other people think or believe? Are you that insecure with yourself and your own life that you have to come on ATS and attack a whole religion? I actually feel sorry for you.

Hey, do whatever you want.

Thanks. Will do.

It's not easy to take a good, hard objective look at a philosophy you grew up with and pretty much take for granted. I understand.

I am sorry. I fail to follow. wouldn't it be easy to take something that you grew up with for granted? Are you being sarcastic? can you elaborate on this?

It's just beyond some people. For some people, everything's cool as long as it makes them happy and keeps them off the streets. Wonderful.

You know what, you are right. For some people, living their lives off the streets is good enough. Because they are thankful for the hand they are dealt. How dare you, someone who obviously is much more well off than 2/3 the worlds population (you have internet access, and are literate) continuously attack the masses like this? You must be a child, someone between the ages of 10 and 18. Obviously you have not experienced the world, and are probably taking other peoples stances on religion as your own.

Hey, heroin or a lobotomy can make you happy, too.

You are the one sounding angry, not I. I am perfectly content with my life. Maybe you should take your own advice.

Originally posted by Enkidu

Originally posted by Mouth
not easy to take a good, hard objective look at a philosophy you grew up with and pretty much take for granted. I understand. It's just beyond some people. For some people, everything's cool as long as it makes them happy and keeps them off the streets. Wonderful.

Hey, heroin or a lobotomy can make you happy, too.

What about people that have taken a good hard look at the philosophy and decided that there is truth in Christianity? Are we idiots too?
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think you are so right and the only person that is capable of rational and critical thought. Has it occured to you that others have researched it with an open mind and decided that believing in God is the correct choice?

It is called "Misquoting Jesus". by Bart D. Ehrman.

Was He not part of the Jesus Seminar? The name rings a bell. There are several
works by Robert W. Funk that echo these sentiments. one of his statements says
" Of all the sayings attributed to Jesus less than 20% were actually spoken by Jesus."

For those of us who do not read the original languages or have access to the original documents, or who are not strongly learned in ancient history, that is, nearly 100% of Christians, many have chosen to use only the KJV, as the most reliable and accurate translation.

If thats the case yall are in deep cagatha, the text of the KJV has changed significantly
just in my lifetime.

Spirit-breathed by God,

If God was involved at all it was more than likely something closer to flatulence.

Why would people choose to die for a fad.

Goddess only knows. But lest you forget let me remind you of just to in the last 30 years. Jim Jones of Jonestown fame, and David Koresh of Waco fame. Then there
are those like westboro baptist and jack chick.