Why Didn't Jesus Write The Bible?

This thread would be a tad bit interesting if the OP wasn't such an ass with his replies.
Research? I highly doubt it with the current retorts.

Spewing rhetoric without facts or true debate to back it up is antagonistic and serves only a negative purpose.

Maybe the Talmud Jmmanuel could help you out. It's about as strong as your argument.

b

Originally posted by liveandletlive
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?

No, That implies that whoever changes these TRUTHS written would be held accountable. Would you like to debate these truths with me?

reply to post by JonInMichigan

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,

Christianity was only made legal in Constantine's time. It became the official state religion sometime afterward.

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)

Problem with this though is that throughout the early church, virtually all the books that we call the New Testament were recognized as authoritative. Christianity wasn't just some fish out of water faith, as you characterized it.

They picked four, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.

They "chose" these because the church at-large had already accepted them. It wasn't a very hard decision. There weren't even "other Gospels" written until the third and fourth centuries (with the possible exception of Thomas). All these Gospels were immediately recognized as forgeries and written by those pushing certain theological agendas.

Riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, they were the best the could come up with.

Such as?

Not everyone agreed in the end and thus we have the Apocryphal books and a church schism (Easter Orthodox).

The Apocryphal books are actually Old Testament era. They were more or less rejected as authoritative Scripture by Jews and Christians. They were considered important though for historical information and other things. For example, it is through Maccabees that we learn about The Feast of Dedication.

The East-West schism wasn't about Scripture. Rather, the issue(s) at hand were the use of icons [which the western Church considered wrong) and the "filioque" clause in one of the Creeds. [Which one has slipped my mind at the moment.]

I think what you mean is why didnt Jesus at least write something in His own behalf or contribute to the testimony. Like say a book of Jesus.

The answer is found in the power of witness testimony. Even first person testimony in court is not as strong as witness testimony and witness testimony will always trump first person testimony.

Jesus even refused to defend himslf in court and ask rather that they take the word of those that heard Him.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by JonInMichigan

 

Riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, they were the best the could come up with.

Such as?

This one I can help with There's a list here: skepticsannotatedbible.com...

The new testament starts and #790. I can't attest to the accuracy of any of these, but at least there's a list!

ETA: Oh, apparently you can't just ctrl-f the numbers... Matthew is where it starts. Obviously. 790 - 1510 are New Testament!

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Solasis]

reply to post by Solasis


lol...

Please, don't take this the wrong way, but the Skeptics Annotated Bible is a pointless thing to look at. There is absolutely no thought put into resolving the contradictions before they're listed as contradictions. People just look for words that are different or take things out of their proper context and say it's a contradiction. For example, with Jesus' Triumphal Entry.

The "contradiction" being that Matthew says that Jesus rode in on a colt and a donkey while Mark only has one animal. The "trouble" coming from Matthew 21.7:

They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.

Well, Matthew doesn't say that Jesus sat on two donkeys, as the SAB says. It says that Jesus sat on the coats. Since Jesus was to ride in on the colt of a donkey, it's entirely possible that Jesus rode only on the colt and the colt's mother was there as well, and some threw their coats on her as well as her child.

reply to post by JonInMichigan


LMAO. I have to agree with you. Both funny and true. I will star your post for that one!
Line 2

How do you give someone a star?

[edit on 8-3-2010 by liveandletlive]

reply to post by Solasis

The new testament starts and #790. I can't attest to the accuracy of any of these, but at least there's a list!

I actually have an enormous list of "contradictions" here on my computer that I've been meaning to go through for months now. With any such list, a little thinking about the issue, as well as the context that the contradiction is said in, will pretty much erase many of them. As my professors said in college, context is the key! Sadly, when someone already has a preconceived notion or goal, such as the SAB or any contradiction list, context goes out the window.

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by liveandletlive
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?

No, That implies that whoever changes these TRUTHS written would be held accountable. Would you like to debate these truths with me?

You’re joking right? So you are saying that the bible is an accurate and perfect document but at the same time susceptible to "changes"? What’s to debate, your argument is a contradiction!

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by JonInMichigan

 

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,

Christianity was only made legal in Constantine's time. It became the official state religion sometime afterward.

This was a very quick rundown, not a doctoral dissertation! I was only trying to get into the ballpark. It is not arguable that Constantine got the ball rolling. I was not attempting to create a 20 page timeline of events. But your point is well taken.

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)

Problem with this though is that throughout the early church, virtually all the books that we call the New Testament were recognized as authoritative. Christianity wasn't just some fish out of water faith, as you characterized it.

They picked four, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.

They "chose" these because the church at-large had already accepted them. It wasn't a very hard decision. There weren't even "other Gospels" written until the third and fourth centuries (with the possible exception of Thomas). All these Gospels were immediately recognized as forgeries and written by those pushing certain theological agendas.

I don’t know what to say. In most secular Christian studies it’s well accepted that Constantine tried to eliminate the books that made Jesus sound too human, or too Jewish. It’s an ongoing debate. I don’t believe they battled it out in so many counsels, for so many years, when everything was cut and dry. Most devout churchgoers are told otherwise because it sounds too “fishy” if you follow a more secular examination of history. A great many things in the early Christian church were up in the air because there was no guidebook, if you will. They were in the process of creating that.

Riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, they were the best the could come up with.

Such as?

Ok. That's just a topic for a whole other thread. Google "bible contradictions" and be prepared for hundreds of thousands of pages of people battling that topic to death. I will just say, that even the simple question of who saw Jesus resurrected has four different answers in the four different gospels. Prove to me that it's consistent on that one simple point and you will struggle. There are hundreds of such contradictions but this is a side topic.

Not everyone agreed in the end and thus we have the Apocryphal books and a church schism (Easter Orthodox).

The Apocryphal books are actually Old Testament era. They were more or less rejected as authoritative Scripture by Jews and Christians. They were considered important though for historical information and other things. For example, it is through Maccabees that we learn about The Feast of Dedication.

The East-West schism wasn't about Scripture. Rather, the issue(s) at hand were the use of icons [which the western Church considered wrong) and the "filioque" clause in one of the Creeds. [Which one has slipped my mind at the moment.]

When I said, "Not everyone agreed in the end" I was speaking of the entire process of canonization of the bible (old and new testaments) and even the doctrine of their beliefs in general. (Like the debate on the trinity, etc). Yes, I wrote about the schism adjacent to the discussion of Scripture selection, but I didn't intend to confuse the reader in the way that I did. Thanks for clearing that up.

Look, I get your point. You're a believer and want to argue and nit-pick all these fine points about how your religion was canonized. I don’t blame you, it becomes a challenge to your belief system to think that so many of these decisions were left to mere mortals. Where they ALL divinely inspired and directed by the hand of god?

You would like to believe that Constantine walked into the picture, waved his hands, and said "Christianity is now legal!" and they were all set to go in their present form. But if one opens a history book or a secular study of early Christian thought, one finds that they held dozens of counsels and had fierce debates over even the most basic beliefs. Even the trinity was one of the most hotly contested topics. How can man be god or god be man? On and on they went. Some argued that it sounded like polytheism having three faces or aspects of god. I find it kind of amusing because they decided on a three aspect god… oh it’s just ONE god, but it’s father, son, and holy spirit as different aspects…. Nothing like the three faces of Hecate or Mother, Maiden, and Crone from pagan belief systems that came before. Three is the magic number after all.

No wonder they battled it out so hard in the early church. To the believer though, the history of all these counsels, no matter how well documented, doesn’t matter, Christan believers with always go with the simple happy belief that "Christianity was merely legalized." and 100% divinely inspired



[edit on 8-3-2010 by JonInMichigan]

reply to post by liveandletlive

your argument is a contradiction!

Not exactly. Being a document, though perfect, it would be susceptible to changes; especially if one has an agenda.

A good example of this is the New World Translation of the Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is God. As such, they have a big problem with John 1.1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word is Jesus. This is given in verse fourteen and the following. Anyway, since the Witnesses don't believe that Jesus is God, when they translated their version of the Bible, they made John 1:1 read this way:

In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

There are also "innocent" changes to manuscripts. An example of this would be when a scribe would make a note on a manuscript and a later scribe, unsure if the note was part of the text or original, would, to be safe, copy the note into his copy. The best known example of this is the Comma Johannium.

I like this.

We drove the original poster out and created a pretty lively and interesting thread now!

Zionist 1st Century failed Daviddiv Seditionist Messianists (e.g. R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir, BCE 12 to CE 36( who was arrested and executed for armed sedition against the state (breach of Lex Maiestats - no King but Caesar Law) see Luke 22:35-40) do not tend to write down things that would incriminate them, especially if they have a palestinian Zionist Seditionist Tendenz (i.e. overthowing the Kittim/Romans) at the 100th Anniversary of the Invasion of Pompey (BCE 63).

Taking back the 'holy' land from the filthy gentile Roman 'dogs' who were occupying what he considered his family's property (Daviddic kingship and all that) for 100 years puts people like this Jeeezuzzz (Gk. Iesous) in a sticky position - all the more reason NOT to write down anything, but to express his seditionist political motives in code....er parables so that 'seeing they won't see, and hearing, they won't be able to hear' like all outsiders were taught to accept (his inner core of 3 disciples - Peter-James-John followed by an outer core of 9 disciples more making up a group of 12 imitates Moses in Deut chapter 1:20-23 who selected 12 men 'to be with him' to spy out the 'holy land' (i.e. Promised Land) which were occupied 'by the Amorites' - for an eventual take over by the (ahem) 'chosen people' (see Gen 15:4-16 - The Occupation of the promised Land [by the sons of Israel] will take place in the 4th generation, since the Times of the Amorites is not yet fulfilled'

One of the 21st things that this Zionist Armed Seditionist screamed - but did not write down ! - was 'the times of the Amorites are fulfilled - repent NOW and believe the Gospel ('good news' i.e. announcing a new King) of the Kingdom of Heaven' in other words, It's 100 years (=2 Jubilees), of occupation, which followed 100 years of Independence (BCE 163 to BCE 63 during the socalled Macabbean Hashmonean self rule period in Judaea) so NOW ARE THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE OF OUR CLAN-GOD (Luke 21:22 - a quote from the War Scroll as well as the Messiah pericope in Luke - Midrash on Aramaic Targum of Isaiah 61:1-2 'The Spirit of YHWH is upon me to preach the Gospel ('good-news') to the poor...and to PROCLAIM THE FAVOURABLE YEAR OF YHWH, AND TO ANNOUNCE THE DAY OF VENGEANCE OF OUR CLAN-GOD..." which is a War-chant.

If one pauses to realise that the Greek canonical 'Gospels' were not written down in Greek until AFTER the Jews lost their War agains the Romans (CE 66-72), then it makes sense that all those juicy war like quotations from the Old Testament placed into the Mouth of the Greek Speaking Iesous have been TRUNCATED to OMIT ANY REFERENCE to armed rebellion or 'taking back the Promised Land' from the Occupying Romans 'in the Last days' in fulfillment of their Apocalyptic Hope of ruling the world (see tritoIsaiah chapters 56-66 for a taste of their fantasies).

If anything WRITING ANY OF THIS DOWN would have been the VERY last thing any Daviddic pretender would have wanted - too much incriminating evidence - but apparently the Roman Authorities knew very well what riding into Jerusalem under the Fortess of Antonia on the white she-ass of Solomon really meant - an act of War (see Deutero-Zechariah chapter 9:9-12 - Rejoice Daugher of Jerusalem, behold your KING cometh unto you, lowly and riding upon an ass - behold, he shall DICTATE TERMS OF PEACE to the Goyim - his Kingdom shall be from Sea to Sea, even to the ends of the Land (i.e. of Israel).

This is war-language being acted out right under the noses of the Roman Army...

But then again, look how THAT turned out....

reply to post by octotom


Sorry but I don’t agree that it can be fallible and an infallible document at the same time. It was written by men with agendas. It’s very well documented that manipulations took place. The fact that men sat around and decided what writings to add and not add is a prime example. It was manipulated from its inception.

reply to post by JonInMichigan

James, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd epistles of John??

Revelation was up for debate as well. But these books all were accepted by large chunks of early Christianity for much of the time.

when everything was cut and dry.

The problem is that it wasn't so much the canon that was discussed and "fought" over most of the time. It was other issues, especially weeding out heretics.

A great many things in the early Christian church were up in the air because there was no guidebook, if you will.

The essentials of the Christian faith were pretty well set in stone. The early Church was pretty well unified in that Christ was the Messiah, God and Human, the Gospel message was for the whole world, and that Jesus would return one day. Later, as time went on, other issues were discussed and things that were already agreed upon were expounded upon.

When I said, "Not everyone agreed in the end" I was speaking of the entire process of canonization of the bible (old and new testaments) and even the doctrine of their beliefs in general.

This statement is halfway there. Apart from those that were deemed heretics, the early church did agree upon what was Scripture. That is why virtually all of Christianity today uses the same canon. Some churches gave more weight to secondary books, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (kinda like Jews did with their apocrypha).

Yes, there were disagreements about some finer points of doctrine, that actually aren't important in the scheme of things. What is note worthy though, is that the essentials of the faith were all agreed on in the early church. There were no questions about those.

You would like to believe that Constantine walked into the picture, waved his hands, and said "Christianity is now legal!" and they were all set to go in their present form.

No, I don't. But, Constantine did make Christianity legal. There is no doubt about that. It was his successors that made Christianity compulsory, which set the Faith up for many of the problems that it experienced throughout history.

But if one opens a history book or a secular study of early Christian thought, one finds that they held dozens of counsels and had fierce debates over even the most basic beliefs.

I never denied that. From my studies though, the "fierce debates" were more about that nature of how a particular truth could be (i.e., How can the Trinity be? The hypostatic union? et al.) rather than its validity.

No wonder they battled it out so hard in the early church. To the believer though, the history of all these counsels, no matter how well documented, doesn’t matter. The Christianity was merely legalized.

What's your point with this statement? To many believers, Church history is very important. To many skeptics, the history of the church councils doesn't matter either for that matter. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that the Bible was put together at the First Council of Nicea. Though untrue, so many people believe and promulgate that to others.

But, yeah, Constantine did get the ball rolling by legalizing Christianity. There were serious discussions about the faith and other issues at various church councils. No one denies that. I don't understand what your point is.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by JonInMichigan

 

The Apocryphal books are actually Old Testament era. They were more or less rejected as authoritative Scripture by Jews and Christians. They were considered important though for historical information and other things.

Sorry, one more point on these questions raised to my post.

It's just so hard to look back without colored glasses, isn't it? It is for me, and it is for others, and we both see the same things differently.

For octotom, some counsel in Rome who was solely responsible for divining which works were authoritative and which were not, were somehow divinely inspired by god to know an authoritative work from one that was “clearly” not. He mentions people with particular political agendas making some of the rejected submissions. Well, everyone had a religious/political agenda! The Romans just happened to be in charge so theirs was the only agenda that mattered! Riiiight? Again, it’s how you view history. For example, if we view history from one point of view, a group of people using guerrilla tactics to achieve a political or religious goal are called “freedom fighters”. If you are the ones who are being targeted by those people, then they are called “terrorists”. Who’s right and what is the proper term? Well that depends on one’s point of view.
At the end of the day, if the counsel people who made the book selections for the canon weren’t divinely inspired then you can have some faith issues on the importance of the bible as a valid reference popping up. So that is always well defended by devout Christians.

The whole New Testament, in MY world view which is different than his, is that it is a highly edited selection of early works. For me, the more people that touched those works and decided what they liked and what they didn’t, what was inspired by god and what was “clearly a forgery” is much like the Red Queen deciding who was going to have their heads cut off. They had agendas and they had opinions. Rome was no different than the USA is today and we all know how different the news is from MSNBC vs FOX vs The Internet. It’s all in the editing and spin. The bible had a Roman spin that met Roman agenda. It’s really hard to convince me, although I respect your beliefs octotom, that the bible was from divine inspiration only.

I did like the one point that someone made, “Why didn’t Jebus write it, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”


[edit on 8-3-2010 by JonInMichigan]

Double post - mods please delete.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by JonInMichigan]

reply to post by liveandletlive

It’s very well documented that manipulations took place.

Compared to what? You know that there is only 1-3% variation between the manuscripts that exist, right?

The fact that men sat around and decided what writings to add and not add is a prime example.

That's not exactly true. Based on the writings of the church fathers, it appears that the 27 New Testament books were accepted universally before a church council. There were some debates about some though: Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter, James, Hebrews, Barnabas' Epistle, Shepherd of Hermas, and 2 & 3 John. Though some in the early church didn't accept one or more of these books as Scripture, they were all viewed as authoritative in varying degrees. Over time, Barnabas and Hermas became more and more recognized as secondary, to the point where when the Councils decided to "officialize" the canon Barnabas and Hermas weren't included as Scripture.

Of course, after much discussion, careful thought, and reliance on God. One thing that I think is lost in the whole canonicity discussion is that those who attended the councils were actually, as we can glean from their writings, very prayerful men who wanted to "get it right" and only include what God wanted. They understood the task and they didn't want to neglect a writing that could very well have been God's Word.

The lack of links and sources was an intention of mine to keep away from a thread of bickering the validity, or bias of authors, scholars, researchers, etc. It was intended for the topic to stay on the subject matter. Its another remedial aspect that I would assume anyone involving themselves of such a question would already know.

I can honestly say that the counter argument and views from the defenders of the christian cult are accurately of an elementary level thus far. Perhaps I would have been wiser to have posted on a more advanced forum of theology elsewhere. The defenders of the faith so far are at a level that I honestly would feel is elementary brainwashed Christianity, and worthy of no replies. I am honestly snickering at everyone of them so far. I will keep re-visiting for signs of intelligence though.

reply to post by JonInMichigan

I did like the one point that someone made, “Why didn’t Jebus write it, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”

I think we would. As someone mentioned before, even in court, eye witness testimony would be stronger than the testimony of someone who is accused. So, if Jesus had written a book about how he was the Messiah wouldn't be viewed as highly as those works from other men that claimed that he was that witnessed him and his ministry themselves.

That said, I just thought that I should point out, based on a comment, while all the councils were called by Rome officially, the make up, until the East-West schism, included Christian leaders/bishops from all over the Roman Empire. So, in reality, it wasn't just a "Roman" thing.

ETA: Oh, and as for the "editing" that you say took place, what are you comparing the manuscripts that we have to? Of all the manuscripts that we have, there is very little variation between them, as I've said. Most of the variations have to do with spelling differences between regions and accidental additions (most of which we know where they came from or know they're not original because of older manuscripts that we have).

[edit on 3/8/2010 by octotom]