The accuracy of the Bible

[glyn]

[QUOTE=tomspug;475915]My apologies for misunderstanding you. However, your original post comes off as very judgmental and unsourced.

Just as your original 'observation' came out as bumptious. Advice to newbies is to read the threads. You prefer not to take that advice? Up to you, but it might prevent you from leading with your chin.


This one is the first that raises flags. How in the world were three biblical figures crucified in one day and yet it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Todays bible came about because of the meeting with the Roman Emperor Constantine in Nicea. (Yes, I know he made himself Pope and set up a new capital in Turkey that was named after him, but he was not a christian!) They decided what should be in and what should be omitted. Not everyone agreed, especially the gnostic sects. (these were to become 'heretics', be punished and have the texts they followed, destroyed). Some texts survived almost intact, others are only known from fragments or from references to them. The bible is not historically accurate. Don't expect it to tell you everything that happened.

If this is so, what was the reason for their crucifixion? Why does Tacitus or Josephus make no mention in them (they are the most reliable ancient historians of that time period and only mention Jesus in the crucifixion). Where is your source on this claim?

So that we approach this on more even terms, first read the books I recommended in the threads. The most important is 'Jesus the Man' by Dr Barbara Thiering. Once you have done this we can proceed further if you're still inclined.

[Herodotus]

I would also recommend reading the Gnostic texts I have linked to, and some of John Spong's works which can be found on his website that I also linked to. Here is also an interesting article by Chole Breyer, an Episcopial priest and the daughter of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer:

What if Mary wasn't a virgin? - By Chloe Breyer - Slate Magazine

There were plenty of doubters in the what came to be known as Biblical stories even at Jesus's time. I don't think the Bible was meant to be taken literally; it is not inerrant In fact it even says it is "inspired" by God, but not the literal word of God. At least that is my theological take on it. As for historical accuracy; it never claims to be accurate history either. So what's the controversy?

[JAD_333]

[QUOTE=glyn;475826]

I can't remember what it was.

We are the same age my friend, and both losing brain cells at a prodigious rate! I used to have a good memory, and I expect you did too. From now on we will experience ever more 'senior moments' I'm afraid. At least we have some form of excuse when we are found to be in error. :)

Let's not rush things.:) You are right, but I expect it will happen at a nice comfortable pace. There is a blessing in it, however. It will be easier to forget things we don't want to remember. :))

Speaking of brains, did you by chance watch the video? I absolutely flipped over it, but I realize its impact will depend on how intensely the viewer has pursued certain ageless questions.

[JAD_333]

I don't think the Bible was meant to be taken literally...

You would be right if you meant it was designed to be taken according to your state of being. The stories apart from being stories invariably have a moral to them and taken all together they point toward a goal. The lowest state is literal--intellectually stimulating--for the average person. You purposely write in a way that draws in the literal person. But you also design the story so it will instruct him as his state of being develops. It's a common religious mode of teaching; you relate a factual event so as to convey a moral and then give credit for the event to a supernatural power so that the moral is indisputable. BTW, I am not saying it's trickery; biblical writers were teachers who had something they wanted to convey to people in the present and the future.

So what's the controversy?

Literal people musing.:)

[glyn]

.

You would be right if you meant it was designed to be taken according to your state of being. The stories apart from being stories invariably have a moral to them and taken all together they point toward a goal. The lowest state is literal--intellectually stimulating--for the average person. You purposely write in a way that draws in the literal person. But you also design the story so it will instruct him as his state of being develops. It's a common religious mode of teaching; you relate a factual event so as to convey a moral and then give credit for the event to a supernatural power so that the moral is indisputable. BTW, I am not saying it's trickery; biblical writers were teachers who had something they wanted to convey to people in the present and the future.


Esoteric stuff indeed!:)

Literal people musing.:)

[Triple C]

Here is also an interesting article by Chole Breyer, an Episcopial priest and the daughter of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer:

What if Mary wasn't a virgin? - By Chloe Breyer - Slate Magazine

Well, didn't the question of Marian chastity rest solely on the interpretation of "maiden" in Hebrew?*

I don't think the Bible was meant to be taken literally; it is not inerrant In fact it even says it is "inspired" by God, but not the literal word of God.

It is the case that the tradition in Christian theology does not truly embrace a foundamentalist** faith. The idea is that the spirital truths of the Bible is not,f rom a reading of its letters, readily transparent or self-evident; a certain divine illumination is required for the proper understanding of God's signs. The fable of the mustard seeds and Paul's metaphor of the looking glass come into mind. What seems to be the lesson is that, the letter of the Bible is not meant to be read literally, though the inaccessibility of the message is not to any fault of the text but the imperfection of human faculties.

It does seem to be the case that the justified souls could instantly understand the Bible because their minds had been perfected by God, according to what I read of the Christian theologians.

Edit:
* Marian Chastity is asserted because the belief that the OT presaged the coming of Christ, and that in the OT, the messiah would be concieved by a "maiden of Israel" (at least that's what my ossified-before-its-age mind remebers).
** I mean taking a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible here.

[snapper]

Glyn Sir, I agree with you in general - the Bible is written by Men, most of whom never knew the historical Christ and the choice of what books are included in the bible was essentialy a political one. However it was NOT Constantine who decided what books should be included, but a Bishop of Lyons around 530AD - will try to find a link for this but certainly during Constantines time the codified bible did not exist.

[snapper]

Glyn Sir,
The Bible as we know it today was not compiled by Constantine but some time later by a Bishop of Lyons I believe. Will try to find reference for this.

Largely I agree with you; the bible was written by men who are unlikely to have known the historical Jesus. Also the choice of what books or "Gospels" were to be included in the bible was essentialy a political one.

One of the differences between Christianity and Islam is that Moslems claim the Koran to be "the word of God". Alot of Evangelist Christians try to claim the same about the bible by saying that the Gospels were "inspired". Not even Mathew, Mark, Luke and John claim such inspiration and certainly the choice of what Gospels should be given official sanction was inspired only by doctrinal in-fighting.

This does not make the Bible any less valid in my opinion. To be a Christian is merely to practice what Jesus said and not to regard the whole bible as some form of mystic revalation. It will be a happy day when the Islamic world can de-sanctify the words of their Gospel. Even the Gods can learn from us...how to be more humane! (Nietzche)

[JAD_333]

)...the bible was written by men who are unlikely to have known the historical Jesus.

Yes, but if the implication is that the men who wrote the bible did not know whereof Jesus spoke, you are assuming a great deal. The prevelent focus of biblical scholars is contradiction and historical development of the bible. I see nothing wrong with that so long as it does not include pretensions as to how we should understand the teaching of Jesus. There is only one truth, the truth, and whether we know it not in no way alters it.

Also the choice of what books or "Gospels" were to be included in the bible was essentialy a political one.

Politics may have played a minor role, but more likely the choice was based on a desire for coherency.

[glyn]

[QUOTE=snapper;531728]Glyn Sir,
The Bible as we know it today was not compiled by Constantine but some time later by a Bishop of Lyons I believe. Will try to find reference for this.

I look forward to reading them.:)

Largely I agree with you; the bible was written by men who are unlikely to have known the historical Jesus. Also the choice of what books or "Gospels" were to be included in the bible was essentialy a political one.

And I contend that the New Testament was mostly written in the middle of the 1st century AD. The authorship of the gospels is tricky. Not one of them was actually called by the names we know them. Further, the style changes indicate that there was more than one author for each gospel. One has quite obviously been added to later.


This does not make the Bible any less valid in my opinion. To be a Christian is merely to practice what Jesus said and not to regard the whole bible as some form of mystic revalation. It will be a happy day when the Islamic world can de-sanctify the words of their Gospel.

The problem is in knowing what Jesus actually said, and what he meant. The Dead Sea scrolls are terribly confusing - to say the least!


Even the Gods can learn from us...how to be more humane! (Nietzche)

Oh, I like that! :)

[glyn]

[QUOTE=JAD_333;531742]


Politics may have played a minor role, but more likely the choice was based on a desire for coherency.
I suggest that was the main reason. The Apochrypha was formed from the rejected gospels as they doctrinely differed from the accepted pentateuch. Followers of these gospels were dubbed heretics and originally ignored, but were later persecuted.

[Kansas Bear]

Glyn Sir, I agree with you in general - the Bible is written by Men, most of whom never knew the historical Christ and the choice of what books are included in the bible was essentialy a political one. However it was NOT Constantine who decided what books should be included, but a Bishop of Lyons around 530AD - will try to find a link for this but certainly during Constantines time the codified bible did not exist.

"St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter.The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself, has been preserved in the document called "Decretum Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris", a compilation partly of the sixth century, but containing much material dating from the two preceding ones. The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since."

But in the Synod of Hippo (393) the great Doctor's view prevailed, and the correct Canon was adopted.

So at the close of the first decade of the fifth century the entire Western Church was in possession of the full Canon of the New Testament.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the New Testament

[snapper]

Thankyou Mr Kansas Bear.

[snapper]

My dates were sadly some 150 years awry...