It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Christians do away with the Bible?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
We've all heard that Christians are following a censored document compiled over 300 hundred years after Christ .
Censorship meant we have lost the exact words of Jesus and are following an interpretation of a group of men who existed in a environment vastly different to current western acceptable cultural parameters.

How would we have interpreted the teachings of Jesus if we had a council of Nicea today? What conclusions would you come to? Would they be vastly different to the current new testament?
Would we include the writings of Paul who was not a apostle, avoiding all the end of the world fears he created to hook people into signing up?

Should Christians read the written word of Jesus found in the Gospel of St Thomas, the oldest document pertaining to his sayings written in Aramaic? Reading his actual words only and then interpreting what he said for yourself rather than relying on men from 1700 years ago?
users.misericordia.edu...

Bible is Doctrine. Doctrine means 'instruction' Indoctrinate means 'Teach uncritically' I don't know, but no one I've met in ATS in uncritical! So why not criticise what the men at Nicea said?

What Bible would we come up with today from his words only?

We'll stay clear of the Old Testament ...for now....


[edit on 27-1-2009 by zazzafrazz]




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I'm going to agree here. Now, of course, it depends on who reviews the sayings of Jesus. For example, Stephen Hawking would have a different New Testament than Gaahl (a Satanist) would.

I was talking about something like this the other day with an acquaintance. She kept saying "well, you can't just pick and choose what you want in the Bible." I replied, "Ever heard of the Council of Nicea?"

In my opinion, Paul was an overly cheauvanistic con-man who was employed by the PTB (or PTW) to spread ridiculous things. If one studies Taoism and the teachings of Jesus (even in the contemporary New Testament), one would find that the teachings are rather similar. Plus, Jesus hung out with the Essenes, who may have had experience with Taoist (or teachings resembling Taoist) philosophies. Maybe Jesus preached it.

From the Law of One site, it says Jesus was a being incarnated into humanity to help us get back to the truth about spirituality.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
yeah because apparently paul ruined it all, and the last 2000 years of history prove it causes nothing but war and suffering -do away with the whole flawed god delusion if you ask me.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Hi,

You know the bible has been translated from Greek as well. The council of Nicaea did not "write" the bible, they chose what books to remove based on approximate age of the documents / books as some were written post 1st century (except the book of Enoch which just scared the hell out of them.. hehe)

Christ died in the 1st Century, around 32 AD. The whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Matthew for example is believed to be written 10-12 years after the death of Christ and may have been sooner as he may have written it in Aramaic and then at a later time it was translated into Greek. (Who knows?)
But all within the generation of the "living" Jesus.


Many of the books that were removed were from 2nd or 3rd century A.D. and were believed to be "add-ons" or "tales" as they were not from the generation of Christ and not eye witness testimony. (again, the book of Enoch is very very old and there may have been a couple more old testament books that were not included).

www.gotquestions.org...

By comparison, the Koran was written much later (late 7th Century), But there are a few other religions that were written long before the "New testament"

The Torah (old testament) about 2000 BC
The Tripitaka (earliest Buddhism texts) about 300 BC
The earliest Vedas (Hindu) about 1200 BC.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I'm a Christian with a open mind...




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
Hi,

You know the bible has been translated from Greek as well. The council of Nicaea did not "write" the bible, they chose what books to remove based on approximate age of the documents / books as some were written post 1st century (except the book of Enoch which just scared the hell out of them.. hehe)

Christ died in the 1st Century, around 32 AD. The whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Matthew for example is believed to be written 10-12 years after the death of Christ and may have been sooner as he may have written it in Aramaic and then at a later time it was translated into Greek. (Who knows?)
But all within the generation of the "living" Jesus.


Many of the books that were removed were from 2nd or 3rd century A.D. and were believed to be "add-ons" or "tales" as they were not from the generation of Christ and not eye witness testimony. (again, the book of Enoch is very very old and there may have been a couple more old testament books that were not included).

www.gotquestions.org...


fair enough, they still chose which ones to include and exclude, and they did manipulate text. But censorship is not the whole point of the post. Would we then today just include the sayings of Jesus? The other books all have someones spin, not just the councils, 3 of the 4 gospels were not "written" by the apostles they are attributed to. Again its people putting their intepretaion down from what they heard, they called it "the gospel of St Matthew" get what I'm saying?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
20 years ago, the big thing was re-translating the bible directly into English from the Greek texts as before then our "translations" were just rewording the King James version, previous versions, etc. (translation of translation of translation)

Recently there are quite a few projects that are working on directly translating the Bible into English from Aramaic thus even bypassing the Greek translation of Aramaic.

There a few of these on Amazon when I did a quick Google search. I think it would be interesting to see the difference.

www.amazon.com...

www.metamind.net...

[edit on 27-1-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Oh yeah, just as an FYI - the "gospel" of St. Thomas is one of the gnostic writings that were written a century or more after the death of Christ. Far from the oldest and it was canned with a bunch of other late gnostic gospels.

I hate to use wiki as a source but the summary here is pretty good.

en.wikipedia.org...

The new-age movement has "revived" the interest in these old gnostic teachings as it embellishes their own ideals and agendas... plus selling books and conspiracy theories makes some good $$!.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Should Christians do away with the Bible?

Definitely! And while redoing it, I would highly recommend getting rid of all that hate and eternal damnation crapola. Same with the Qur’an! I don't think the bible, as it is today, is even suitable for children to read. Maybe not even teens. It's an ugly book filled with threats and hate and strife and conflict, devoid of anything that I would call spiritual. This is why I have issues with organized religion. Anything that preaches eternal damnation or beheadings and makes demands of worship .. or else .. has nothing to do with spirituality. The bible (and all them dogmatic scriptures) are ugly hate filled dictatorial mandates, far from anything I would call inspiring and spiritual. Burn them all and start over again. Rewrite them into something only a monster could or would possibly reject! If there is a god, the bible sure makes him or her out to be a pretty hateful vengeful petty cruel omnipotent monster, and not even I would want to go to heaven and live with something like THAT in charge, even despite the temptation of 69 virgins that await us there.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
We've all been at the point of questioning what was included in the Bible and what was not. The point is, what was included was included because it pertained to Christ. It's not like there is a cover up of the other books though. You can google the gospel of Mary Magdalene, they found that in 1896. No it still isn't included and it probably never will be in the Bible but there's nothing stopping us from going and reading it. I definitely do not need a new Bible to go and read it. I would also appreciate you if you didnt make suggestions like that as some might take offense to it, maybe something like "Do Christians need a Newly translated bible?" would be a little bit better.

If you are looking for the other books or something, try picking up a copy of the Apocrypha. It has a few books that weren't included.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The very fact that people would be willing to change the bible is further proof it belongs in a dumpster. Religion, ... I know my family followed a hard road, and worshiped Baptism, but I don't want it, I won't teach it. It's wrong in my eyes to do so. I get pissed every time "grandma" drags em off to christian church. However I think they should get a taste of it at least, let them make their own choice. They get my side of the story along with the churches.

However asking an entire religion to "do away with the bible" heh good luck on that front...



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


Good thing that is only your opinion. I find the Bible to be extremely spiritual. In fact with the research I've been doing I also find it extremely fascinating. One has to wonder though, if you find it so hate filled etc, have you ever actually read the whole thing front to back? I find that most haven't and blindly judge. I guess that kinda stuff will always happen though.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boogley
I find the Bible to be extremely spiritual.

Ha, heck, I've found more spirituality in half a dozen shrooms than within any part of the bible. And yes, I've read it, twice, and it made me ill both times. It's PREACHY! It's dogmatic and dictatorial. It's filled with terrorizing threats of damnation. It's filled with blood shed. It's sickening. It should be rated at least "R".



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


Drug talk? tsk, tsk.
I almost beat up a guy on a certain drug. It was HORRIBLE!

The Bible was even a 'slight' assurance to me BEFORE I was a Christian.
I used to read a little every night. It helped me sleep.
Now, I can't stand horror books or movies! (I used to love them)



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
The Gospel of ST Thomas is the oldest of the "sayings " of Jesus is what I perhaps should have written. IT salso form Aramaic to English with Greek inbetween The date isnt confirmed, it could be up to 75 years earleier as carbon dating is not accurate by 75 years on a document this old.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Drug talk? tsk, tsk.

No, nature talk. ha, ha. A drug us a pharmaceutical.

In all seriousness though, the bible is a scary book, worse than any horror story. Even that Christ Passion movie terrified me more than any horror movie I've seen (I must admit though I've not seen many, I never cared for them). Religion turns my stomach.

Eventually, someone will write a real spiritual awakening book, one filled with inspiration and compassion and acceptance and devoid of threats and eternal damnation and hate and bloodshed, and when that day arrives, a NEW kind of religion will be born, and the threatening ones will cease to exist.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


The only reason to be scared when reading it is if you don't love G-d.
You have to read it contextually as well.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
"Eventually, someone will write a real spiritual awakening book, one filled with inspiration and compassion and acceptance and devoid of threats and eternal damnation and hate and bloodshed, and when that day arrives, a NEW kind of religion will be born, and the threatening ones will cease to exist.

I think thats my point kinda...If you look at just the sayings in the gnostic gospel, thats what you get, if Christianity is your bag...

[edit on 28-1-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Christians should let go of the Tanakh w/out a doubt since it completely has conjured up a god that is opposed to the G.d in the TAnakh.. the ironic thing is that the god of the NT is prophesied about as well as the Christians... opposed of course to their faith and their god.

Ironic they use it to *try* and support their paganism.

Oh.. the Tanakh is what they refer to as the "old" testament.. if they think it is old, then most definitely they should be consistent and just admit to worshiping another god.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


How is the Old Testament G-d different from the New?
second line>here.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join