« previous   misc   next »

What's the source for the Bible?


By HEY YOU   Follow   Fri, 19 Oct 2012, 2:50pm PDT   1,306 views   14 comments
Watch (2)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

http://taintedclown.info/post/33813265834/bible

Comments 1-14 of 14     Last »

CashWillCrash   Fri, 19 Oct 2012, 2:54pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 1

not true

gbenson   Fri, 19 Oct 2012, 3:17pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 2

essentially true. Unlike the above post, some facts to back this up:
The tora (5 books of moses) were written about 1200 BC and were likely a collection put together by more than one author. Other books followed, then everything was piecemealed and heavily edited into what is the modern day bible by the Catholics in 300AD'ish.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1985/who-wrote-the-bible-part-1

Greatest I am   Mon, 29 Oct 2012, 4:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that
&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5

&feature=autoplay&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5&playnext=1

I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavians and later through Constantine.

Regards
DL

thunderlips11   Tue, 30 Oct 2012, 5:45am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 4

Of interest...
According to the bible's chronology, King Josiah ruled Judah for 31 years 639-608 BCE. In his eighteenth year, a Torah scroll was discovered while renovating the Jerusalem temple that Solomon had built. After he had its authenticity "corroborated" by a prophetess, he went on a rampage to destroy all traces of pagan worship to the point of killing the pagan priests. The events are told in 2 Kings 22:1-23:30 and 2 Chronicles 34:1-35:27.

Richard Elliot Friedman in Who Wrote the Bible, makes a strong case that the scrolls were actually written beforehand by one of Josiah's Jewish priests. They include Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. According to Friedman, the writer selected stories and other texts available to him, then edited them into order and added some comments and introductions.
http://www.usbible.com/law/king_josiah.htm

michaelsch   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 5:11am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 5

thunderlips11 says

According to the bible's chronology, King Josiah ruled Judah for 31 years 639-608 BCE. In his eighteenth year, a Torah scroll was discovered while renovating the Jerusalem temple that Solomon had built. After he had its authenticity "corroborated" by a prophetess, he went on a rampage to destroy all traces of pagan worship to the point of killing the pagan priests. The events are told in 2 Kings 22:1-23:30 and 2 Chronicles 34:1-35:27.

Right, that's well known. Torah was compiled in the end of 7th century BC out of multiple earlier texts. Interestingly enough, at that time the Passover celebrations were established. 12th century BC is nothing but a legend.

Also, until the 2nd century AD there were multiple slightly different variants of it. At that time one was selected by Yavneh academy was edited and copied. All other versions were carefully destroyed. Many of them are known only because of earlier Greek translations, though some fragments are found now in the Dead Sea scrolls.
That was pretty much the beginning of Judaism.

Similarly, the books of the New Testament were established several centuries after Christ out of known texts. The texts were selected on the basis of the liturgical usage. This (the liturgical use) also preserved some Old Testament books destroyed by Yavneh in their Greek translation.

So what, of course the Protestant "Sola Scriptura" principle is absolutely baseless. Well, it is merely based on ignorance. Again, so what?

lostand confused   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 6:50am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

If jesus is the only way to heaven, what about all the people born before him and the people born in other continents that never heard of him for centuries.

Are they going to hell, just because they never heard of him?? That would be one strange God?

upisdown   Wed, 31 Oct 2012, 6:56am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 7

lostand confused says

If jesus is the only way to heavan, what about all the people born before him and the people born in other continents that never heard of him for centuries.
Are they going to hell, just because they never heard of him?? That would be one strange God?

Good catch, and really funny too. The answer that you'll more than likely hear? God works in mysterious ways.

thunderlips11   Mon, 5 Nov 2012, 1:45am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

michaelsch says

So what, of course the Protestant "Sola Scriptura" principle is absolutely baseless. Well, it is merely based on ignorance. Again, so what?

It illustrates that from the get go, BOTH the NT and OT were edited and rewritten to serve the needs of the authors or editors.

Of course you are correct about Sola Scriptura, but the NT was assembled first by the Catholic-Orthodoxy, before the East/West split, sometime in the 4th Century at a Church Council, if memory serves. I believe GMark made it in by a hair.

And, we don't know who any of the Gospel authors are; they are "Attributed to", based on legend, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The earliest copies don't say "Gospel, written by Mark". We don't even know for 100% sure where they were written.

All of this does not reflect well on the certainty of events...

michaelsch   Mon, 5 Nov 2012, 2:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

thunderlips11 says

Of course you are correct about Sola Scriptura, but the NT was assembled first by the Catholic-Orthodoxy, before the East/West split, sometime in the 4th Century at a Church Council, if memory serves. I believe GMark made it in by a hair.

Actually, the final East/West split happened only in the 11th Century. Even then it only became fanal because of the crusades.

thunderlips11 says

And, we don't know who any of the Gospel authors are; they are "Attributed to", based on legend, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The earliest copies don't say "Gospel, written by Mark". We don't even know for 100% sure where they were written.

1. The texts were selected based on their liturgical use. The fact that Church used these texts made them sacred. This is very different from the Protestant doctrine, which assumes that certain texts are sacred by themselves and therefore may be used by the Church.

2. Attribution of the Gospels was very early and is as sound as the attribution of most of the 18th and even 19th century texts, not mentioning Shakespeare's works. That does not say that original texts were not amended, edited etc before they were canonized several centuries after later. BTW, even today the Church does not say "Gospel, written by Mark" etc, but "Gospel from st. Mark" or "Gospel according to st. Mark".

curious2   Mon, 5 Nov 2012, 3:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 10

michaelsch says

The fact that Church used these texts made them sacred.

Interesting insight. In other words, God is created by ritual.

Greatest I am   Mon, 5 Nov 2012, 4:13am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

curious2 says

michaelsch says

The fact that Church used these texts made them sacred.

Interesting insight. In other words, God is created by ritual.

Ritual designed by Government if you believe what those clips above are saying.

Remember the Noble Lie.

Regards
DL

gbenson   Mon, 5 Nov 2012, 5:18am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

Greatest I am says

Ritual designed by Government

Early religion was almost always an extension of the Government or nobility. The promise of a heavenly afterlife if you put up with a crappy meaningless terrestrial one was (and still is) a very effective control mechanism.

Greatest I am   Mon, 5 Nov 2012, 5:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

No argument.

Regards
DL

thunderlips11   Mon, 5 Nov 2012, 9:11pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

michaelsch says

1. The texts were selected based on their liturgical use. The fact that Church used these texts made them sacred. This is very different from the Protestant doctrine, which assumes that certain texts are sacred by themselves and therefore may be used by the Church.

At the Church Council, there were many Churches using the Gospel of Saint Thomas, or the Apocalypse of St. Peter. Also, certain dioceses were not, uh, 'represented' at the various church councils, whether by problems with communication/transport, but often by design: "Let's send the invitation to Thadeus of Caesarea out "late" - we all know he's a vile Marcionist, we don't need more of them at this Council."

michaelsch says

2. Attribution of the Gospels was very early and is as sound as the attribution of most of the 18th and even 19th century texts, not mentioning Shakespeare's works. That does not say that original texts were not amended, edited etc before they were canonized several centuries after later. BTW, even today the Church does not say "Gospel, written by Mark" etc, but "Gospel from st. Mark" or "Gospel according to st. Mark".

Let's put that "Sound" in context. The earliest attribution of the Gospel of Luke is circa 200 AD. That's about as distant in time from the Crucifixion, as between today and the time of President Jackson.

The earliest extant fragments of what became GLuke are from the late 2nd Century. The consensus is that "Luke" was first written in the late 1st Century at the earliest.

To compare timelines, between the 1940s and 1970s, just 30 years, the Roswell incident went from "Crashed Weather Balloon" to "UFO Crash" to "Alien Autopsy" to "Live Aliens living in Area 52" This was in a modern society with the printing press, radio, cinema, widespread literacy and bureaucracy, and television.

Imagine how much more BS came about in a society with 10% literacy at best?

curious2 says

Interesting insight. In other words, God is created by ritual.

Yes, This! And a much more succinct argument than mine ;)

By the way, in the 80s, the "Testament of Roswell" was immortalized in a hymn by that ancient Metal Group, in the "Gospel of Megadeth":

HEY YOU is moderator of this thread.

Email (Required, will not be visible)

Username (Just pick a name if you're new)

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net