Has Christianity been corrupted?

As I'm sure most of you are aware, there are many different bible versions out there. The different versions provide different translations of the original greek and hebrew scriptures. If you sit one hundred people down and ask them to translate a short story from a non-english language into english, your results will probably not show one hundred identical stories because at least one person in the group will have a different interpretation. Using this form of deduction, one could reasonably assume that the different bible versions are not identical.

The authors of the King James version have made some unusual translations when it comes to identifying animals. Chapter 39 in the book of Job mentions unicorns several times, but the other bible versions translate the same hebrew word as "wild ox". Some bible versions say in 1Corinthians chapter 6 that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of god, but the literal translation version identifies the same greek word as "effeminate".

Those are just some of the examples I could find; I don't know how many differences there are in total. My point is that there is a big difference between a wild ox and a unicorn, and the same goes for homosexual and effeminate. If there ever was any truth in the bible, have these versions corrupted its initial message? which bible version should you trust? why?

As I have chronicled elsewhere, my answer is an unequivocal "yes".  Not just mildly corrupted, either; Christianity as it exists today bares almost no resemblance whatsoever to what we can piece together of Christianity in its original form, having been subject to pagan and secular infusions almost since its conception.

Christmas is a very well-known example of that - pagans liked their celebrations too much to convert, so Christians, deciding that conversion to their religion is more important than, um, the religion itself, basically told them, "OK, you can have your celebration, but now it's about, uh, Jesus' birthday."  And thus Christmas was born.

A much more impactful example is the concept of hell.  The word has been used in the English language for centuries, but its original meaning was very likely simply "a concealed place" - just the place where you go when you die, just like the Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek word Hades.  None of these words originally had anything to do with the modern conception of a place of fiery torture and torment - that came much later.  It wasn't until the Latin translation of the Bible took forcible hold that the doctrine of eternal punishment of the damned came into mainstream thought - a fact which makes me sometimes wonder if the Church purposefully mistranslated it, considering how useful that doctrine became.

A third rather impactful example, as well, is the structure of churches and places of worship as they exist today.  The concept of the clergy and the laity as separate groups was utterly alien to the writers of the New Testament: all were simply brothers in Christ, equals; there were not Godly men who studied the Bible and then gave filtered versions of it to the masses.

And then, as you allude to, there is the issue of widely diverging translations of the Bible and interpretations of those translations, a controversy that has raged almost ever since Christianity was born.  The translators of the King James Version did perhaps the worst job ever; they quite literally just made crap up whenever they came across a word that they didn't understand, which is why it contains allusions to so many utterly mythical creatures whereas modern translations do not.

So, yes, Christianity has been corrupted.  To the core.  Which is why I personally have taken it upon myself to try and rescue Christianity from Christians. :P

As for which Bible version to trust, I feel that there's a very simple metric to apply as far as that one goes: just ask whether or not an interpretation or translation is agreeable to your conscience.  If not, then it would probably not be a terribly good idea to go with that one. :P

Of course, this is not entirely true, at least in terms of determining what the writers actually intended to say.  I am of the opinion that the writers of the Bible were fallible men, and that the guy who is responsible for almost half of the New Testament (Paul) never even met Jesus, and therefore probably did not have a terribly good handle on what Jesus actually said, which may be seen in the apparent contradictions between his assertion that no man is justified through adherence to the law and Jesus' telling a person who wanted to be justified to follow what is in the law.  I think there is a vast array of depth in the writings in the Bible that are utterly lost if people mechanically treat it as a textbook straight from God - there are large arrays of human emotions present there that no one even notices when they treat it as though God himself is writing every word.

I am of the opinion that the writers of the Bible were fallible men, and that the guy who is responsible for almost half of the New Testament (Paul) never even met Jesus, and therefore probably did not have a terribly good handle on what Jesus actually said, which may be seen in the apparent contradictions between his assertion that no man is justified through adherence to the law and Jesus' telling a person who wanted to be justified to follow what is in the law.GabuEx

If Paul's writings are fallible, he couldn't have been guided by the holy spirit. Wouldn't that make him a false prophet in your eyes?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"] I am of the opinion that the writers of the Bible were fallible men, and that the guy who is responsible for almost half of the New Testament (Paul) never even met Jesus, and therefore probably did not have a terribly good handle on what Jesus actually said, which may be seen in the apparent contradictions between his assertion that no man is justified through adherence to the law and Jesus' telling a person who wanted to be justified to follow what is in the law.dracula_16

If Paul's writings are fallible, he couldn't have been guided by the holy spirit. Wouldn't that make him a false prophet in your eyes?

What Paul wrote (if we take it at face value that Paul wrote the Paulean epistles) was similar to the gospels, but there were interesting omissions and other points of contrast. So I wouldn't say he (if he existed) was a false prophet per se.

The King James Bible Word Book by Ronald Bridges and Luther A. Weigle, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, states the following on the inside jacket:

"Did you know that in the King James Version of the Bible the word 'advertise' means 'tell,' 'allege' means 'prove,' and 'conversation' means 'behavior'? That 'communicate' means 'share,' 'take through' means 'be anxious,' and 'prevent' means 'precede'? That 'meat' is a general term for 'food,' and 'anon' and 'by and by' translate Greek words which mean 'immediately'?

(from here: http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm)

EDIT: That's a site from NIV evangelists, but here's a link showing some verses the NIV leaves out!:

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0132.asp?FROM=biblecenter

But there's another site that says the NIV left them out for good reason and blaming KJV "copyists" for inserting those extra lines (among a variety of funny inference-ridden execuses) in the first place:

http://www.anointedlinks.com/niv_omissions.html 

I constantly marvel at how many mainstream bible-believers simply don't know, or don't care about these issues.

If Paul's writings are fallible, he couldn't have been guided by the holy spirit. Wouldn't that make him a false prophet in your eyes?

dracula_16

Personally, my reading of the New Testament has led me to the conclusion that the writers never even claimed to be writing the infallible word of God.  The verse usually used to justify that doctrine is 2 Timothy 3:16, in which it is said that "All Scripture is God-breathed".  But there are a number of problems with this:

1. In all except one case in the New Testament (more on the one exception below), the word "Scripture" is used exclusively with reference to the Old Testament.

2. Most scholars agree that 2 Timothy was pseudepigraphic - in other words, written by someone claiming to be Paul to give what he has to say (the writer, not Paul) increased credibility.

Because of the above, it's highly likely not only that 2 Timothy should not have been included in canon, but also that the verse in question was talking about the Old Testament, given that there was no way the writer could have known what New Testament scripture was at the time of the letter's writing (although I am sure that those who maintain Biblical infallibility would have no problem claiming that the Holy Spirit was driving him to write something that he didn't even himself understand).

The one single exception noted above is 2 Peter 3:16, which implicitly declares Paul's writing to be Scripture, but this was almost certainly not written by Peter, but rather bears the hallmarks of later emerging Christianity.  If there is one single letter that would be practically certain to be excluded from canon were the Bible compiled today, 2 Peter is it.

But back to the question.  Was Paul a false prophet?  I suppose so, if one adheres to the doctrine that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is supposed to be the one and only complete word of God.  I don't, though, for the above reasons.  When I see Paul's writings and Jesus' words in conflict, I don't ominously declare "false prophet" (I don't know of Paul ever claiming to be a prophet, anyway); I just see a human being who didn't personally know Jesus and who understandably was mistaken about some things he wrote.  It's even described in Paul's very writings that there were strong differences between him and other Christians; the idea that Paul and everyone else was completely unified under God (what one seemingly ought to expect if they were all being personally led by God) is a myth people have tried to apply retroactively.

Gabu,

Galations 3:16

Matthew 5:18

Those verses indicate Jesus and Paul's faith in OT inerrancy too, I think.

Gabu,

Galations 3:16

Matthew 5:18

Those verses indicate Jesus and Paul's faith in OT inerrancy too, I think.

RationalAtheist

I'm not sure what you're referring to in Galatians 3:16 (what's up with 3:16s, anyway?) - could you elaborate?

Matthew 5:18 is actually not talking about the whole OT.  The OT as a whole is the law and the prophets.  The first five books are the law; the rest is the prophets.  Matthew 5:17 would probably indicate that Jesus believed that the law and the prophets were genuine, though (if indeed Jesus actually said that - given that things probably survived only in oral traditions until around 60 AD or so, imagine what would happen if one played Telephone for decades before someone reported what they heard).

Whether or not they believed that the OT was inerrant is kind of a side issue, anyhow - I'm talking about NT inerrancy.  Obviously, if the NT writings were not divinely inspired and directly breathed by God, then one cannot claim that everything they say about the OT is divinely inspired, either.

Of course, there have been corruptions to what is taught in the bible, however, I think it would be misleading to blame all of Christianity's bad points on this corruption.

Does it matter?

To any intelligent 21st century person the bible is nothing but absolute non sense. You shouldnt waste your time bothering with the intricate details about chrsitianity and bible, you can do better things with your time than to try to interpret centuries old man made BS. Trying to interpret the bible and trying to understand it is just such an utter waste of time, it's hard to understand cuz that is exactly how things would be if it was all just the rambings of a human being thought of as something divine.

Gambler_3

Gambler, no offense, but your anti-everything religious stance is really getting a little tiring.  The Bible is a collection of writings that has a great deal of relevance both contemporary and historical.  To follow the evolution of Christianity and to understand what the Bible does and does not say enables one to make perfect sense of what appears in the present day to be utterly nonsensical.  In what we can piece together as what Jesus very likely actually said and did during his time on Earth, we can discover a great deal of very valuable insight and thoughts on life and relationships that are timeless and relevant both inside and outside the bounds of Christianity.

If you don't see this, and if you want only to throw it all away, then no one can stop you from doing so, but please stop trying to compel other people to follow you down that path.

Gambler, no offense, but your anti-everything religious stance is really getting a little tiring.  The Bible is a collection of writings that has a great deal of relevance both contemporary and historical.  To follow the evolution of Christianity and to understand what the Bible does and does not say enables one to make perfect sense of what appears in the present day to be utterly nonsensical.  In what we can piece together as what Jesus very likely actually said and did during his time on Earth, we can discover a great deal of very valuable insight and thoughts on life and relationships that are timeless and relevant both inside and outside the bounds of Christianity.

If you don't see this, and if you want only to throw it all away, then no one can stop you from doing so, but please stop trying to compel other people to follow you down that path.

GabuEx

Ofcourse bible is an important part of history, where did I say that we should just throw it away? If you have a fascination with history than sure do whatever pleases you.

BUT the TC isnt talking about the bible from that point of view, hes talking about the bible having "the truth" or not, which version could have the truth? My response was perfectly valid for this sort of a question. If the TC was simply talking about the literary and historical part of bible than that would be a different thing but hez clearly taking it much more seriously than just history...

I am not anti-everything religion, I just dont put religion even a dime ahead in terms of respect than any other things in the world so that's why it seems that way I guess...

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Gambler, no offense, but your anti-everything religious stance is really getting a little tiring.  The Bible is a collection of writings that has a great deal of relevance both contemporary and historical.  To follow the evolution of Christianity and to understand what the Bible does and does not say enables one to make perfect sense of what appears in the present day to be utterly nonsensical.  In what we can piece together as what Jesus very likely actually said and did during his time on Earth, we can discover a great deal of very valuable insight and thoughts on life and relationships that are timeless and relevant both inside and outside the bounds of Christianity.

If you don't see this, and if you want only to throw it all away, then no one can stop you from doing so, but please stop trying to compel other people to follow you down that path.

Gambler_3

Ofcourse bible is an important part of history, where did I say that we should just throw it away? If you have a fascination with history than sure do whatever pleases you.

BUT the TC isnt talking about the bible from that point of view, hes talking about the bible having "the truth" or not, which version could have the truth? My response was perfectly valid for this sort of a question. If the TC was simply talking about the literary and historical part of bible than that would be a different thing but hez clearly taking it much more seriously than just history...

I am not anti-everything religion, I just dont put religion even a dime ahead in terms of respect than any other things in the world so that's why it seems that way I guess...

Actually you've gotten the point of this topic wrong. He's not asking which bible version has the true word of god, he is asking which bible version is the most accurate translation of the original. You could also argue that if you did not have the original bible written by the apostles and such, you could never have a "true" translation; again not refering to which is the true word of god, but the most accurate translation of the original. 

To put it another way, imagine if I took the book Foundation by Asimov. If I translated that book into Spanish how close would it be to the original book? What if I then translated the English version into German? How close would it be to the English version? Then, what if a Spanish speaking person translated it into German, having never read the English version? Would the two German versions be identical, or would there be differences and corruptions? The question is which version is the most true to the original book, not which contains the literal truth.

That being said, I don't thik any of the different translations are anything more than approximations. The first time the bible was translated, the work lost some of its meaning. Translation after translation the bible has, dare I say evolved, into what it is today. There are minor errors and inconsistencies that build up over time, and different things come into being. As long as language continues to evolve, so will the bible. 

You can actually try this for yourself. Find a text translator on the internet. Type a sentence and then have it translated into another language. Then, take what it gives you, and translate it back into English. You will not get what you put in. 

Nothing translates exactly, and thus we will never know exactly what the bible said. As per this, we can say yes, Christianity has been corrupted...or at least it's most sacred text has evolved!

Ofcourse bible is an important part of history, where did I say that we should just throw it away? If you have a fascination with history than sure do whatever pleases you.

Gambler_3

Considering that you said that "to any intelligent 21st century person the bible is nothing but absolute non sense" and that we "shouldnt waste your time bothering with the intricate details about chrsitianity and bible", I think I can be forgiven for thinking that that is what you were saying.

BUT the TC isnt talking about the bible from that point of view, hes talking about the bible having "the truth" or not, which version could have the truth? My response was perfectly valid for this sort of a question. If the TC was simply talking about the literary and historical part of bible than that would be a different thing but hez clearly taking it much more seriously than just history...

Gambler_3

The truth in the sense of what the original message in the writings in the Bible was.  Many people devote much of their life to the languages in the Bible to enable them to read very old manuscripts and to be able to get as close as they can to the original language and meaning of the text.  Over a billion people in the world today are Christians, and they are the vast majority in North America - is it not rather important, therefore, to be able to know what precisely their holy book says?  Whether we like it or not, religion is a huge part of most people's everyday lives, and many people structure their entire lives around what they think their holy book instructs them to do.  Many people find it exceptionally uplifting, to give one example, to learn that the original form of Christianity did not teach eternal damnation of any kind.

 

I am not anti-everything religion, I just dont put religion even a dime ahead in terms of respect than any other things in the world so that's why it seems that way I guess...

Gambler_3

Well, then perhaps it might do you good to give everything else more respect too, considering that you tend to come across as rather abrasive most of the time.

Actually you've gotten the point of this topic wrong. He's not asking which bible version has the true word of god, he is asking which bible version is the most accurate translation of the original. You could also argue that if you did not have the original bible written by the apostles and such, you could never have a "true" translation; again not refering to which is the true word of god, but the most accurate translation of the original. 

Mtngranek

If there ever was any truth in the bible, have these versions corrupted its initial message? which bible version should you trust? why?

dracula_16

Considering that you said that "to any intelligent 21st century person the bible is nothing but absolute non sense" and that we "shouldnt waste your time bothering with the intricate details about chrsitianity and bible", I think I can be forgiven for thinking that that is what you were saying.GabuEx

And yes as a book of moral guidance the bible is full of epic fail. How can you defend a book which so unapologetically talks about stoning homosexuals and disobedient chilldren as being the moral code of life? Historical significance my ass, religion is the only place where books which order killing of homosexuals are not only not insulted but are actually considered the holiest thing ever.

Over a billion people in the world today are Christians, and they are the vast majority in North America - is it not rather important, therefore, to be able to know what precisely their holy book says?  Whether we like it or not, religion is a huge part of most people's everyday lives, and many people structure their entire lives around what they think their holy book instructs them to do.GabuEx

Many people find it exceptionally uplifting, to give one example, to learn that the original form of Christianity did not teach eternal damnation of any kind. GabuEx

Well, then perhaps it might do you good to give everything else more respect too, considering that you tend to come across as rather abrasive most of the time.

GabuEx

So my msg was moderated and deleted as being "offensive".:lol:

This is supposed to be the atheism union? I just dont see any point having politically correct religious debates on the internet, if people are so insecure as to get offended on a msg board then well I really cant say much without getting moderated again.

I cannot regularly post in a forum of science and religion where directly insulting a religion via your opinion is not allowed, this is one of the primary reasons why I refrain from participating in the OT religious discussions. Oh well happy posting everyone.

So my msg was moderated and deleted as being "offensive".:lol:

This is supposed to be the atheism union? I just dont see any point having politically correct religious debates on the internet, if people are so insecure as to get offended on a msg board then well I really cant say much without getting moderated again.

I cannot regularly post in a forum of science and religion where directly insulting a religion via your opinion is not allowed, this is one of the primary reasons why I refrain from participating in the OT religious discussions. Oh well happy posting everyone.

Gambler_3

You're free to attack the faith all you want, but that isn't what you did. I am one of the most flamboyant atheists I know, but even I could see that you crossed the line when you brought up the followers, and then implied that they are not intelligent.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

So my msg was moderated and deleted as being "offensive".:lol:

This is supposed to be the atheism union? I just dont see any point having politically correct religious debates on the internet, if people are so insecure as to get offended on a msg board then well I really cant say much without getting moderated again.

I cannot regularly post in a forum of science and religion where directly insulting a religion via your opinion is not allowed, this is one of the primary reasons why I refrain from participating in the OT religious discussions. Oh well happy posting everyone.

 

dracula_16

You're free to attack the faith all you want, but that isn't what you did. I am one of the most flamboyant atheists I know, but even I could see that you crossed the line when you brought up the followers, and then implied that they are not intelligent.

^^^ This ^^^ (except I thought I was the most flamboyant!)

Calm down, dear! It is good to have you around here and I want you to stay, but you should realise its not what you're saying - its how you're saying it that gets you modded. But if you do go, mind the door doesn't hit your butt on the way out!

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Gabu,

Galations 3:16

Matthew 5:18

Those verses indicate Jesus and Paul's faith in OT inerrancy too, I think.

GabuEx

I'm not sure what you're referring to in Galatians 3:16 (what's up with 3:16s, anyway?) - could you elaborate?

Matthew 5:18 is actually not talking about the whole OT.  The OT as a whole is the law and the prophets.  The first five books are the law; the rest is the prophets.  Matthew 5:17 would probably indicate that Jesus believed that the law and the prophets were genuine, though (if indeed Jesus actually said that - given that things probably survived only in oral traditions until around 60 AD or so, imagine what would happen if one played Telephone for decades before someone reported what they heard).

Whether or not they believed that the OT was inerrant is kind of a side issue, anyhow - I'm talking about NT inerrancy.  Obviously, if the NT writings were not divinely inspired and directly breathed by God, then one cannot claim that everything they say about the OT is divinely inspired, either.

I can't, but Wiki can -

"...Jesus and the apostles used the Old Testament in a way which assumes it is inerrant. For instance in Galatians 3:16, Paul bases his argument on the fact that the word "seed" in the Genesis reference to "Abraham and his seed", is singular rather than plural. This (as claimed) sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words."

"Similarly Jesus said that every minute detail of the Old Testament Law must be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18), indicating (it is claimed) that every detail must be correct."

(source: "Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of", by P.D.Feinberg, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker, 1984, Ed. W.Elwell) 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy, under Deductive Reasons for Inerrancy )

I'm not sure that OT-errancy is a side issue here, since that's what Jesus allegedly preached.

I now note that the favoured flavour of some bible believers who may read this thread (you know who) is the "King James Version". Wiki says this about this version:

"A faction of those in the "The King-James-Only Movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God, and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translation into English of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version."

Lucky translators!

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

So my msg was moderated and deleted as being "offensive".:lol:

This is supposed to be the atheism union? I just dont see any point having politically correct religious debates on the internet, if people are so insecure as to get offended on a msg board then well I really cant say much without getting moderated again.

I cannot regularly post in a forum of science and religion where directly insulting a religion via your opinion is not allowed, this is one of the primary reasons why I refrain from participating in the OT religious discussions. Oh well happy posting everyone.

 

dracula_16

You're free to attack the faith all you want, but that isn't what you did. I am one of the most flamboyant atheists I know, but even I could see that you crossed the line when you brought up the followers, and then implied that they are not intelligent.

I have said several vile things about quran and Islam on this site but never got moderated. I wonder why hmm.....

I'm not sure that OT-errancy is a side issue here, since that's what Jesus allegedly preached.

RationalAtheist

Well it's a side issue when talking about the writings of someone like Paul, which is what we were doing - whether or not people thought the OT was inerrant does not really have much impact on whether or not Paul claimed his own writings to be God-inspired and thus inerrant.

On the topic of whether or not Jesus actually said that, it might be worthwhile to give a bit of background for why I have a certain degree of doubt about that.  The Gospel of Mark and the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas were both probably written around 60 AD, although heated discussions have occurred about which was written first.  Together they constitute probably the original surviving writings about Jesus, although most scholars also posit a third hypothetical "Q" document that was like the Gospel of Thomas in that it was a collection of Jesus' sayings that both Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) used; this is due in part to the close and sometimes even word-for-word agreement between the two on points that Mark does not touch upon.

Although Christians reject the inspired nature of the Gospel of Thomas (due I am sure to no small part that it makes no mentions whatsoever of Jesus' divinity, resurrection, or indeed anything about Jesus himself at all), it nonetheless makes one thing clear: Jesus' life story as presented in the Gospels was probably not the original form in which Jesus' legacy was preserved.

I think that one must keep in mind that, at the time that Jesus lived, there did not really exist historians in the modern sense of the word who had the same conceptions of the scientific separation of fact from fiction that we do today.  At that time, history was, on the whole, just another story to tell.  And storytellers invariably took creative license: the people whom the story was about were treated as characters, ones for whom dialog was written to suit the current scene as appropriate.  Furthermore, as these stories were told in an oral manner - literate people in those days were very few and far between - there was no "official" version of the story in some library somewhere; people simply retold what someone else had told them.

Storytelling wasn't the only way things were related to others in an oral fashion, though.  There was another way, which the Gospel of Thomas also makes clear - namely, that the things that Jesus said that could be effectively separated from the context in which they appeared also probably circulated as well.  And these are much more likely to have been preserved fairly closely to the way in which they were originally spoken, as they tend to be quite punchy and memorable in nature, such as the exhortations of "love your enemies" and "if someone takes your cloak, give him your tunic also".  These are two of the sayings that, for these reasons, scholars are in broad agreement that Jesus almost certainly did say them in a form much like how they appear in the gospels.

So what we have in the gospels is effectively a Frankenstein creation of sorts - it takes one part non-contextual and orally preserved sayings of Jesus, one part orally transmitted story to provide context and narrative, mixes it all together, and there you have it.  Add in a dash of some thirty to forty years elapsing between Jesus' death and the writing of the first gospels, and, well, that about sums it up.

It's for this reason that I generally have a pretty darn hard time taking seriously the notion that the gospels are the full and complete word of God and are the perfectly preserved account of Jesus' life while on Earth, especially considering that they can't even agree on what would seem to be some fairly important details, such as the last thing that Jesus said before dying (Mark and Matthew: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"; Luke: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."; John: "It is finished."), or to whom Jesus first appeared after being resurrected (Mark: earliest manuscripts do not mention it; Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; Luke: two travelers; John: Mary alone).  Such discrepancies are rather difficult to explain under the assertion that all four constitute part of the complete and inerrant word of God, but are completely consistent with the assertion that they are retellings of stories that survived in oral traditions.

I now note that the favoured flavour of some bible believers who may read this thread (you know who) is the "King James Version". Wiki says this about this version:

"A faction of those in the "The King-James-Only Movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God, and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translation into English of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version."

Lucky translators!

RationalAtheist

I could say what I think about KJV-only people, but my mother always told me not to say anything if I have nothing good to say.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I'm not sure that OT-errancy is a side issue here, since that's what Jesus allegedly preached.

GabuEx

Well it's a side issue when talking about the writings of someone like Paul, which is what we were doing - whether or not people thought the OT was inerrant does not really have much impact on whether or not Paul claimed his own writings to be God-inspired and thus inerrant.

On the topic of whether or not Jesus actually said that, it might be worthwhile to give a bit of background for why I have a certain degree of doubt about that.  The Gospel of Mark and the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas were both probably written around 60 AD, although heated discussions have occurred about which was written first.  Together they constitute probably the original surviving writings about Jesus, although most scholars also posit a third hypothetical "Q" document that was like the Gospel of Thomas in that it was a collection of Jesus' sayings that both Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) used; this is due in part to the close and sometimes even word-for-word agreement between the two on points that Mark does not touch upon.

Although Christians reject the inspired nature of the Gospel of Thomas (due I am sure to no small part that it makes no mentions whatsoever of Jesus' divinity, resurrection, or indeed anything about Jesus himself at all), it nonetheless makes one thing clear: Jesus' life story as presented in the Gospels was probably not the original form in which Jesus' legacy was preserved.

I think that one must keep in mind that, at the time that Jesus lived, there did not really exist historians in the modern sense of the word who had the same conceptions of the scientific separation of fact from fiction that we do today.  At that time, history was, on the whole, just another story to tell.  And storytellers invariably took creative license: the people whom the story was about were treated as characters, ones for whom dialog was written to suit the current scene as appropriate.  Furthermore, as these stories were told in an oral manner - literate people in those days were very few and far between - there was no "official" version of the story in some library somewhere; people simply retold what someone else had told them.

Storytelling wasn't the only way things were related to others in an oral fashion, though.  There was another way, which the Gospel of Thomas also makes clear - namely, that the things that Jesus said that could be effectively separated from the context in which they appeared also probably circulated as well.  And these are much more likely to have been preserved fairly closely to the way in which they were originally spoken, as they tend to be quite punchy and memorable in nature, such as the exhortations of "love your enemies" and "if someone takes your cloak, give him your tunic also".  These are two of the sayings that, for these reasons, scholars are in broad agreement that Jesus almost certainly did say them in a form much like how they appear in the gospels.

So what we have in the gospels is effectively a Frankenstein creation of sorts - it takes one part non-contextual and orally preserved sayings of Jesus, one part orally transmitted story to provide context and narrative, mixes it all together, and there you have it.  Add in a dash of some thirty to forty years elapsing between Jesus' death and the writing of the first gospels, and, well, that about sums it up.

It's for this reason that I generally have a pretty darn hard time taking seriously the notion that the gospels are the full and complete word of God and are the perfectly preserved account of Jesus' life while on Earth, especially considering that they can't even agree on what would seem to be some fairly important details, such as the last thing that Jesus said before dying (Mark and Matthew: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"; Luke: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."; John: "It is finished."), or to whom Jesus first appeared after being resurrected (Mark: earliest manuscripts do not mention it; Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; Luke: two travelers; John: Mary alone).  Such discrepancies are rather difficult to explain under the assertion that all four constitute part of the complete and inerrant word of God, but are completely consistent with the assertion that they are retellings of stories that survived in oral traditions.

I now note that the favoured flavour of some bible believers who may read this thread (you know who) is the "King James Version". Wiki says this about this version:

"A faction of those in the "The King-James-Only Movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God, and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translation into English of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version."

Lucky translators!

RationalAtheist

I could say what I think about KJV-only people, but my mother always told me not to say anything if I have nothing good to say.

Was the other quote OK?

I do understand your thrust here, especially with the Q problem, but there is no clear solution, so answers are all supposed, despite clear evidence. I guess we are using different methods of textual criticism here - "higher" and "lower". I guess you could also say we are crossing the dividing lines between exegesis and eisegesis here too, whatever they may be!

I find that point particularly fascinating, since JKV people reject all textual criticism, despite using it to define their own views from the bible, using both exesegesis and eisegesis as justifications/smokescreens.

EDIT: P.S. I didn't mean for that smiley to creep in to my ealier post. How dare it! 

I also don't see how evidence for the compilation of Gospels points to an actual living Jesus figure, although that is a strong possibility. I think the inerrency issues would certainly lead to a purer, more loving notion of Christianity as a result of dismissing much of the commentary and focusing on the message. I see the fractured nature of the memories of Jesus in the bible as pointing to a more mythical origin, and/or combinations of the best practice for judiac preaching at the time. But that's just my slant.

Do you suppose that the New King James version was made in an attempt to sweep the wacky translations of the original KJV under the rug, Gabu?

Well, then perhaps it might do you good to give everything else more respect too, considering that you tend to come across as rather abrasive most of the time.

GabuEx

NB: I can definitely see where you are coming from though, people should definitely be respectful to other users, but I just don't think that necessarily extends to any topics or subject matter. :?

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

So my msg was moderated and deleted as being "offensive".:lol:

This is supposed to be the atheism union? I just dont see any point having politically correct religious debates on the internet, if people are so insecure as to get offended on a msg board then well I really cant say much without getting moderated again.

I cannot regularly post in a forum of science and religion where directly insulting a religion via your opinion is not allowed, this is one of the primary reasons why I refrain from participating in the OT religious discussions. Oh well happy posting everyone.

dracula_16

You're free to attack the faith all you want, but that isn't what you did. I am one of the most flamboyant atheists I know, but even I could see that you crossed the line when you brought up the followers, and then implied that they are not intelligent.

So my msg was moderated and deleted as being "offensive".:lol:

This is supposed to be the atheism union? I just dont see any point having politically correct religious debates on the internet, if people are so insecure as to get offended on a msg board then well I really cant say much without getting moderated again.

I cannot regularly post in a forum of science and religion where directly insulting a religion via your opinion is not allowed, this is one of the primary reasons why I refrain from participating in the OT religious discussions. Oh well happy posting everyone.

 

Gambler_3

This is the Atheism Union indeed but don't forget that we are a union within gamespot in general. All the pedantic rules and regulations that apply on OT apply here too (well with the exception of the religious guidelines) so don't think that this is a safe haven where you're free to insult the religious. It's not.

Personally I wouldn't have removed your original message but it was removed nevertheless by someone else. The best thing you can do here is not take the moderation personally, learn from your "mistake" (and I put mistake in scare quotes here because you might not percieve that you did anything wrong at all) and move along.

Anyways on to the topic in question. Has the Bible been corrupted?

I would say yes but really only on a few superficial matters. I think for the most part all of the absurdity and morally questionable stuff from the Bible is down to what was originally written rather than later corruption.

Good thing some people saw that the moderation was unwarranted. I never attacked any individual and neither was my rant off-topic.

As for the intelligent word in my post, I really dont see the problem. Cant I have my opinion on what I consider a "21st century intelligent person"?? I didnt even label any word with people who dont fall in the category.

Maybe I guess I overreacted as well but still it's kinda sad that moderations happen here on "butt hurt feelings"!!

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

I never directly said that they are stupid or dumb. We all call religious beliefs to be irrational and by saying that we indirectly mean that people who follow those beliefs arent intelligent, I didnt see anyone getting modded for that including myself.

RationalAtheist

Speak for yourself - certainly not for me! I know there are multiple "intelligences". I have witnessed some hugely intelligent (classically intelligent, or brainy if you like) people who have had faith. I think you are the one whose "not being intelligent", for making such sweeping and insulting statements that are so clearly wrong, yet wrapping them up in a false premise of unity.

http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm 

You dont call religious beliefs as irrational? You do but that doesnt mean that you consider the people who follow them to be wholly unintelligent, it would be a very huge assumption to think so. That is exactly what is my post as well, just because I consider the 21st century intelligent person to not accept the bible doesnt mean that whosoever does is wholly stupid and backwards. There is absolutely no reason to assume what I think of someone who accepts tha bible as I never ascerted my opinion on them.

If we start modding by assuming things that were never said then you'll be the first to get modded on your username....

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

I never directly said that they are stupid or dumb. We all call religious beliefs to be irrational and by saying that we indirectly mean that people who follow those beliefs arent intelligent, I didnt see anyone getting modded for that including myself.

Gambler_3

Speak for yourself - certainly not for me! I know there are multiple "intelligences". I have witnessed some hugely intelligent (classically intelligent, or brainy if you like) people who have had faith. I think you are the one whose "not being intelligent", for making such sweeping and insulting statements that are so clearly wrong, yet wrapping them up in a false premise of unity.

http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm 

If you read the quote chain, you'll see quite clearly where you wrote exactly that!

I can only read what you say. I think I did get the point of it. Perhaps you didn't express it as you thought, based on your above question. 

 

You dont call religious beliefs as irrational? You do but that doesnt mean that you consider the people who follow them to be wholly unintelligent, it would be a very huge assumption to think so. That is exactly what is my post as well, just because I consider the 21st century intelligent person to not accept the bible doesnt mean that whosoever does is wholly stupid and backwards. There is absolutely no reason to assume what I think of someone who accepts tha bible as I never ascerted my opinion on them.

If we start modding by assuming things that were never said then you'll be the first to get modded on your username....

Gambler_3

So are you saying all religious people are not intelligent? are you saying all rational people are? I think you confuse the two things.

What I was saying is that I'm not a part of your "we", if that is what you do think. 

EDIT: And I'm no mod - but I suggest you take it on the chin, stop complaining and craft un-moddable posts from now on.

If you read the quote chain, you'll see quite clearly where you wrote exactly that!RationalAtheist

What I was saying is that I'm not a part of your "we", if that is what you do think. 

RationalAtheist

The second sentence is an assumption based on the fact that this issue is black and white one which it isnt. Similar was the case with my post, just because I consider a 21st century intellect to not believe in the bible doesnt mean that the one who does is automatically a dumb person with a backwards ideology.

I do consider believing in the bible as foolish but that doesnt mean that if someone believes in it then they are wholly a fool. We all perhaps have some foolish aspects in our lives and some rather strange opinions.

So are you saying all religious people are not intelligent? are you saying all rational people are? I think you confuse the two things. 

RationalAtheist

I think you are the one whoz getting really confused here...

 

And I'm no mod - but I suggest you take it on the chin, stop complaining and craft un-moddable posts from now on.

RationalAtheist

I always take care of what I am posting which is perhaps why I dont have a single real moderation yet.

Was the other quote OK?

RationalAtheist

The one from Galatians?

I think it certainly indicates that Paul thought that the Old Testament prophesied about Jesus, which is one of the fundamental tenets of mainstream Christendom.  Did Paul think that the Old Testament was the official word of God?  I would say yes, he probably did, although I would not offer that one single verse as conclusive evidence to that end.

 

I do understand your thrust here, especially with the Q problem, but there is no clear solution, so answers are all supposed, despite clear evidence. I guess we are using different methods of textual criticism here - "higher" and "lower". I guess you could also say we are crossing the dividing lines between exegesis and eisegesis here too, whatever they may be!

RationalAtheist

Well, there's no clear evidence that would lead any rational individual at all to rock-solid belief in the assertion being made, but I don't think that makes any answer as good as any other answer.  As I said in my post, there are certain points where there is quite literally a word for word correspondence between the two.  For example, take Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9 -

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: 'You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.'" (Matthew 3:7-10)

"John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3:7-9)

Do these sound familiar?  Well, they should; look at the Greek:

"ιδων δε πολλους των φαρισαιων και σαδδουκαιων ερχομενους επι το βαπτισμα ειπεν αυτοιςγεννηματα εχιδνων τις υπεδειξεν υμιν φυγειν απο της μελλουσης οργης ποιησατε ουνκαρπον αξιοντης μετανοιας και μηδοξητελεγειν εν εαυτοις πατερα εχομεν τον αβρααμ λεγω γαρ υμιν οτι δυναται ο θεος εκ των λιθων τουτων εγειραι τεκνα τω αβρααμ ηδη δε η αξινη προς την ριζαν των δενδρων κειται παν ουν δενδρον μη ποιουν καρπον καλον εκκοπτεται και εις πυρ βαλλεται" (Matthew 3:7-10)

"ελεγεν ουν τοις εκπορευομενοις οχλοις βαπτισθηναι υπ αυτουγεννηματα εχιδνων τις υπεδειξεν υμιν φυγειν απο της μελλουσης οργης ποιησατε ουνκαρπους αξιουςτης μετανοιας και μη αρξησθελεγειν εν εαυτοις πατερα εχομεν τον αβρααμ λεγω γαρ υμιν οτι δυναται ο θεος εκ των λιθων τουτων εγειραι τεκνα τω αβρααμ ηδη δεκαιη αξινη προς την ριζαν των δενδρων κειται παν ουν δενδρον μη ποιουν καρπον καλον εκκοπτεται και εις πυρ βαλλεται" (Luke 3:7-9) 

Note that the text introducing John's dialog is completely different in the two passages, yet the text of what John said is practically identical between the two.  The only difference that is not just the addition of an auxiliary word (και - "also" in this context) or a pluralization (καρπον αξιον vs. καρπους αξιους ) is the use of δοξητε ("you should be presuming") in Matthew vs. αρξησθε ("you should be beginning").

Some have asserted that Matthew referred to Luke or that Luke referred to Matthew, but this does not address the fact that the narrative framing of this dialog is completely different in the two versions; the portions that are identical are only what John says.  This strongly indicates that both very likely made use of a document that contained decontextualized sayings that they then inserted into the stories that they were telling.  The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, itself a document containing decontextualized sayings, strongly supported the idea that such a Q document existed, as it proved that such documents absolutely did exist.

  

I find that point particularly fascinating, since JKV people reject all textual criticism, despite using it to define their own views from the bible, using both exesegesis and eisegesis as justifications/smokescreens.

RationalAtheist

Yes, well... like I said above, I have some rather choice words for KJV-only people. :P 

 

I also don't see how evidence for the compilation of Gospels points to an actual living Jesus figure, although that is a strong possibility. I think the inerrency issues would certainly lead to a purer, more loving notion of Christianity as a result of dismissing much of the commentary and focusing on the message. I see the fractured nature of the memories of Jesus in the bible as pointing to a more mythical origin, and/or combinations of the best practice for judiac preaching at the time. But that's just my slant.

RationalAtheist

Well, let me be clear about one thing: I don't think there is any significant scholarship that believes that Jesus as a person did not exist.  Jesus almost certainly did exist, was a travelling sage, and did get crucified, and most scholars even believe, as I said above, that there are certain things that he almost certainly did say roughly in the form that it was written down in the Bible (although these are the minority).  The question mark surrounds the narrative that has been developed surrounding his life and his sayings, not really around the man himself.

Well, the standard explanation for the New King James Version was that it was an effort to update the language to modern times while retaining the general flow and sentence structure.  They did remove the references to mythical creatures, though, so who knows.  KJV-only people tend to throw out the NKJV anyway ("Jesus wouldn't use such common language!" - siiigh), so I kind of doubt that was main reason they did it. 

Anyways on to the topic in question. Has the Bible been corrupted?

I would say yes but really only on a few superficial matters. I think for the most part all of the absurdity and morally questionable stuff from the Bible is down to what was originally written rather than later corruption.

domatron23

I should point out that the question of whether or not the Bible has been corrupted is not the same question as that of whether or not Christianity has been corrupted. 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]If you read the quote chain, you'll see quite clearly where you wrote exactly that!Gambler_3

What I was saying is that I'm not a part of your "we", if that is what you do think. 

RationalAtheist

The second sentence is an assumption based on the fact that this issue is black and white one which it isnt. Similar was the case with my post, just because I consider a 21st century intellect to not believe in the bible doesnt mean that the one who does is automatically a dumb person with a backwards ideology.

I do consider believing in the bible as foolish but that doesnt mean that if someone believes in it then they are wholly a fool. We all perhaps have some foolish aspects in our lives and some rather strange opinions.

So are you saying all religious people are not intelligent? are you saying all rational people are? I think you confuse the two things. 

RationalAtheist

I think you are the one whoz getting really confused here...

 

And I'm no mod - but I suggest you take it on the chin, stop complaining and craft un-moddable posts from now on.

RationalAtheist

I always take care of what I am posting which is perhaps why I dont have a single real moderation yet.

Surely you can read what you wrote. No need to go into denial after deleting that part of the quote chain. It's still there in my post above and copied below. 

If you read what I posted, you'd note that I think intelligence is no descriptor of human psychology. There are many intelligences, so I think it unfair to say a person is intelligent or not, based on any single criteria. 

You actually did say "We all call religious beliefs to be irrational and by saying that we indirectly mean that people who follow those beliefs arent intelligent". OK? I did your research for you. Firstly, I dont agree, so I think you should represent yourself, rather than try and argue from any majority by using "we", unless you can call on some support.

Then when it comes down to intelligence as you mean it - i.e. cognitive intelligence, I say you are still wrong, as I wrote, since there are many highly intelligent people who have faith. People who loose faith don't suddenly become more intelligent either.

Well, let me be clear about one thing: I don't think there is any significant scholarship that believes that Jesus as a person did not exist.  Jesus almost certainly did exist, was a travelling sage, and did get crucified, and most scholars even believe, as I said above, that there are certain things that he almost certainly did say roughly in the form that it was written down in the Bible (although these are the minority).  The question mark surrounds the narrative that has been developed surrounding his life and his sayings, not really around the man himself.

GabuEx

Christian scholarship on Jesus existence and cruxifiction would be certain, wouldn't it?. My views on scholarship as a discipline are dim, since "scholars" with no academic or evidential rigour have gotten us into this mess. The view of scholarship as being a reliable means of evidence is debatable - with their own particular methods exegesis and eisegesis and often pre-determined objectives and divergent interpretations.

The cultural, anthropological and historical evidence seem to contrast with such a series of events as described in gospels. Textual criticism breaks the gospels down into re-recordings and embellishments of distorted myths. The sheer time span in the documention of events must shed doubt over their veracity. There are significant omissions from well maintained records of Roman life at the time. There is plenty of evidence that there were many people called Jesus, many travelling mystics and well documented cruxifictions of the time. There are too many coincidences with other faiths too. No proof, but a string of notable absences of evidence - enough for me to doubt.

Wasn't the second coming supposed to be immanent until the second century, when they extended the rapture indefinitely, after not happening? Did Jesus mis-represent himself, if he was not God?

Christian scholarship on Jesus existence and cruxifiction would be certain, wouldn't it?. My views on scholarship as a discipline are dim, since "scholars" with no academic or evidential rigour have gotten us into this mess. The view of scholarship as being a reliable means of evidence is debatable - with their own particular methods exegesis and eisegesis and often pre-determined objectives and divergent interpretations.

RationalAtheist

Well, if someone has no academic rigor, then they're not exactly what I would consider a scholar. :P  Biblical scholars are absolutely not those who take for granted that the Bible is the 100% true word of God.  What would there be to study if one believed as such?  What I am speaking of are the very people who lead the way in textual criticism - a practice that basically demands that one accepts that the Bible as we have it today is not the received word of God - whose job it is essentially to earnestly study the text and its many sources and supporting documents and slowly piece together the real picture as best as they can.

 

The cultural, anthropological and historical evidence seem to contrast with such a series of events as described in gospels. Textual criticism breaks the gospels down into re-recordings and embellishments of distorted myths. The sheer time span in the documention of events must shed doubt over their veracity. There are significant omissions from well maintained records of Roman life at the time. There is plenty of evidence that there were many people called Jesus, many travelling mystics and well documented cruxifictions of the time. There are too many coincidences with other faiths too. No proof, but a string of notable absences of evidence - enough for me to doubt.

RationalAtheist

Well, what you have to understand is that it's not an all-or-nothing thing.  The mere fact that some things in the gospels were likely fabrications of the storyteller does not mean that one has to throw it all out as fiction.  There are a number of methods that one can use to determine whether or not the writer is likely making something up or is probably telling something that is reasonably close to something that actually happened.

The gospels are not the only source for the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, either.  The (genuine) epistles of Paul were all written between 50-60 AD, and it seems unlikely that this would be the case for a completely fictitious figure that had no basis in history at all only twenty some years after when his death was supposed to have occurred.

There are also a number of external attestations to the existence of Jesus, as well.  Flavius Josephus is one example of this - at one point, he refers to a man named James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ", a reference which most scholars agree is genuine.  There is also a more lengthy passage attributed to Josephus that describes Jesus in more detail, although most maintain that this passage has been corrupted over time - that said, however, Origen, a Christian teacher, also in turn wrote about Josephus regarding this writing of his, saying that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, which says that Josephus almost certainly wrote something about the Jesus whom Origen considered the Christ.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, also remarked on Jesus and the Christians:

"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a cIass hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

"Tiberius" here refers to Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus, the reigning emperor of the Roman empire from 14-37 AD.  Most scholars agree that Tacitus did indeed write this - it is rather unlikely, given the incredibly negative language used, that this was a Christian forgery - and if so then it would seem quite clear that this is indeed referring to a man called Christ (at the time of the writing, mind you) who was executed during Tiberius' reign by Pontius Pilate.

Is it likely that much of what is said about Jesus was a later invention?  I would say the answer is yes.  However, as I said before, I would nonetheless strongly assert that Jesus the man definitely did exist, definitely did have a following, and definitely was crucified or executed in some way, likely on account of the fact that everything we know of the man depicts him as a one-man wrecking crew towards societal norms and established religious tradition (although, interestingly, not of political authority, it would seem).  It's for this reason that I find it so tragically ironic that people are now doing exactly what he railed against in his name, but that's another story.

 

Wasn't the second coming supposed to be immanent until the second century, when they extended the rapture indefinitely, after not happening? Did Jesus mis-represent himself, if he was not God?

RationalAtheist

There is an ongoing debate about just what Jesus actually taught and how much of what people think Jesus taught was actually taught by his predecessor, John the Baptist, and then revived later.  At one point or another there was virtually no contesting the idea that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but the view that he actually taught no such thing has actually gained significant ground since the beginning of the 20th century.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Christian scholarship on Jesus existence and cruxifiction would be certain, wouldn't it?. My views on scholarship as a discipline are dim, since "scholars" with no academic or evidential rigour have gotten us into this mess. The view of scholarship as being a reliable means of evidence is debatable - with their own particular methods exegesis and eisegesis and often pre-determined objectives and divergent interpretations.

GabuEx

Well, if someone has no academic rigor, then they're not exactly what I would consider a scholar. :P  Biblical scholars are absolutely not those who take for granted that the Bible is the 100% true word of God.  What would there be to study if one believed as such?  What I am speaking of are the very people who lead the way in textual criticism - a practice that basically demands that one accepts that the Bible as we have it today is not the received word of God - whose job it is essentially to earnestly study the text and its many sources and supporting documents and slowly piece together the real picture as best as they can.

 

The cultural, anthropological and historical evidence seem to contrast with such a series of events as described in gospels. Textual criticism breaks the gospels down into re-recordings and embellishments of distorted myths. The sheer time span in the documention of events must shed doubt over their veracity. There are significant omissions from well maintained records of Roman life at the time. There is plenty of evidence that there were many people called Jesus, many travelling mystics and well documented cruxifictions of the time. There are too many coincidences with other faiths too. No proof, but a string of notable absences of evidence - enough for me to doubt.

RationalAtheist

Well, what you have to understand is that it's not an all-or-nothing thing.  The mere fact that some things in the gospels were likely fabrications of the storyteller does not mean that one has to throw it all out as fiction.  There are a number of methods that one can use to determine whether or not the writer is likely making something up or is probably telling something that is reasonably close to something that actually happened.

The gospels are not the only source for the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, either.  The (genuine) epistles of Paul were all written between 50-60 AD, and it seems unlikely that this would be the case for a completely fictitious figure that had no basis in history at all only twenty some years after when his death was supposed to have occurred.

There are also a number of external attestations to the existence of Jesus, as well.  Flavius Josephus is one example of this - at one point, he refers to a man named James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ", a reference which most scholars agree is genuine.  There is also a more lengthy passage attributed to Josephus that describes Jesus in more detail, although most maintain that this passage has been corrupted over time - that said, however, Origen, a Christian teacher, also in turn wrote about Josephus regarding this writing of his, saying that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, which says that Josephus almost certainly wrote something about the Jesus whom Origen considered the Christ.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, also remarked on Jesus and the Christians:

"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a cIass hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

"Tiberius" here refers to Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus, the reigning emperor of the Roman empire from 14-37 AD.  Most scholars agree that Tacitus did indeed write this - it is rather unlikely, given the incredibly negative language used, that this was a Christian forgery - and if so then it would seem quite clear that this is indeed referring to a man called Christ (at the time of the writing, mind you) who was executed during Tiberius' reign by Pontius Pilate.

Is it likely that much of what is said about Jesus was a later invention?  I would say the answer is yes.  However, as I said before, I would nonetheless strongly assert that Jesus the man definitely did exist, definitely did have a following, and definitely was crucified or executed in some way, likely on account of the fact that everything we know of the man depicts him as a one-man wrecking crew towards societal norms and established religious tradition (although, interestingly, not of political authority, it would seem).  It's for this reason that I find it so tragically ironic that people are now doing exactly what he railed against in his name, but that's another story.

 

Wasn't the second coming supposed to be immanent until the second century, when they extended the rapture indefinitely, after not happening? Did Jesus mis-represent himself, if he was not God?

RationalAtheist

There is an ongoing debate about just what Jesus actually taught and how much of what people think Jesus taught was actually taught by his predecessor, John the Baptist, and then revived later.  At one point or another there was virtually no contesting the idea that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but the view that he actually taught no such thing has actually gained significant ground since the beginning of the 20th century.

You always have to remember to change the findings to fit the hypothesis. If you don't, we'll never prove that our idea is true!

You always have to remember to change the findings to fit the hypothesis. If you don't, we'll never prove that our idea is true!

Mtngranek

I'm not sure what this is in reference to - can you elaborate? 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Christian scholarship on Jesus existence and cruxifiction would be certain, wouldn't it?. My views on scholarship as a discipline are dim, since "scholars" with no academic or evidential rigour have gotten us into this mess. The view of scholarship as being a reliable means of evidence is debatable - with their own particular methods exegesis and eisegesis and often pre-determined objectives and divergent interpretations.

Mtngranek

Well, if someone has no academic rigor, then they're not exactly what I would consider a scholar. :P  Biblical scholars are absolutely not those who take for granted that the Bible is the 100% true word of God.  What would there be to study if one believed as such?  What I am speaking of are the very people who lead the way in textual criticism - a practice that basically demands that one accepts that the Bible as we have it today is not the received word of God - whose job it is essentially to earnestly study the text and its many sources and supporting documents and slowly piece together the real picture as best as they can.

 

The cultural, anthropological and historical evidence seem to contrast with such a series of events as described in gospels. Textual criticism breaks the gospels down into re-recordings and embellishments of distorted myths. The sheer time span in the documention of events must shed doubt over their veracity. There are significant omissions from well maintained records of Roman life at the time. There is plenty of evidence that there were many people called Jesus, many travelling mystics and well documented cruxifictions of the time. There are too many coincidences with other faiths too. No proof, but a string of notable absences of evidence - enough for me to doubt.

RationalAtheist

Well, what you have to understand is that it's not an all-or-nothing thing.  The mere fact that some things in the gospels were likely fabrications of the storyteller does not mean that one has to throw it all out as fiction.  There are a number of methods that one can use to determine whether or not the writer is likely making something up or is probably telling something that is reasonably close to something that actually happened.

The gospels are not the only source for the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, either.  The (genuine) epistles of Paul were all written between 50-60 AD, and it seems unlikely that this would be the case for a completely fictitious figure that had no basis in history at all only twenty some years after when his death was supposed to have occurred.

There are also a number of external attestations to the existence of Jesus, as well.  Flavius Josephus is one example of this - at one point, he refers to a man named James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ", a reference which most scholars agree is genuine.  There is also a more lengthy passage attributed to Josephus that describes Jesus in more detail, although most maintain that this passage has been corrupted over time - that said, however, Origen, a Christian teacher, also in turn wrote about Josephus regarding this writing of his, saying that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, which says that Josephus almost certainly wrote something about the Jesus whom Origen considered the Christ.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, also remarked on Jesus and the Christians:

"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a cIass hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

"Tiberius" here refers to Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus, the reigning emperor of the Roman empire from 14-37 AD.  Most scholars agree that Tacitus did indeed write this - it is rather unlikely, given the incredibly negative language used, that this was a Christian forgery - and if so then it would seem quite clear that this is indeed referring to a man called Christ (at the time of the writing, mind you) who was executed during Tiberius' reign by Pontius Pilate.

Is it likely that much of what is said about Jesus was a later invention?  I would say the answer is yes.  However, as I said before, I would nonetheless strongly assert that Jesus the man definitely did exist, definitely did have a following, and definitely was crucified or executed in some way, likely on account of the fact that everything we know of the man depicts him as a one-man wrecking crew towards societal norms and established religious tradition (although, interestingly, not of political authority, it would seem).  It's for this reason that I find it so tragically ironic that people are now doing exactly what he railed against in his name, but that's another story.

 

Wasn't the second coming supposed to be immanent until the second century, when they extended the rapture indefinitely, after not happening? Did Jesus mis-represent himself, if he was not God?

RationalAtheist

There is an ongoing debate about just what Jesus actually taught and how much of what people think Jesus taught was actually taught by his predecessor, John the Baptist, and then revived later.  At one point or another there was virtually no contesting the idea that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but the view that he actually taught no such thing has actually gained significant ground since the beginning of the 20th century.

You always have to remember to change the findings to fit the hypothesis. If you don't, we'll never prove that our idea is true!

 It is in reference to Christians(example) always changing the facts around to fit the theory(the existance of god). Every time you try to tell them that what they think is wrong, they twist it into supporting their beliefs.

The post right before my original one says " At one point or another there was virtually no contesting the idea that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but the view that he actually taught no such thing has actually gained significant ground since the beginning of the 20th century." They just changed the facts to fit the hypothesis. Either he was or he wasn't, and if he was he was wrong. If my hypothesis is that the sky is green, and I go out and see that the sky is actually blue, I was wrong. I'm not going to change the facts to support my hypothesis. Similarly I'm not going to try and debate the differences of blue and green, or their lack there of. Obviously something has been lost in translation, and the Christians don't even know what it is that they really believe in. 

 It is in reference to Christians(example) always changing the facts around to fit the theory(the existance of god). Every time you try to tell them that what they think is wrong, they twist it into supporting their beliefs.

The post right before my original one says " At one point or another there was virtually no contesting the idea that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but the view that he actually taught no such thing has actually gained significant ground since the beginning of the 20th century." They just changed the facts to fit the hypothesis. Either he was or he wasn't, and if he was he was wrong. If my hypothesis is that the sky is green, and I go out and see that the sky is actually blue, I was wrong. I'm not going to change the facts to support my hypothesis. Similarly I'm not going to try and debate the differences of blue and green, or their lack there of. Obviously something has been lost in translation, and the Christians don't even know what it is that they really believe in. 

Mtngranek

But... neither of the groups I alluded to who believed he was or that he wasn't were those who maintain Biblical inerrancy.  This has nothing to do with theological belief; this just has to do with what Jesus the man said or did not say.  Indeed, if Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who preached that the end was nigh, then we've got a rather big problem with the idea that he was God, considering that the end kind of did not arrive when it was supposed to.  The change in scholars' tunes has nothing to do with theological beliefs; it has everything to do with an increase in evidence available in the form of unearthed historical documents over time.

Well, if someone has no academic rigor, then they're not exactly what I would consider a scholar. :P  Biblical scholars are absolutely not those who take for granted that the Bible is the 100% true word of God.  What would there be to study if one believed as such?  What I am speaking of are the very people who lead the way in textual criticism - a practice that basically demands that one accepts that the Bible as we have it today is not the received word of God - whose job it is essentially to earnestly study the text and its many sources and supporting documents and slowly piece together the real picture as best as they can.

GabuEx

I don't see any classifications for scholarlyness. Although, in some cases, your description of a scholarly role might be right, in others it wouldn't be - by the biased nature of the enquiry. Today, this outmoded style of authority over scripture has replacements in textual criticism, anthropology and archaeology, under the more scientifically focused search to reveal true history.

Well, what you have to understand is that it's not an all-or-nothing thing.  The mere fact that some things in the gospels were likely fabrications of the storyteller does not mean that one has to throw it all out as fiction.  There are a number of methods that one can use to determine whether or not the writer is likely making something up or is probably telling something that is reasonably close to something that actually happened.

The gospels are not the only source for the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, either.  The (genuine) epistles of Paul were all written between 50-60 AD, and it seems unlikely that this would be the case for a completely fictitious figure that had no basis in history at all only twenty some years after when his death was supposed to have occurred.

GabuEx

I can't see how that conclusion is jusified over any other, especially noting the omissions that cast doubt on the gospels. Even this testimony seems to be third-hand and decades old from the source.

 

There are also a number of external attestations to the existence of Jesus, as well.  Flavius Josephus is one example of this - at one point, he refers to a man named James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ", a reference which most scholars agree is genuine.  There is also a more lengthy passage attributed to Josephus that describes Jesus in more detail, although most maintain that this passage has been corrupted over time - that said, however, Origen, a Christian teacher, also in turn wrote about Josephus regarding this writing of his, saying that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, which says that Josephus almost certainly wrote something about the Jesus whom Origen considered the Christ.

Tacitus, a Roman historian, also remarked on Jesus and the Christians:

"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a cIass hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

"Tiberius" here refers to Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus, the reigning emperor of the Roman empire from 14-37 AD.  Most scholars agree that Tacitus did indeed write this - it is rather unlikely, given the incredibly negative language used, that this was a Christian forgery - and if so then it would seem quite clear that this is indeed referring to a man called Christ (at the time of the writing, mind you) who was executed during Tiberius' reign by Pontius Pilate.

Is it likely that much of what is said about Jesus was a later invention?  I would say the answer is yes.  However, as I said before, I would nonetheless strongly assert that Jesus the man definitely did exist, definitely did have a following, and definitely was crucified or executed in some way, likely on account of the fact that everything we know of the man depicts him as a one-man wrecking crew towards societal norms and established religious tradition (although, interestingly, not of political authority, it would seem).  It's for this reason that I find it so tragically ironic that people are now doing exactly what he railed against in his name, but that's another story.

GabuEx

Three mentions in textually criticised Roman documents that all seem to show later modification. All made decades or modified centuries after events. No mention of the mass gatherings, or any specifics, or any riotous behaviour that angered those in power at the time.

I could totally go along with a mortal Jesus preacher, who caused a stir. The added weight of the supernatural and consequent distortions make me doubt his (or their) authenticity. Besides, the "distilled" message preached could well have contained Jesus own inflated sense of his power, just like the other mystics of the time. For that reason, I wonder if the teachings of love and compassion gel well with notions of supreme dominance and oversight as the son of God.  

  

There is an ongoing debate about just what Jesus actually taught and how much of what people think Jesus taught was actually taught by his predecessor, John the Baptist, and then revived later.  At one point or another there was virtually no contesting the idea that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but the view that he actually taught no such thing has actually gained significant ground since the beginning of the 20th century.

GabuEx

I thought the reverse was true, in that the early Christian church changed the bible to accord with an oncoming but delayed apocolypse, in preference to something that hadn't happened when it should have.

You actually did say "We all call religious beliefs to be irrational and by saying that we indirectly mean that people who follow those beliefs arent intelligent". OK? I did your research for you. Firstly, I dont agree, so I think you should represent yourself, rather than try and argue from any majority by using "we", unless you can call on some support.

RationalAtheist

I dont consider religious people to be dumb, it's an incredibly unfortunate misunderstanding that's occured here. My father is a strongly religious muslim and I consider him one of the more intelligent people in my life. I also think gabu is a very insightful user with very interesting opinions. 

And an atheist is not necessarliy an intelligent person either although on average atheists have better IQ.

It is a fact that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist. I remember reading in the god delusion that about 80% of all nobel prize winners have been non-religious....

RA, I think there's some miscommunication happening.  You seem to be arguing against me as though I were asserting that the things documented in the gospels about Jesus are more or less accurate.  I'm not.  All that I am saying is that historians by and large accept that there existed from around 0 to 30 AD a man named Jesus who defied the religious establishment, who preached compassion and love for all, and who was summarily executed under the oversight of Pontius Pilate.  That much is, I think, attested to by the surviving writings we have available, for the reasons I have outlined.

I think there are far too many stretches required to come to the conclusion that there was never such a person in human history at all, and that the entire thing was just one big fabrication.  Of course there isn't rock-solid conclusive scientific evidence that this man existed, but there isn't such a degree of evidence for most of history, either.  To discount the very existence of any such man in history would basically require one to throw out most of the rest of human history, too, really.

As for the scholars I am talking about, you seem to be under the impression that I'm talking about the people who go and earnestly read the Bible as an inspired book and try to find truth from it and only it.  Again, I'm not.  I'm talking about the people who treat the Bible as a document to be corroborated or to have doubt cast upon it either through internal means or through placing it in with the rest of the documents written around that time.  I don't think that one has to be a Christian to believe that there did exist a man from Galilee named Jesus some two thousand years ago.

Gambler_3

...How exactly did they collect this data?  Considering that an IQ of less than 70 is basically quite literally mentally handicapped, you'll have to forgive me if I find the claim dubious that there exist entire countries where the average citizen is such.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

GabuEx

...How exactly did they collect this data?  Considering that an IQ of less than 70 is basically quite literally mentally handicapped, you'll have to forgive me if I find the claim dubious that there exist entire countries where the average citizen is such.

Seems like it's possibly fake lol sorry, shouldnt have been too trigger happy on the random google search.:P

I will still say though that an average atheist will have higher IQ than an average theist...

RA, I think there's some miscommunication happening.  You seem to be arguing against me as though I were asserting that the things documented in the gospels about Jesus are more or less accurate.  I'm not.  All that I am saying is that historians by and large accept that there existed from around 0 to 30 AD a man named Jesus who defied the religious establishment, who preached compassion and love for all, and who was summarily executed under the oversight of Pontius Pilate.  That much is, I think, attested to by the surviving writings we have available, for the reasons I have outlined.

I think there are far too many stretches required to come to the conclusion that there was never such a person in human history at all, and that the entire thing was just one big fabrication.  Of course there isn't rock-solid conclusive scientific evidence that this man existed, but there isn't such a degree of evidence for most of history, either.  To discount the very existence of any such man in history would basically require one to throw out most of the rest of human history, too, really.

As for the scholars I am talking about, you seem to be under the impression that I'm talking about the people who go and earnestly read the Bible as an inspired book and try to find truth from it and only it.  Again, I'm not.  I'm talking about the people who treat the Bible as a document to be corroborated or to have doubt cast upon it either through internal means or through placing it in with the rest of the documents written around that time.  I don't think that one has to be a Christian to believe that there did exist a man from Galilee named Jesus some two thousand years ago.

GabuEx

Sorry if you think I was arguing. I have no agenda to push. I know (i think) about your views over the authenticity of the bible and the impact it has on the message. I thought we were having a nice discussion. Apologies again if I've rubbed-up wrongly.

(EDIT: I do respect your views and regard them highy, even though that may not come across.) 

I would disagree with your statement about "most" historians though, aside from the implicit argument from majority. History is based on evidence available at the time. As time goes on, new ways of interpreting evidence are discovered as well as new evidence itself. There is no significant documentation about Jesus from the time and no real physical evidence that correlates with anything to do with his life, aside from the texts we have outlined (which conflict). I think, based on the evidence we discussed, we both draw different conclusions from the evidence.

Let me be clear - I don't think the entire thing was a fabrication and have said as much too. I also agree somewhat about other historical fugures, although there is a great deal more physical evidence for some of them (inc Pilate) that preceded someone as supposedly influential and memorable as Jesus.

I think you get me wrong about scholars too. I have seen scholarly criticism as justification for argument and people dismissing other's views since they are not scholars. In truth, being a scholar is simply a case of calling yourself one. The thought of rigour and critical justification for interpretations is not always given by them, so I can't see how anyone can have trust in scholars as a group, especially seeing as the scientific historical disciplines have more accountability.

I'm no Christian, and I consider Jesus a possibility. Perhaps he is the result of an amalgamation of prophesy and myth. There is evidence of many prophets at the time. But I have still no belief in any divine stuff he did. And if Jesus was just a man, why did he call himself the son of God (if he did)?