Origins of Christianity

vorbis

This follows on from a previous thread about faith. First and foremost, there is obviously no way to conclusively prove this one way or the other. What this thread is about is an objective view of the bible.

Specifiacally the new testament as this regards Jesus's life. A couple of simple assumptions beforehand. A person called Jesus had to to have existed (or at least some kind of prophet) One couldn't simply invent a religion in the 5th century etc. The second assumption is that the bible tells his life details reasonably truthfully. By this I mean his actions (apart from any 'magic').
For most non-believers, Jesus has to be some kind of conman. There are aspects that support this. His message of eternal reward in the afterlife, would certainly attract support. One could imagine Jesus scheming with the the disciples over how best to write a holy book that would con the people. However there are several things that simply don't add up.
These include incidents such as saving a woman who committed adultery from stoning. This sounds fine at face value but by not punishing her effectively condones adultery (at lthe least it sets little punishment on it) That is not the kind of event you would record or do if your intention was to start a religion.
Jesus also effectively condensed the commandments into 2, love God and Love other human beings. This showed a disliking of strict rules and indeed made Jesus more liberal than most people today. He also preached about reconciling differences. This was hardly a popular message for the times he was in.
Put simply, Jesus' policies were not what one would use to fool people. People then were just as cynical, they did after all crucify him. However, Jesus has founded the largest religion in the world based on beliefs that his own church still finds difficult to accept. A lot of the Church's discipline laws stem from the old testament as Jesus simply didn't create such rules. I would argue the modern laissez faire society is a more accurate reflection of his views that what the church was at times in history.
Still though, why does the Church have a new Testament that preaches beliefs that for centuries were at odds with people's personal preferences. Personally, I believe that some of the miracles Jesus did have to be true as there is no way he would created such a following otherwise. his belief system would have simply identified him as another false prophet.

PatLam

I am really sorry, but christianty isn't worth talking about. too complicated, to untrue, too bloody...

Stark

oh yes, let's apply that "not worth talking about" attitude to every thread on boards.ie shall we? :mad:

This was one of the more enlightened posts on the subject of christianity, I enjoyed reading it. It's obvious Christianity had a very sound basis to go on, I mean if you analyse the Bible, Jesus didn't say or do a thing wrong. It's just a pity greed and corruption took over and various people throughout the ages thought they knew better than Jesus and made up all these ****ty rules.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by k.oriordan
I mean if you analyse the Bible, Jesus didn't say or do a thing wrong

And you would beleive everything you read in a really old book?

A really old book thats been tranlated over and over and over again?

A really old book authored by people who were hardly going to give a negative impression about Jesus, who they beleive to have been the son of God?

A really old book compiled after the guy died?

Now thats faith

The Corinthian

Originally posted by PatLam
I am really sorry, but christianty isn't worth talking about. too complicated, to untrue, too bloody...

Awe... does it upset you pet? Did the Church do something bad to you personally or is it just a fashion thing?

Originally posted by k.oriordan
It's obvious Christianity had a very sound basis to go on, I mean if you analyse the Bible, Jesus didn't say or do a thing wrong.

Ah, but did he say or do any of those things?

Overlooking the fact that the four gospels agree on relatively very little with each other and that there were originally 27 of them by the end of the first century A.D. - and four were later picked out by the Church, much later (to say nothing about the various edits and versions along the way of even these four). Add to this, the political significance that St. Paul played in Romanising the early Christian church and the fact that there’s precious little independent evidence of Jesus’ existence or what he did or said.

Add all this together and outside of some Jesus chap actually being alive around the right time, there’s precious little evidence to say that he did or said anything even vaguely approaching what’s written in the New Testament.

amp

I'm a aethiest. But that doesn't mean I think Christ was non-existent or a conman. I would tend to see him as a prophet with really good marketing.

And I think a lot of what he is susposed to have said makes sense. Love thy neighbour and thou shalt not kill etc.

Of course I wouldn't agree with everything he said.

P.s Patlam, if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything. I can make this happen if you like

patch

This is more or less off topic, but, with regard to the bible, has it not been the subject of a new interpretation, which views it as a book of code? As in the works of Nostradamus?
Anybody?

PatLam

Awe... does it upset you pet? Did the Church do something bad to you personally or is it just a fashion thing?

Haha...It's my point of view, it has nothing to do with Church and me, I think further than that...I am not the only person on earth and I was thinking about the crusades, the destruction of worthy cultures, the assassin words of the pope (don't use condoms), the hatred towards what is not christian, the rich churches refusing shelter to the homeless, the pope on amphetamins to continue living, the burning of innocent people, the child abuse by priests, hell, paradise, the sins, the hypocrisy...

PatLam

P.s Patlam, if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything. I can make this happen if you like [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry, but why can't I express a point of view? Is every thread constructive? No
Did I harm someone? No
Did I use swear words? No
Did I say the starter of the thread was stupid? No
So what...Look at the other threads, there are often unconstructive replies...Mine didn't harm anybody...

By the way, I think it doesn't make much sense to search an inner meaning in the bible. I know that it has been translated and changed since 2000 years. The Middle Ages modified a lot of the manuscripts....if there were more original sources, I'd say ok..

The Corinthian

Originally posted by PatLam
Haha...It's my point of view, it has nothing to do with Church and me, I think further than that...

Yes, you're special

Just like everybody else.

A fashion thing then.

PatLam

Thanks whomever I don't have your ego...
As a teacher, I have certain responsabilitîes and I studied this whole thing quite often, the Corinthian.
What's the matter with you? Did you ever notice ^that some people think? Because they're alive? That's nothing to do with fashion, du howie!!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by PatLam
Thanks whomever I don't have your ego...
As a teacher, I have certain responsabilitîes and I studied this whole thing quite often, the Corinthian.
What's the matter with you? Did you ever notice ^that some people think? Because they're alive? That's nothing to do with fashion, du howie!!

Now, while I am pleased for you that you have arrived at some unshakable truth and consider the entire topic closed, this thread represents both a debate and an exchange of views and information on the issue.

Now while you may consider yourself a thinker, you have given no evidence of this here. Similarly with your claim of studying the subject - You’re not a teacher here petal, and we have no obligation to blindly accept your teachings as fact. Indeed, it’s quite likely that there are people here who have studied the same topic for far longer and in far greater depth than your kind self.

So, by your own admission, Christianity is “too complicated, too untrue, too bloody” to even bother with – a lovely sweeping statement, at first backed up by nothing and later (once forced into justifying such a generalisation) backed up with a pretty collection of sound bites. Now, while I’d agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express it here, you do you should bare in mind that if you don’t back up your case with facts, you should accept that people may well accuse you of talking horseshit.

PatLam

ok, sir
As you please, sir
I'll do what you want sir
Never say anything wrong again, sir
I brought arguments, though, sir
Can you read, sir?
No, sir
and, please, go say the same bull**** to the other people around here who dare say a word that doesn't please you, sir
I am no thinker, sir
I'm just human, sir

The Corinthian

Originally posted by PatLam
ok, sir
As you please, sir
I'll do what you want sir
Never say anything wrong again, sir
I brought arguments, though, sir
Can you read, sir?
No, sir
and, please, go say the same bull**** to the other people around here who dare say a word that doesn't please you, sir
I am no thinker, sir
I'm just human, sir

Get off the cross, sweetie, someone needs the wood.

Topical irony intended :rolleyes:

DeVore

Quit it the pair of you!

Patlam, the generally accepted way in Humanities is to allow everyone to explore their thoughts or put them forward in a relatively friendly thoughtful forum. Yes, that also includes you too.

However your first response read pretty nasty and so people bit back at you. Call us "Intolerant of intolerance" if you will.

We take disinterest as The Default state. You dont need to post to tell us that, we'll presume it from the lack of posts.

If 10,000 users had to come here and express their lack of interest on every post then where would we be?

****, put your leash back on.

DeV.

Talliesin

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Overlooking the fact that the four gospels agree on relatively very little with each other and that there were originally 27 of them by the end of the first century A.D. - and four were later picked out by the Church, much later (to say nothing about the various edits and versions along the way of even these four). Add to this, the political significance that St. Paul played in Romanising the early Christian church and the fact that there’s precious little independent evidence of Jesus’ existence or what he did or said.

Yes, the various other gospels are weel worth looking at for anyone interested in this subject, and the differences between Paul and James are key to the direction Christianity took.

It's also worth examining the influence of Platonic philosophy, and to a lesser extent cults like the Orphic mystery tradition.

There was a lot that went on in between Jesus doing and saying whatever it is he did and said (on which of course there is much disagreement) and Christianity as it was practiced a few hundred years hence.

Talliesin

Originally posted by PatLam
I am really sorry, but christianty isn't worth talking about.

amp

From now on any poster who flames another poster will be banned. And I don't care if somebody else started it. If you want that sort of debate I'm sure a Kindergarden could help you out.

Patlam. You will not argue with me in this thread. If you do I will ban you instantly. Here's a tip: read the charter.

And Corinthian, how many times do I have to tell you to flame the argument and not the poster?

Back on topic muppets. The topic is "The Origins Of Christianity"

vorbis

didn't believe a simply post could cause such pettiness. As for independent verification of the bible!! You're asking for a bit much there. The fact remains that the church persists with a new testament that eschews a liberal set of beliefs beyond what what many christians even today find unacceptable. You simply wouldn't write it if you were given the job of "making up" a gospel.

smiles

Originally posted by vorbis
You simply wouldn't write it if you were given the job of "making up" a gospel.

Doesn't that add to it's validity and not take away from it?

It's so unbelieveable it might just be true...?

(just throwing it out)

<< Fio >>

patch

http://www.quantgen.com/

Have a look at that......

neohoki

all of your questions can be answered by watching the life of brian....
Don't roman scriptures tell of a man called jesus??
I don't think it really matters if he was real or not anyway people will still be christian no matter what.
He had good ideas though if he did exist.
What's sickening is people's twisting of these ideas.
People have twisted christianity into their own little personal religion.
eg. They assume that capital punishment is okay becuase you know ...."thou shalt not kill" .
I think he was kind of against it (ie. the cross)
And didn't he preach about forgiveness for ALL no matter what...
by the way i'm an atheist.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
As for independent verification of the bible!! You're asking for a bit much there.

No, not really. We’re considering independent verification of the words and actions of someone who was not born in prehistory, but in an Empire that had a well-organized bureaucracy. Other official records from the period are not thin on the ground either.

Without that we are left with only one source of information that has been edited continually over the last few millennia. Hardly a credible source.

The fact remains that the church persists with a new testament that eschews a liberal set of beliefs beyond what what many christians even today find unacceptable. You simply wouldn't write it if you were given the job of "making up" a gospel.

My point is that it is uncertain whether this was indeed the original message of the Christians. Remember, such a liberal, inclusive message would have played well in the multi-cultural Roman world and certainly promotes such a salvitic religion.

The reality is that there is as much evidence that the life of Jesus was an invention of St. Paul and his followers and that the man himself was just another Zionist rabble-rouser as anything else.

Now, that the message itself is a good one, regardless of Jesus ever said it, is another matter.

vorbis

Corinithian Jesus had to exist. You're not visualising the foundation of Christianity properly. The disciples couldn't simply make up a fictional story about a mystical disciple. Who would believe them? As for being outlandish so its believable that wouldn't work. Simply because the people of the time wouldn't buy it. People seem to think of the bible outside of any timeframes. The fact remains that the adultery incident, curing of lepers wouldn't have been recorded if there wasn't some validity as they are counter productive to founding a religion. As for the Roman Empire not having bible records, thats not unusual. Jesus was probably regarded as a terrorists. The western world is unlikely to keep records of the "Life and times of Bin Laden"!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
Corinithian Jesus had to exist. You're not visualising the foundation of Christianity properly. The disciples couldn't simply make up a fictional story about a mystical disciple. Who would believe them?

Why not, is that not how most religions begin; “God has spoken to me!” and the rest, as they say, is doctrine. In particular after the passage of time, a century after the death of Jesus, any fabrication would be exceedingly easy to propagate.

As for being outlandish so its believable that wouldn't work. Simply because the people of the time wouldn't buy it. People seem to think of the bible outside of any timeframes. The fact remains that the adultery incident, curing of lepers wouldn't have been recorded if there wasn't some validity as they are counter productive to founding a religion.

Please, even the gospels can’t agree upon any of these events, how can you expect anyone else to do so?

As for the Roman Empire not having bible records, thats not unusual. Jesus was probably regarded as a terrorists. The western world is unlikely to keep records of the "Life and times of Bin Laden"!

That’s rubbish, the Romans kept quite a bit of data about Sparticus, who was another terrorist.

vorbis

corinithian, you're not grasping the timeframe involved. What is the BENEFIT about making up your founder. That argument only seems valid because such a large amount of time has elapsed. In a thousand years time, they might say George Washington never existed, that the fonding fathers simply created a hero for the country to follow. As for records on Jesus, tbh I don't know if they are some or not. As for gospels not agreeing on events, whats so unbelievable about that. To give an example, there was story a few years ago of a boy falling off a cliff. One tabloid had a headline "4 year old boy falls off 80ft cliff" another had "5 year old boy falls off 100ft cliff"!! The four bibles together only agree on few events. However there are many events reported in 2 or 3 books but not in the fourth. One I think, doesn't even mention Jesus's birth! Obviously, they were going for different angles.

neohoki

Originally posted by vorbis
To give an example, there was story a few years ago of a boy falling off a cliff. One tabloid had a headline "4 year old boy falls off 80ft cliff" another had "5 year old boy falls off 100ft cliff"!! The four bibles together only agree on few events. However there are many events reported in 2 or 3 books but not in the fourth. One I think, doesn't even mention Jesus's birth! Obviously, they were going for different angles.

Did you just compare ancient religious texts to tabloids!??
Tabloids don't need to be accurate they're there for sales...

Sparks

vorbis,
Speaking of correct facts, the correct number of gospels is not four, it's closer to four hundred if you count "proto-gospels", the oral tradition common at the time - and if you want written works, there are thirteen noncanonical gospels here.
The four canonical gospels were not chosen till several centuries after the death of Christ, and the number of changes that the RC church has put into the story is somewhat large - even the nature of the relationship between James and Jesus is altered.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
corinithian, you're not grasping the timeframe involved. What is the BENEFIT about making up your founder. That argument only seems valid because such a large amount of time has elapsed. In a thousand years time, they might say George Washington never existed, that the fonding fathers simply created a hero for the country to follow. As for records on Jesus, tbh I don't know if they are some or not. As for gospels not agreeing on events, whats so unbelievable about that. To give an example, there was story a few years ago of a boy falling off a cliff. One tabloid had a headline "4 year old boy falls off 80ft cliff" another had "5 year old boy falls off 100ft cliff"!! The four bibles together only agree on few events. However there are many events reported in 2 or 3 books but not in the fourth. One I think, doesn't even mention Jesus's birth! Obviously, they were going for different angles.

And you’re not grasping what I’ve said; I am not disputing the existence of the man, only his words and works.

The only record of his message and miracles comes from a number of inconsistent texts, written long after his death, in most cases by people who had never met the man. Add to this, the historical fact that these texts are the only surviving versions that were not edited out by the Church, over the centuries.

With the example you gave of George Washington, there would be independent evidence of his existence (as there is of Jesus), as well as independent evidence of his words and actions. After all, no one disputes the fundamental existence and works of Julius Caesar, Ramesses II or Alexander the Great - all of whom predate Jesus Christ. So passage of time appears quite immaterial.

Returning to your earlier terrorist analogy, there is a significant level of written testimony on the life, words and revolt of 71 B.C. of Spartacus - by a source independent of him; his enemy. Accordingly in Judea, numerous rebel leaders and revolts were recorded by the Romans, most notably that which centred around the fortress of Massada (66 - 73 A.D.). By contrast, Jesus was only briefly mentioned in records, adding weight to the argument that he was historically relatively unimportant at the time.

So we are left with a record (the New Testament) containing numerous and conflicting biographies written or commissioned by the early leaders of the Christian Church, and later both edited and censored. The only independent record outside of this does not collaborate much and considers Jesus relatively unimportant.

And this is before we even look at what a dubious tale the New Testament is in the first place; One interpretation is that Jesus and his followers, go around Judea preaching and getting free bed and board for three years. Jesus gets executed; his followers go to ground for six weeks. When they resurface they tell everyone that Jesus has risen (but only they’ve seen this) and that he’d told them he was the son of God, prior to his execution (privately, and told them not to tell anyone). Now his followers return to preaching and getting free bed and board, without the need for Jesus. St Paul goes further, and makes this new faith salvitic and inclusive - opening up the way to recruit gentiles and ultimately the Roman Empire itself.

Now that interpretation is only that, an interpretation, however the facts surrounding Jesus support it better than they do the official version. And certainly we can see what BENEFIT there would be to inventing the myth of Jesus Christ in that scenario.

After all what BENEFIT could there be to inventing a religion..?

neohoki

women lots and lots of women :P

vorbis

Jesus was only relatively unimportant because according to their records, he was a jewish dissadent who was executed. Their records would hardly acknowledge the existence of Jesus after his death. Corinithian the point still stands that people of the time were pretty cynical. If St. Paul merely invented the works of Jesus then he would be laughed out of it. There has to be something more there. I think the movie Life of Brian shows it pretty well, there were probably many crackpots claiming to be prophets. Simply, I believe its impossible to establish a viable reloigion without "miracles" or such like.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
Simply, I believe its impossible to establish a viable reloigion without "miracles" or such like.

Miracles? Like moving statues? Or the Virgin Mary appearing to some loner in the middle of nowhere with no witnesses? Yes, they’re very difficult to find... :rolleyes:

I think you overestimate the cynicism or sophistication of the people of the time - or frankly any time. It’s remarkably easy to get people to accept that miracles occur without any proof. And while the early evangelists were often laughed at, enough people believed them to create a religion without having to see a miracle.

After all if God had not existed, we would have had to invent him...

Cuauhtemoc

Religion or christianity as far as i can see seems to dying in the western world to some extent..the huge drop in church attendances etc. especially in the younger generation anyway which will get hugely worse as these grow up and don't force their kids to go mass as lot of us(probably were).

It takes a huge leap of faith for us to follow texts from 2 millenia ago and it only persisted because we lived in a region which dominated the world. If europe had been conquered by say the vikings(unlikely but just an example) would we all be worshipping Thor and praying we get into valhalla. Or the greeks and their numerous gods.

Religion is turned into an acceptable faith by whoever is the dominant culture to some extent.

Could God expect his faith to continue through a sustained modern era of science without showing us some proof?
(btw i dont presume to think as god would).
Religion must have caused more wars disputes and deaths than i care to think of. We're hardly capable of sorting these issues out ourselves.

Why not just send another messiah down every once in a while to ensure our continued devotion.(Although i could envision some major problems if that happened)

And is the origin of all religion just humans fear of death and the unknown so we invent a few gods and an afterlife(though i'd like to think otherwise) to keep ourselves happy?


Note: Some of this maybe off topic and its just a few of my own disorganised thoughts.

___________
C.

Talliesin

Originally posted by vorbis
Corinithian Jesus had to exist. You're not visualising the foundation of Christianity properly. The disciples couldn't simply make up a fictional story about a mystical disciple. Who would believe them? As for being outlandish so its believable that wouldn't work. Simply because the people of the time wouldn't buy it.

This would be around the time of the height of the Orphic sect. So by your logic we have to believe that Orpheus existed, harrowed hell, returned, was torn to pieces by the Maenads and then his surviving decapitated head gave the prophesies that the Orphic sect was built on.
If anything the fact of a real person of Christ is as likely to hinder the creation of a religion. Paul being an outsider may have been a strong advantage here.

People seem to think of the bible outside of any timeframes. The fact remains that the adultery incident, curing of lepers wouldn't have been recorded if there wasn't some validity as they are counter productive to founding a religion.

Why join a religion that agrees entirely with another long-established religion? Both of these would have been highly conducive to the birth of a new faith.

As for the Roman Empire not having bible records, thats not unusual. Jesus was probably regarded as a terrorists. The western world is unlikely to keep records of the "Life and times of Bin Laden"!

They're not? What the hell do the CIA do then?

vorbis

You expect the CIA to leave records around for history. Religion is dying to some extent given that people expect definitive proof for everything. Thats WHY its called faith. Jesus said as much. Also what on earth does the orphic sect have to do with anything? As you intimated, it was made up, therefore it collapsed. If Christianity was made up it too would have collapsed many centuries ago. I find the idea of St. Paul as some brilliant Machiavellian prophet who single handley conned the world amusing.

Talliesin

Originally posted by vorbis
You expect the CIA to leave records around for history.

Yes. They have done, and continue to do so. Indeed they even release some of them after they are declassified.
More to the point the Romans left records as well. That's why it's called history.

Religion is dying to some extent given that people expect definitive proof for everything.

I'm unconvinced that religion as a whole, or even Christianity in particular is dying. Changing yes, but there's nothing new there.
Nor do I believe definitive proof is needed by most people for most things (many people believe Sky News, which has much less to offer the sceptic than most religions). Nor do I require definitive proof for my own religious beliefs.
However you brought up the question of how much proof we do or do not have. Proof may not be required for faith, but it is required for this debate.

Thats WHY its called faith. Jesus said as much.

IIRC Jesus said it is better to believe without proof (this after he does give proof to Thomas).

Also what on earth does the orphic sect have to do with anything? As you intimated, it was made up, therefore it collapsed. If Christianity was made up it too would have collapsed many centuries ago.

I mentioned it in regard to a particular argument. This is part of a process called logic.
Of course Orpheism didn't completely collapse, as many of its beliefs and practices continued as other religious groups such as the Christians and Mithraists were influenced by them, and Orphic thought continues to influence people to this day.

Now in regard to your argument about Christianity's longevity (ironic that an Apocalyptic religion be defended on such a basis, but there you go) Siddhartha has a good five and a half centuries on Christ, does this make Buddhism somehow a natural superior to Christianity?

I find the idea of St. Paul as some brilliant Machiavellian prophet who single handley conned the world amusing.

Good for you. Unfortunately it's neither a view of Paul that I hold nor one that think would be fruitful to explore as a "devil's advocate" position, so you'll get no such amusement from me right now.
All I said about Paul is that he differed with other early Christians, in particular James, and that his views had a strong influence on Christianity. I didn't think there is much controversy about that.

blackadder

try to keep it in someway near what we are talking about please?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
You expect the CIA to leave records around for history.

Of course - Where do you think we get most historical records, but from interested contemporary sources.

Religion is dying to some extent given that people expect definitive proof for everything. Thats WHY its called faith. Jesus said as much.

And this is what the crux of your argument ultimately comes down to. Well if faith was a reasonable argument, then this entire debate is over - Jesus did all that is written, because we have faith that he did. But it’s not, and last time I checked this board was a humanities forum. Fact and reason rule here, not assumption.

"Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate."

Also what on earth does the orphic sect have to do with anything? As you intimated, it was made up, therefore it collapsed. If Christianity was made up it too would have collapsed many centuries ago.

Why? Zoroastrism, Hinduism and Shintoism seem not to have collapsed, they can’t all be telling the truth can they? Not to mention Judaism and Islam, while we’re at it.

I find the idea of St. Paul as some brilliant Machiavellian prophet who single handley conned the world amusing.

Why, other than it conflicts so with your faith?

sceptre

Originally posted by vorbis
there were probably many crackpots claiming to be prophets.

Oh indeed there were. Herod the Great (yup, that Herod) was pretty sure that he was the messiah. So was Caligula. There was a crazy amount of sects knocking around Judea around the time of Jesus.

vorbis

corinthian, the only faith in my argument is that you take the bible at face value for the purpose of this discussion. You seem unable to do that since it lacks independent verification. The main point of argument is that they include various stories that are wholly counter-productive tot their aims.
btw what is Zoroastrism??
also I personally believe that judaism and islam are entwined with christianity.

Nevyn

Originally posted by vorbis

also I personally believe that judaism and islam are entwined with christianity.

yes yes as both Islam and Christainy stem form Judaism, all 3 claim to the common
figure of abraham.

As for Jesus I do think there was a man who had a lot of radical ideas but then again so did King Arthur ; and we have about the same ammount of histroical hard data on King arthur as we do Jesus.

Jelvon

The thing I can't work out is Corinthian is that you claim the bible has changed and be edited throughtout all these years?

I have looked at the original greek and hebrew text and the translation we have these days in the form of the NIV is pretty damn accurate! Or at least it follows what the original text said. Whether you believe that the text were true or false is a personal matter.

Paul did not in any means make Jesus's message salvitic and inclusive, he mearly preached the message to the non-Jewish people! Good god man, have you read any of the gospels? Paul wasn't even on the scene till after Jesus was DEAD!! Saul of Tarus was convert to Paul following an vision of the resurrected Christ, he stoned Christians beforehand! The message was inclusive long before Paul!!

What is this about conflicting views between Paul and James? Somebody explain themselves by what they mean by this rather sweeping statement?

Nevyn

Originally posted by Jelvon
is that you claim the bible has changed and be edited throughtout all these years?

I have looked at the original greek and hebrew text and the translation we have these days in the form of the NIV is pretty damn accurate! O

the bible has been constantly edited in the 5th century the church dropped the belife in reincarnation so it was edited, half the book of ester was edited down (well it was about a woman !!! ).

The books of solman were wihtled away for there was too much magic in them

and then you have trouble with translation, as in the rich man the camel and the needle .

and the most well known the changes to what is known as the king James bible the orginal text was that you shall not suffer a poisioner to live and it was tweaked to witch.

There are many of the books that were found as part of the dead sea scrolls that were part of the bible.

it os only with the advent of printing that the bible has not been changed more in the last 300 years.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
corinthian, the only faith in my argument is that you take the bible at face value for the purpose of this discussion. You seem unable to do that since it lacks independent verification.

Why? That’s not reason, that’s dogma and as such has no place here. Debate and proof is necessary in a humanistic discussion, otherwise it would not be humanities.

Likewise, you’re welcome to your faith; just don’t pretend it’s rational. If it were, it wouldn’t be faith.

btw what is Zoroastrism??

Religion that, while waning, is still practiced in areas of Iraq, Iran and Pakistan and predating Christianity by about 1,500 years.

It survives to this day, yet is completely at odds with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic pantheon. By your reasoning, were this an ‘invented’ religion it should not have survived to this day.

also I personally believe that judaism and islam are entwined with christianity.

Related, but it would be incorrect to argue that they are actually entwined. They contradict each other and Christianity on more than one point.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Jelvon
I have looked at the original greek and hebrew text and the translation we have these days in the form of the NIV is pretty damn accurate!

The original. Really. In Hebrew too? Not bad, considering they spoke Aramaic. Did it come with a piece of the original cross with every copy?

Please, post a link to the publishers of this reputable historical work...

Jelvon

The Old Testament is in standard Hebrew, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica. No link required just open up your bible and read the preface and it will tell you were it got the text from. However if you don't have a bible handy here is a link to the actual Biblia Hebraica

The New Testament was written in Greek, read the preface to any bible and you'll seen where they got the text for translation from.

Here is the preface from the NIV

"The Greek text used in translating the Christian Bible was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the Christian Testament."

<edited it cause I think I probably a bit harsh in opening line>

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Jelvon
The Old Testament is in standard Hebrew

It’s not actually. It’s in Aramaic, which predates standard Hebrew.

No link required just open up your bible and read the preface and it will tell you were it got the text from.

Which version/edition of the bible might this be?

You also tend to overlook all the gospels that were edited out.

Here is the preface from the NIV

NIV?

Jelvon

Ok ok I conceed it was spoken and written by the Jewish people at least equally with Hebrew.

And if you are going to get picky then we have parts of Ezra and Daniel, and one verse in Jeremiah (10:11), that were composed in Aramaic and preserved in that ancient form of the language in the midst of the Hebrew Old Testament.

The hebrew old testament is at the link I gave. Your bible uses that document as the basis for its translation.

Yes I am overlooking all the gospels, hell there is thousands of manuscripts to choose from to make a New Testament translation into English. Nearly all used in translations were greek as the original word holds it meaning when translated from greek into western latin based languages.

NIV = New International Version

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Jelvon
Yes I am overlooking all the gospels, hell there is thousands of manuscripts to choose from to make a New Testament translation into English. Nearly all used in translations were greek as the original word holds it meaning when translated from greek into western latin based languages.

Isn't that kind of important seeing as it is the content and validity of the New Testament that we're discussing?

Jelvon

Sorry I meant that statement for the purpose of translation where you were claiming that the bible(OT and NT) were originally written in aramaic.

You can't seperate the OT and the NT in terms of content and validity, either there are both true or both false. You have to take the bible has a whole, the origins of Christianity began with the jews who were promised a saviour throughout the OT then he arrives in the NT. The whole story is throughtout the Bible, it just doesn't simply begin at Matthew.

Not every gospel made it into our bible because they aren't important according to our Church leaders! What you have in the form of the 4 gospels is all you need to either believe or regect the message of Christianity..

Read the translations of the other manuscripts if you so desire, they are easily available.

neohoki

so you're saying the bible isn't actually the full bible...?