Why Didn't Jesus Write The Bible?

reply to post by pplrnuts


You need to calm down there a bit and not insist others are "fools" for raising a valid question.

Tell me this, how would we "assume" that you meant old testament when you said "bible" which is NEW and OLD?

Lay easy on claiming someone has a mental illness. I am just giving you a little friendly "member to member" advice lest you feel the post ban hammer for a while.

The overlord and his disciples host a grand party here, but if you are deserving of a good smiting they will not hesitate to smite.

Please quit worrying about calling others names, chalk this up to "I forgot to clarify which testament I wanted to talk about" and move on to the actual topic.

Dorian Soran



[edit on 8-3-2010 by Dorian Soran]

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.

That's silly! You just put then pen through the hole in your hand and away you go.

Maybe... just maybe, Jesus didn't actually want to start a new religion but fix the problems with his religion.... Judism.

And as far as him being too busy being crucified... I heard that he was just hangin' around not doing a thing.

reply to post by pplrnuts

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?

The Bible is the "inspired" word of God written by men though divine revelation.Yes, these men were not without sin but unworthy? Not. Everyone is worthy to receive God. Some just choose not to. Your thread makes no sense.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
You don't have enough evidence to even make this thread.

Why Didn't Jesus Write The Bible?

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.

There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that different parts of the bible are stories taken from other cultures. It is true that religion was used to keep people obedient and many governments and religions did keep the study of the heavens to themselves.

What evidence are you expecting or did you just stop by to derail the thread and defend your beliefs?

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by pplrnuts

 

Your thread makes no sense.

I get the feeling he is questioning the authenticity of the bible due to it being written by corruptible men. It’s a valid question.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by liveandletlive]

reply to post by liveandletlive


Alright, I'm an Atheist, so I can't be accused of defending my beliefs. Well, except for those about intellectual honesty.

The evidence that could be expected is:

1) evidence of which Old Testament stories are lifted from which other myth-systems. This is a no-brainer, and that might be why you didn't think of it: just so obvious. all this would've taken is a link to a website or another thread, I'm sure.

2) Evidence that those other myths are pure fantasy.

3) An explanation of what "It's all astrology!!!" means, and evidence of that claim if it's not contained in the previous two evidences.

4) Evidence of the OP's claim of what Christians believe. This one seems less important I'm sure, but in fact it's not entirely clear that doctrinally they do believe these things.

5) Logical progression between the main claims of the thread. As someone who agrees with the conclusion (except for the bit about astrology, I just don't get that), I can see how everything follows; but that's because I have a bias which people who believe don't have, and make the logical jumps without assistance. The people who this thread should be addressing so that it is not preaching to the secular choir will not see the progression.

Edit to fix the phrasing of #4, since I dallied too long and going to class would be pointless now. It's okay, though; the professor would be proud if he knew I was skipping to hang out on a conspiracy website

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Solasis]

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
"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".
the official stand of the church in regards to this historical or scientific truth about their bible is that it is a book written by men of that time but "inspired by the holy spirit".
And they all take it with "faith in their hearts" hook, line and sinker.
and of course to deviate from it will give you the eternal damnation and in some religious jargon be excommunicated by the mother church.
need to say more?

reply to post by pplrnuts


Well, since you're focusing on the Old Testament, it wouldn't be possible for Jesus to have written the Old Testament, physically, because he wasn't born yet. The last book of the Old Testament was written some four hundred years before he was born.

In a sense though, Jesus did write the entire Bible, since Jesus is God, as is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit inspired those who wrote the Bible.

reply to post by pplrnuts


Jesus could probably not read or write.

He was a carpenter.
Definition: A carpenter is defined as a craftsman with a skill and experience level greater than a helper or laborer, but less than a lead carpenter. The carpenter will generally have a smaller tool inventory and may need direction to perform more advanced carpentry skills.
www.boardwalkbuilders.com...

He could have chiseled the bible and commandments out of wood?
Nope jesus couldn't even have chiseled it because the bible as you know it did not exist until 1539.

1539 CE: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

www.greatsite.com...



[edit on 8-3-2010 by tooo many pills]

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

Most secular scholars of the Bible will tell you the Bible as we know it today resulted from centuries of editions and redactions.

Yes, that's what they teach. Unfortunately, it's all speculation. They don't have any manuscripts to show what the "originals" looked like to prove their beliefs. The manuscripts that we do have though (all 5000 plus the fragments and quotes that exist) show between one and three percent variation; mostly resulting from spelling differences in different regions (like color/colour in English).

The New Testament took decades or perhaps centuries to be put in the form we know it as today.

It was definitely decades. All the New Testament books were written within the first 60 years of Jesus' death. The first [in my opinion] being Matthew (AD 60) the last being Revelation (AD 95). Then, the books that we call the New Testament today were virtually all accepted as authoritative Scripture pretty much immediately.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

 

The New Testament took decades or perhaps centuries to be put in the form we know it as today.

It was definitely decades. All the New Testament books were written within the first 60 years of Jesus' death. The first [in my opinion] being Matthew (AD 60) the last being Revelation (AD 95). Then, the books that we call the New Testament today were virtually all accepted as authoritative Scripture pretty much immediately.

(Emphasis added)

I know what you mean by this, but what you actually said instead makes my brain hurt. You cannot have an opinion of that variety; your opinion is that the evidence best suggests that Matthew was first.

(Nitpicky? yes. But this thread is already full of so many intellectual inaccuracies that we must be careful not to multiply them!)

Originally posted by liveandletlive

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by pplrnuts

 

Your thread makes no sense.

I get the feeling he is questioning the authenticity of the bible due to it being written by corruptible men. It’s a valid question.

Yes I know what he is implying however, one could say that about anything that was ever written. Does it make it true or false? If he took the time to read what these men had to say maybe he would be singing a different tune.
Its not a valid question, its an assumable question. Assuming that these men were corrupt. again

[edit on 8-3-2010 by oliveoil]

reply to post by JonInMichigan

Maybe... just maybe, Jesus didn't actually want to start a new religion but fix the problems with his religion.... Judism.

Well, there is some truth to that statement. Jesus is the Jewish messiah. But, since the Jews rejected him and his message, the door to salvation was open to the Gentiles as well. In fact, some Jewish scholars lump early Christianity with the half dozen or so other "Judaisms" that were around at that point in time! For good or ill though, the Jews continued to reject the Gospel message, while Gentiles accepted it more and more; reaching a point where Gentiles quickly forgot the Jewish roots of their faith, which is tragic. Many today though are rediscovering Christianity's Jewish roots, which is pretty cool and interesting.

Look this up. Apparently there is a book of Jesus. One of the first passages in it dismisses churches....basically telling you that you are your own church and there is no need to go to one. Can't figure out why the church never adopted it.

reply to post by Solasis

You cannot have an opinion of that variety; your opinion is that the evidence best suggests that Matthew was first.

And why can't I hold that opinion? Believing that Mark was written first is just an opinion, too. Not all scholars believe that Mark was written first.

reply to post by oliveoil


Most other things written do not have the claim of "infallibility" attached to them. The bible states that whoever should change the bible would be held accountable to god. Doesn’t that imply its corruptible?

reply to post by octotom


I guess I phrased that pretty poorly I mean that the way you were putting it, your opinion was fact, whereas your opinion is actually about fact. It's a very, very important distinction, and I suspect you are aware of it, and were just hurt by the shortcomings of language.

I hope I don't have to explain this any better... I'm flailing around about it enough already!

reply to post by pplrnuts


Jesus didn't write the Bible because most of it had already been written by the time he arrived and clearly wasn't working. Jesus came to Israel at a time when the Romans were occupying them and instead of resisting everyone was just sitting around waiting for a Messiah to show up. So several Messiah's showed up, including Jesus and began to teach people. It is my belief that Jesus' message was to stop waiting around for the Messiah and save yourself through love. Jesus didn't want empty religious ritual and the corruption of religion to keep people from salvation so he taught them how to pray and love and act without the hollow rituals.

Jesus didn't write the Bible because he was not God.

To my knowledge God has never put a stamp of approval on the Bible so people saying it is the "Word of God" are a bit presumptuous.

I find the poster of this thread ridiculously standoffish. I actually agree with him, but in general he is just putting a post out there, saying this is the way it is, and calling anyone who wants to talk about it, even if agreeable, stupid. ???WTF?

He also offers no background information for those who aren’t well read on this topic. Many of us, such as me, are well read on this topic. I don’t need the information. I know all about the connections throughout history of Judism and Christianity. But then again, this thread isn’t really here to prove anything to me, I’m already a believer in the concept of the OP. So for those who aren’t convinced, the thread also does nothing because it offers no information, just smug attitude.

I will offer some information since the poster seems to not want to actively participate in his own thread.

Firstly, I personally view the bible as books that can be broken into four main groups:

A) Pre-Moses
B) Moses / Post-Moses
C) Gospels
D) Other misc crap after the gospels

A&B would be the Jewish / Hebrew Bible (old testament: pre Jebus)
C&D would be the new testament or Christian bible (post Jebus)

Breaking it down:

A. Pre-Moses : As most of us know, many studies have clearly shown that the first five books were from ancient works. Most around ATS are familiar with Sitchin, who makes a great case for the ancient Sumerian, Indian Vedas, and others as the original version of those books. ‘nuff said. (Graham Handcock also has great books that hit on the same concepts.)

B. The Moses/Post-Moses old testament: Ok the Jews were supposedly enslaved by the Egyptians just about the same time they were pushing for monotheism (although it was short lived in Egypt) Shortly afterwards, they picked their favorite god Jehovah and dedicated themselves to him. The set up their temple just like the Egyptian temple which they were familiar with and drew up a bunch of laws and prophesies claiming that they were special and god would come back to smite all the non-special people. Isn’t that special! Enjoy your ongoing war!

C. The Jesus story, the gospels: No one wrote a gospel while Jesus was alive. His apostles bumbled about scared of their own shadow and not wanting to piss of the Jew power elite or the Romans. Mired in arguable failure, along comes Paul the Roman (Saul of Tarsus) who starts paganizing the Jebus’ story for the gentiles who were pagans. Much like the Ron Popeil of RonCo, Paul was a great salesman and this NEW (albeit tiny) religion tarts taking hold 100-300AD.

Around 300, Constantine who was the emperor of Rome says “Dude! I love these Christians. They stand there and get eaten by lions and don’t even cry about it. They Rock!” And thus Christianity was adopted by Rome, the most powerful empire on earth. But there was one problem, Chritianity was completely rag-tag and needed to be canonized into something people could reference. Thus began the counsels (Nicaea, Trent, etc) of stinky old bureaucrats who decided which of the MANY versions of Jebus’ life story they were going to put into the bible. They picked four, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, they were the best the could come up with. Not everyone agreed in the end and thus we have the Apocryphal books and a church schism (Eastern Orthodox). And that’s enough about that.

D. The forth section of the bible. I like to call it the dumping ground for all things “Christian” that were left over, floating around at the time. i.e. Pamphlets, leaflets, prophesy, psalms, and letters by Paul. I would venture to say that 90% of Christian dogma is defined by these “works”. It would be as though I walked around a Pagan/Wiccan/Witch festival today (which I do quite often) and picked up a random selection of books and handouts from all the different witches in town. Then I sat down with a bunch of friends and decided which ones we liked and bound them into a big book of books. Yeah. Ok.

So there you have it… the Bible demystified. Was this the point you were trying to make mr. poster? Your eloquence in your OP was profound and provocative in its depth (ack hem ). You see, I agree with you, but in one page and five minutes I can make a point with a little rational reasoning as to why I feel the way I do. To me, and this is just MY opinion, you just come off sounding like a smug, whiney little smarty-pants with an bad attitude. (Probably someone not over the age of 20 who thinks they know it all, like most kids these days.)



[edit on 8-3-2010 by JonInMichigan]

reply to post by Solasis


I got what you were getting at after I posted my post.

While I'm at it though, just for the record, I base my opinion off of writings of the early-church fathers, who said that Matthew was written first. Such as Origen:

As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.

As that quote alludes to, there have also been indications as of late that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, or at the very least collections of Jesus' sayings were written in Hebrew. If the former is correct, then it is really possible that Matthew was written before Mark and that it was only the Greek translation of his writing that came later.