Why Didn't Jesus Write The Bible?

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
If the bible is the word of god, and we are all born of sin and unworthy, then why did he put everyone’s soul in jeopardy by letting normal men write the bible? AND let crooked men decide what books were NOT allowed into the bible?

Since the character Jesus was so perfect, why did god not assign the bible writing and final editing to him? He certainty wasn’t making any headlines from ages 12-30, so what the heck was he doing? It should have been absolutely mandatory that only the MAN-GOD be responsible for the works of a book to which all our souls depend upon for all of ETERNITY. The rest of man, as god claims, are unworthy and failures of sin, and not to be trusted, CORRECT?

The reason is because ITS ALL A SCAM. The bible is a copy of the older myths and legends that were COMPLETE works of FICTION. Religion was put in place to keep the commoners obedient, while the authorities at the time kept the true study of astrology to themselves. The root of the organized religions and the bible is ASTROLOGY. Those that do not know this haven’t done their research, PERIOD.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by pplrnuts]




posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Well, since most of what he did involved his death and ascension to heaven, he was kind of busy, you know, being crucified. And after that, well, I'll bet it's hard to hold a pen with holes in your hands.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I am referring to THE OLD TESTAMENT. I didnt think I had to add that REMEDIAL bit of info.

EDIT: To add some emphasis in color.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by pplrnuts]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis
Well, since most of what he did involved his death and ascension to heaven, he was kind of busy, you know, being crucified. And after that, well, I'll bet it's hard to hold a pen with holes in your hands.

didnt he die at like 30 odd, but nothing is mentioned between his birth and death, except, he wandered about a bit making wine
maybe he didnt have time ti learn to write?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pplrnuts
 


You said "The Bible." The Bible =/= The Old Testament.

Anyway, so long as I'm back... I can't recall what it's called at the moment, but there is a theory of the mechanism of salvation by which human intervention is the most important part; we are responsible for each other's salvation, and so it's better to have these things written by humans, so that they can take responsibility, and God's just kinda there.

Just another reason to follow the footsteps of Ivan Karamazov and reject salvation.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
You know what I meant, dont make a fool of yourself or my question.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pplrnuts
I am referring to THE OLD TESTAMENT. I didnt think I had to add that REMEDIAL bit of info.

EDIT: To add some emphasis in color.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by pplrnuts]

You used the word bible; without emphasis that can refer to either the "Old Testament" or Torah, or the more commonly associated the "New Testament"

so yes, you did have to include that "remedial" bit of info.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
He came to spread the word of God... Not to write it. God knew man would scripture his massive following, that's why he was delivered to earth via Mother Mary.

Yeah, I'm sure Jesus "allowed" crooked men to remove chapters from the Bible over time... lol!!

You don't have enough evidence to even make this thread.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
That doesnt make sense, and you know it.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Jesus was an illiterate homosexual who spent all his time hanging around 12 other homosexuals and never had the time to learn to read or write.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pplrnuts
 


Um, dude, I answered your question according to a reasonable theory of salvation. Maybe I have it in my notebook here. ... No, I don't, I need to take better notes in that class.

The theory that man depends on man for salvation rather than on God would totally permit the bible to necessarily be written by men. It's held by people who exist. Do I buy it? No; first because I'm an atheist and second because even if I did believe in god I couldn't stand a god who left us with so weak a chance, like you are indicating. But it's an answer to your question which I have proposed.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   


Those that do not know this haven’t done their research, PERIOD.


Interesting. The op makes a statement but does not back it up with any research.

Perhaps you could provide us with your research, or is this just a thread to antagonize folks?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
If you are looking for "historical" or "scientific" truth in the Bible, you will be disappointed. Most secular scholars of the Bible will tell you the Bible as we know it today resulted from centuries of editions and redactions. The New Testament took decades or perhaps centuries to be put in the form we know it as today.

I for one think the Bible is a great book because it went through centuries of edits and redactions. The Bible is not a series of transcribed speeches given by two-bit orators from some piddly little Roman province, it is the product of centuries of thought and wisdom that were compiled from all over the ancient world.

If the New Testament truly were solely the work of Jesus, it might be disappointing. The editorial process the New Testament went through enhanced the book. Good material was added, bad material was discarded, and other material may have been reworked to add clarity, nuance, or pertinence.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Given your obvious bias, which would sound better? A testament to all of reality and where we fit in given by the one that proclaims to be the creator manifested into a different form as the son of man despite talking to himself while on the cross or the stories of the ones witnessing the miracles?

I mean by that, is it easier to believe a person that says they have performed these miracles such as water to wine, raising the death, loaves and fish or the people that say they saw these things happen and swear on their life (literally in most cases) that these stories are true?

Or in another way, am I a god to you because I say I am or because you say I am?



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
smyleegrl, I've done my research for well over a decade, its time for me to ask stimulating questions now. Its LAZY folks that ask others to do their homework. If I told you, you wouldn't believe it until you find it for yourself. Otherwise I am talking to the wall.

EDIT: To address the lazy.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by pplrnuts]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pplrnuts
 


I am so damn tired of that attitude. When you do research, you are supposed to share it! You list out the points that you want to make with the evidence for them and citations. Research is not a purely personal thing! Research is a social phenomenon! Stop being a dick and show us your evidence if you think you've got something -- antagonizing people doesn't make them think, it just ticks them off!



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I have provided enough in my post.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by pplrnuts]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   


I've done my research for well over a decade, its time for me to ask stimulating questions now. Its LAZY folks that ask others to do their homework. If I told you, you wouldn't believe it until you find it for yourself. Otherwise I am talking to the wall.
reply to post by pplrnuts
 


Actually, I've done my homework on this topic. Many, many, many years worth of homework.

But what if I hadn't done my homework? What if I didn't even know there was homework to do? If that's the case, all I get when I read your op is a rather hostile declaration with nothing to back it up.

When you make a claim, such as the ones you made in the op, you need to be prepared to substantiate that claim. And weak remarks about "doing your homework" are redundant. Provide links so people can do the homework. Provide a bibliography.

Otherwise, its like a prosecutor showing up for trial and telling the jury "Here's the truth." But he presents no witnesses, no facts, no evidence. And when the jury questions this, he simply replies, "Do the homework."

Wonder how long such a prosecutor would last.....

[edit on 8-3-2010 by smyleegrl]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Jesus didn't write the Bible because then only one man ever in history would have all the answers. Then you would have to either believe this one guy 2000 years ago knew everything that nobody else ever has or since known, or he was crazy. Not only that, but just like you made it clear that you don't believe the Bible is legit now, how would it change if history told you one man wrote the whole thing starting when he was 12 years old....Right your argument is flawless. If you disbelieve now, Jesus' handwriting wouldn't make a difference.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pplrnuts
 


This dialogue would be a little easier if you would hit the "reply to" button on the particular posts you're replying to
Just a little tip.

You didn't provide enough evidence in your post. In fact, you didn't provide any evidence in your post. You just asserted a bunch of stuff. I know that the Old Testament is largely derived from other mythological sources, but I can't recall right now where the evidence for this is. In fact, to gather evidence that this was true would take some hardcore research, when this isn't exactly my field, whereas apparently it's yours.

Your assertion that the ENTIRE old testament is ripped off is completely without foundation so far as I know. where's the evidence?

And your assertion that the sources they were ripped off from are fictional -- that's faulty too! Huge swaths of myth are based in some sorts of actual events. There probably was a severe flood in the Mesopotamian and Middle Eastern regions, so Noah's Ark would be an adaptation of a fictionalized account of a real event, not of pure fiction.

And the idea that it's all astrology is just absurd. What does that even mean? astrology is the motions of the stars and planets, and I dont' see much of that happening in the old testament, save that one time God stopped them all from moving.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join