reply to post by mappam
I read from the King James Version.I also have a copy of the Torah and
a jewish new testament.
How literally do you actually take the bible?, page 4
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 09:31 AM by octotom
reply to post by Skyfloating
Of course it was possible, but, I don't believe it so for a couple of reasons.
1.The culture and mindset of the people wouldn't allow for this to happen very easily. The cultural that Jesus lived in was an oral cultural. Due to this, the people would've been very adept at memorization. Since Jesus was a beloved figure to many, they would've taken the time to hear, and memorize, his teachings. Since Jesus was cherished by many, after he died, they would've retold his teachings and talked about him a lot. This would solidify who Jesus was and what he taught. So, if someone were to have come around during that time and said something that contradicted what the followers of Jesus knew was true, it would be easy to spot.
The followers of Jesus also would've preserved what they knew by passing it on to others. Since the culture was much better at playing "telephone" than we are, there wouldn't have been any distortion.
2. I don't think there are distortions of Jesus in the New Testament based on the manuscripts that we have and their dates. The four Gospels contain the teachings of Jesus. All of these Gospels were written before AD 100, or within 70 years of Jesus' death. Therefore, they're close to when Jesus actually walked the Earth. Granted, we don't have the originals only copies. But, of the copies that we have of the Gospels, the oldest complete date to the early second century (after AD 100). [There is one fragment of Matthew that some believe actually dates to AD 60, when Matthew is believed to have been written!] That is amazingly good for works of antiquity.
Of the Gospels, we have manuscripts and fragments numbering into the thousands. Bart Ehrman once said, in regards to this fact, "The Gospels suffer from an embarrassingly large pool of texts." There is very little variation between these texts, from the oldest, to the newest. The vast majority of the variations stem from minor spelling errors/differences. There are only a handful of variations that need to be thought through. Of these though, nothing really changes the message of Jesus. The two most famous are found in John and Mark. With John, the variation is the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11). In some manuscripts it's there, in others it's not, in others it's in a different place, and sometimes it's found as a part of Luke (this is the rarest). With Mark, the ending (Mark 16:9-20) isn't in some of the oldest manuscripts. This doesn't really change much though as what is in those verses is contained in the other three Gospels.
3. I don't believe the Gnostic Gospels were rejected due to an agenda mostly because they, except Thomas, hadn't been written yet.
because the teachings (especially Old and New Testament) contradict each other, dont seem to fit together.
When one takes the time to study the Bible as a whole, the Old and New Testaments mesh together rather well. There aren't any contradictions between the two. One sees that when they understand that the Old and New Testaments are two different stages in God's unveiling of his plan for redemption of mankind.
Do you think that it is not possible that the Bible or Jesus teachings were altered, manipulated, removed, added in any way?
Of course it was possible, but, I don't believe it so for a couple of reasons.
1.The culture and mindset of the people wouldn't allow for this to happen very easily. The cultural that Jesus lived in was an oral cultural. Due to this, the people would've been very adept at memorization. Since Jesus was a beloved figure to many, they would've taken the time to hear, and memorize, his teachings. Since Jesus was cherished by many, after he died, they would've retold his teachings and talked about him a lot. This would solidify who Jesus was and what he taught. So, if someone were to have come around during that time and said something that contradicted what the followers of Jesus knew was true, it would be easy to spot.
The followers of Jesus also would've preserved what they knew by passing it on to others. Since the culture was much better at playing "telephone" than we are, there wouldn't have been any distortion.
2. I don't think there are distortions of Jesus in the New Testament based on the manuscripts that we have and their dates. The four Gospels contain the teachings of Jesus. All of these Gospels were written before AD 100, or within 70 years of Jesus' death. Therefore, they're close to when Jesus actually walked the Earth. Granted, we don't have the originals only copies. But, of the copies that we have of the Gospels, the oldest complete date to the early second century (after AD 100). [There is one fragment of Matthew that some believe actually dates to AD 60, when Matthew is believed to have been written!] That is amazingly good for works of antiquity.
Of the Gospels, we have manuscripts and fragments numbering into the thousands. Bart Ehrman once said, in regards to this fact, "The Gospels suffer from an embarrassingly large pool of texts." There is very little variation between these texts, from the oldest, to the newest. The vast majority of the variations stem from minor spelling errors/differences. There are only a handful of variations that need to be thought through. Of these though, nothing really changes the message of Jesus. The two most famous are found in John and Mark. With John, the variation is the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11). In some manuscripts it's there, in others it's not, in others it's in a different place, and sometimes it's found as a part of Luke (this is the rarest). With Mark, the ending (Mark 16:9-20) isn't in some of the oldest manuscripts. This doesn't really change much though as what is in those verses is contained in the other three Gospels.
3. I don't believe the Gnostic Gospels were rejected due to an agenda mostly because they, except Thomas, hadn't been written yet.
because the teachings (especially Old and New Testament) contradict each other, dont seem to fit together.
When one takes the time to study the Bible as a whole, the Old and New Testaments mesh together rather well. There aren't any contradictions between the two. One sees that when they understand that the Old and New Testaments are two different stages in God's unveiling of his plan for redemption of mankind.
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 09:44 AM by Inkrinhuminge
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Skyfloating
Do you think that it is not possible that the Bible or Jesus teachings were altered, manipulated, removed, added in any way?
Of course it was possible, but, I don't believe it so for a couple of reasons.
1.The culture and mindset of the people wouldn't allow for this to happen very easily. The cultural that Jesus lived in was an oral cultural. Due to this, the people would've been very adept at memorization. Since Jesus was a beloved figure to many, they would've taken the time to hear, and memorize, his teachings. Since Jesus was cherished by many, after he died, they would've retold his teachings and talked about him a lot. This would solidify who Jesus was and what he taught. So, if someone were to have come around during that time and said something that contradicted what the followers of Jesus knew was true, it would be easy to spot.
The Bible is not oral. Why are you talking about an oral culture, when the alleged distortion by our friends the Catholic Church took place centuries later?
[edit on 11/9/2009 by Inkrinhuminge]
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 10:09 AM by octotom
reply to post by Inkrinhuminge
The culture that the Bible was written in was most certainly an oral culture. That is how the Near East was and is today to a lesser extent.
Jesus spoke, his followers memorized his teachings, which were later put onto papyri.
Yes, the Catholic Church does have some distorted teachings, but to say that they distorted the Bible simply isn't correct, considering the uniformity of the texts.
The culture that the Bible was written in was most certainly an oral culture. That is how the Near East was and is today to a lesser extent.
Jesus spoke, his followers memorized his teachings, which were later put onto papyri.
Yes, the Catholic Church does have some distorted teachings, but to say that they distorted the Bible simply isn't correct, considering the uniformity of the texts.
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 10:38 AM by octotom
reply to post by John Matrix
Proverbs 5 disagrees with this idea. Solomon in that chapter is definitely saying that it is better to have sex only with your wife. Read through the Law and see if God okays premarital sex.
If premarital sex is okay, why would Paul say this in 1 Corinthians 7:
What could this self-control be, other than sex? That is the only thing that a non-married person shouldn't do that a married person can.
Then Paul condemns sex outside of marriage in 1 Corithians 6:
In that passage, in verse 18, Paul says to flee sexual immorality. In Greek, "sexual immortality" is the word "porneia" which means adultery and incest. Adultery is sex with anyone but your wife, which includes sexual encounters before your married.
When you have sex with someone, you become "one flesh" with them. Paul reaffirmed in Ephesians 5:31, that you should be one flesh only with your wife.
On top of all that, it wasn't good when David had sex with Bathsheba, though they both consented. God didn't care for that situation at all.
They definitely are married part way through the book. Song 4:9:
Before they get married in the poem, all they say are lovey-dovey things. Also, do you think that the priests and later the rabbis would've considered this a book from God if it contained people doing something that was frowned upon in the Law in a positive light?
[edit on 9/11/2009 by octotom]
For example: did you know that John Calvin was shocked to discover that the Bible does not condemn sexual relations between unmarried consenting adults?
Proverbs 5 disagrees with this idea. Solomon in that chapter is definitely saying that it is better to have sex only with your wife. Read through the Law and see if God okays premarital sex.
If premarital sex is okay, why would Paul say this in 1 Corinthians 7:
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
What could this self-control be, other than sex? That is the only thing that a non-married person shouldn't do that a married person can.
Then Paul condemns sex outside of marriage in 1 Corithians 6:
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
In that passage, in verse 18, Paul says to flee sexual immorality. In Greek, "sexual immortality" is the word "porneia" which means adultery and incest. Adultery is sex with anyone but your wife, which includes sexual encounters before your married.
When you have sex with someone, you become "one flesh" with them. Paul reaffirmed in Ephesians 5:31, that you should be one flesh only with your wife.
On top of all that, it wasn't good when David had sex with Bathsheba, though they both consented. God didn't care for that situation at all.
The Song of Songs contains a love affair between two unmarried persons, which taken literally flies in the face of what most churches teach(forbidding sex outside of marriage).
They definitely are married part way through the book. Song 4:9:
You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride...
Before they get married in the poem, all they say are lovey-dovey things. Also, do you think that the priests and later the rabbis would've considered this a book from God if it contained people doing something that was frowned upon in the Law in a positive light?
[edit on 9/11/2009 by octotom]
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 11:17 AM by octotom
reply to post by John Matrix
If you consider to the God's word, what they said was more than just an opinion! It's God communicating how he wants us to live! Paul and Solomon aside, that doesn't change God's attitude toward premarital sex, which is clear in the Old Testament. Sex with someone other than your spouse was a big deal to God. And that God is still our God today.
Remember Paul said too that all Scriputure is profitable. If you believe that that is the case, you can't just throw a part out because you feel that it is someone's opinion.
I never said that sex was sinful. Sex is a beautiful thing. Only that sex with anyone, at any time, other than one's spouse is a sin. There is a betrayal involved when you have premarital sex with someone other than your spouse. You're uniting yourself with someone other than your spouse and you should only be united with your spouse.
When you have sex with someone, you carry a little piece of that person with you for the rest of your life. Which, could end up in betrayal, though not physically, because you can think back on that experience either when you're having sex with your spouse or at another moment. [This is considered a sin by Jesus—adultery of the heart.] How would you feel if your wife told you what while you were doing your thing, she told you that she was thinking about that guy from freshman year of college? I'd wager pretty betrayed.
Solomon and Paul only gave an opinion...that's all it was.
If you consider to the God's word, what they said was more than just an opinion! It's God communicating how he wants us to live! Paul and Solomon aside, that doesn't change God's attitude toward premarital sex, which is clear in the Old Testament. Sex with someone other than your spouse was a big deal to God. And that God is still our God today.
Remember Paul said too that all Scriputure is profitable. If you believe that that is the case, you can't just throw a part out because you feel that it is someone's opinion.
Adultery involves betrayal...that is why it is sin. Sex itself is not sinful, it's the evil motive behind the sex act that is sinful. There is no betrayal involved in consensual sex amoung consenting adults.
I never said that sex was sinful. Sex is a beautiful thing. Only that sex with anyone, at any time, other than one's spouse is a sin. There is a betrayal involved when you have premarital sex with someone other than your spouse. You're uniting yourself with someone other than your spouse and you should only be united with your spouse.
When you have sex with someone, you carry a little piece of that person with you for the rest of your life. Which, could end up in betrayal, though not physically, because you can think back on that experience either when you're having sex with your spouse or at another moment. [This is considered a sin by Jesus—adultery of the heart.] How would you feel if your wife told you what while you were doing your thing, she told you that she was thinking about that guy from freshman year of college? I'd wager pretty betrayed.
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 01:36 PM by 4stral4pprentice
reply to post by DarknessFollows
I don't think that it is the true words of god, but i do think that the teachings/lessons if followed correctly are valuable, If i were one i would try to live just like Christ, he is a true hero/Bodhisattva.
EDIT: well i say the bible isnt the true words of god, as Christians believe in him. In my belief everyone and everything is god so yes it technically is his words . =)
EDIT2: I don't know too much about Jesus or the bible, all that i plan on reading a lot later about Jesus, I'm saying i think that the lessons and teachings are valuable based on what little i know about Jesus and what I've heard monks talk about him.
[edit on 11-9-2009 by 4stral4pprentice]
I don't think that it is the true words of god, but i do think that the teachings/lessons if followed correctly are valuable, If i were one i would try to live just like Christ, he is a true hero/Bodhisattva.
EDIT: well i say the bible isnt the true words of god, as Christians believe in him. In my belief everyone and everything is god so yes it technically is his words . =)
EDIT2: I don't know too much about Jesus or the bible, all that i plan on reading a lot later about Jesus, I'm saying i think that the lessons and teachings are valuable based on what little i know about Jesus and what I've heard monks talk about him.
[edit on 11-9-2009 by 4stral4pprentice]
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:36 PM by downtown436
reply to post by DarknessFollows
It is a guide of sorts. There are some things in it that are 100% true. There are a bunch of fables with a moral message. There are some predictions. Unfortunately most of the true history that should have been in there has been left out in order to keep the sheeple in line, and keep the guilt money flowing in.
I am a Christian, but probably about as open minded a Christer as you will ever meet. I think church is a total scam, and might well be the "Harlot" described in the book of Revelation, especially the Catholic Church.
The truth has been kept from most people. The Alexander's library contained in my opinion the history and technology from the cycle previous to the one we are on now. I believe that knowledge is locked in the Vatican's secret library today. Computers, airplanes, satellites ect.
It is a guide of sorts. There are some things in it that are 100% true. There are a bunch of fables with a moral message. There are some predictions. Unfortunately most of the true history that should have been in there has been left out in order to keep the sheeple in line, and keep the guilt money flowing in.
I am a Christian, but probably about as open minded a Christer as you will ever meet. I think church is a total scam, and might well be the "Harlot" described in the book of Revelation, especially the Catholic Church.
The truth has been kept from most people. The Alexander's library contained in my opinion the history and technology from the cycle previous to the one we are on now. I believe that knowledge is locked in the Vatican's secret library today. Computers, airplanes, satellites ect.
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:50 PM by weinerdog
reply to post by DarknessFollows
Interesting. When I was 15, I was saved out of the occult by Jesus Christ. You may know him, he's rather famous. He said things like "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." I take it literally. I also know that the bible has answers to all of your questions. The one real question you should ask is, what are you going to do with Jesus? You can't say he was wise, or a great man, or anything like that. You either have to say he was a lunatic or he was telling the truth, because he also said things like "I and the father are one", and "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but by me." Check out his quotes for yourself. Don't let traditions of your family or former church keep you from the truth. Let Jesus talk to you personally through what he said.
Interesting. When I was 15, I was saved out of the occult by Jesus Christ. You may know him, he's rather famous. He said things like "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." I take it literally. I also know that the bible has answers to all of your questions. The one real question you should ask is, what are you going to do with Jesus? You can't say he was wise, or a great man, or anything like that. You either have to say he was a lunatic or he was telling the truth, because he also said things like "I and the father are one", and "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but by me." Check out his quotes for yourself. Don't let traditions of your family or former church keep you from the truth. Let Jesus talk to you personally through what he said.
The number 13: The Power behind it. How to Protect yourself in this spiritual war..
Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags
Triptych Doorway, Key to the Sacred Science Spirituality of the Mother Civilization
Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Australian Scientists Think "Salamander-Like" Human Limb Regeneration Is Possible
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 9 minutes ago
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 9 minutes ago
Looking to switch factory "yellow" headlights bulbs for "white" lights.
Automotive Discussion: 17 minutes ago
Automotive Discussion: 17 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
2 FBI Agents Involved in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Arrest "FALL" Out of Helicopter and Die
Breaking Alternative News: 12 hours ago, 41 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 12 hours ago, 41 flags
I was moved by an instance of masonic charity and wanted to share it
Secret Societies: 17 hours ago, 14 flags
Secret Societies: 17 hours ago, 14 flags
The coming of the Internet fortold in the gospels?
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 14 hours ago, 8 flags
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 14 hours ago, 8 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Ask a spiritual question and I will contrive to bring you the answer
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 16 hours ago, 91 replies
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 16 hours ago, 91 replies
2 FBI Agents Involved in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Arrest "FALL" Out of Helicopter and Die
Breaking Alternative News: 12 hours ago, 83 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 12 hours ago, 83 replies
Video of Woolrich Attacker... Having a Conversation Literally Red Handed?
Other Current Events: 8 hours ago, 61 replies
Other Current Events: 8 hours ago, 61 replies
I was moved by an instance of masonic charity and wanted to share it
Secret Societies: 17 hours ago, 38 replies
Secret Societies: 17 hours ago, 38 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.344 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.344 seconds
