Who wrote the Bible then?

Wtf ?

They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ? It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then so shorthand was out of the question too. I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?

Insect Overlord

Most of it was actually made up of retweets and .gifs from live streams.

Yer Da sells Avon

They used speech-to-text software for the New Testament. But for the Old Testament, they had to rely on dictaphones.

Outlaw Pete

Eh, haven't you ever heard of the the Four Evangelists ffs!

John, Paul, George and Ringo?

3rdDegree

Lots of different people wrote gospels and holy books back then. Around the 4th century, Constantine got the church leaders at the time together and they shaped the faith as we know it now. They also decided which books were going to be in the bible and which were out. So there are many authors.

Edit: Oh, I see where this thread is going now, sorry.

Wtf ?

**** it, I have been lied to all along ?

Victor

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls were written on parchment and papyrus.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Great_Isaiah_Scroll.jpg

endacl

pleas advice

Matthew, Mark and Luke all copied off each other, John went and did his own thing.
Paul wrote a few letters

RobbingBandit

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Eh, haven't you ever heard of the the Four Evangelists ffs!

John, Paul, George and Ringo?

I prefer the king James one.

James Brown that is. Get up get on up stay on the scene get on up like a worshipn machine get on up.

M5

Wtf ? wrote: »

They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ? It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then so shorthand was out of the question too. I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?

Im guessing history was not your forte?

Larbre34

God is perfect.

Man is flawed and a sinner and must constantly ask forgiveness for his sins.

Who transcribed the word of God?

Ermmm.......

M5

A book that contradicts itself dozens of times, is incredibly vague and open to interpretation, makes dozens of demonstrably incorrect scientific and other claims...

....But written by an omnipotent, infallible God...


Aye...

Your Face

Its a bit complex.

The Bible is made up of many books which are in turn made up from different literature from varying sources from different points in history.
There are also different interpretations and even regional versions.

It also depends on which religious denomination is referring to the bible, as some religions use different books of the bible to constitute their Bible.
Add to this the fact that the books of the bible have been around for centuries and doubtless were edited for many different reasons - its difficult to say who actually wrote bible other than to those who have books attributed to them.

Larbre34

It took over 500 years after the death of Christ for the writings that were to make up the Bible to be agreed (sort of) by the scholars and leaders of, what was already established by then, a factionalised Faith. This was a horse trade over what constituted 'divinely inspired' or not. Yes, great groups of sinners deciding what was or wasn't Holy. The irony.

Even then, each time there was a schism or a renewal in the Church it opened the whole debate again until some time around the turn of the 17th century when it settled down to be the anthology we have today.

I've always wondered how it never seems to be transmissible to the evangelical types, that the book they like to bash people over the head with and take literally in many cases, is a sort of 'Now Thats What I Call Holy, Volume 23', merely a history, which like all histories, was written by the victors.

nozzferrahhtoo

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Most of it was actually made up of retweets and .gifs from live streams.

Indeed, I just saw the other day a claim to the fact Moses was in fact the first person to download information from The Cloud onto a Tablet.

Badly Drunk Boy

3rdDegree wrote: »

Lots of different people wrote gospels and holy books back then. Around the 4th century, Constantine got the church leaders at the time together and they shaped the faith as we know it now. They also decided which books were going to be in the bible and which were out. So there are many authors.

Edit: Oh, I see where this thread is going now, sorry.

But then the Protestants came along and dropped a some of the books. For example, if there was not an existing Hebrew text of an Old Testament book, it was left out of the Canon. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, some of these omitted books were there in their Hewbrew form.

There were loads of books written and only come made the cut (not that the writers thought about there boing 'a cut' or a complete version of the Bible). We've missed out on The Books of Enoch, the Life of Adam and Eve, Apocalypse of Peter, and the Gospel of Thomas. ("Or have we really?" some wags will say.)

freshpopcorn

Wtf ? wrote: »

They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ? It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then so shorthand was out of the question too. I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?

When I read JC in your post I thought your were referring to the Junior Cert.

valoren

The religious orders, attending Synods, decided to vote that this hodge podge of stories (a sort of ancient version of Purple Monkey Dishwasher) was literally the word of god i.e. divinely inspired.

It's a no-brainer to do that if you have a vested interest in it being so and it's easy to get away with such bull**** for centuries when the majority of people were illiterate.

Wibbs

valoren wrote: »

it's easy to get away with such bull**** when the majority of people were illiterate.

Not quite that simple. Among the literate it also found favour. Indeed some of the greatest minds humanity has ever brought forth followed it. Isaac Newton was also a theologian.

Dravokivich

Funny you should mention that. Because it seems they've changed the things they teach kids in school now. The stations of the cross have gone from 12 to 6 in my sons religion book.

* Some people did not like Jesus.
* They brought him to a man called Pilate.
* Pilate said "Jesus should be put to death."
* The soldiers gave Jesus a cross to carry.
* Jesus died on the cross.
* Jesus' friends placed his body in a tomb.

So no more Hebrews, because of the old anti-semitism. Feck it, we'll direct our ire towards the Romans, make it Pilates fault, sure they ain't about anymore. Even though he seemingly wanted nothing to do with it, and gave the people a choice.

Just goes to show that this whole thing gets adapted to the societal "norms" of their respective times. A kid can understand peer pressure if you give them a chance to. Which is what that whole story represented. Now... the major plot point has been scrubbed out.

It went from an oral tradition to writing the stories down, in philosophy, linguistics, sociology, psychology there is a forest worth of books on the difference between the spoken word versus the written word, the name of the word forms the reference of the word in our brain, a very important point.

Example the monarchy in the UK ( not the queen alone ) cant be seen, touched, or felt like an object it has no substance yet people believed in and support it because they choose to. It literally came in to being because of belief. It also means something different in the mind of a Thai person versus a UK person.

On the other hand, a table is a table an object that can be referenced and touched and has an objective reality.

topper75

Gospel of Thomas is a truly ment-TAL read. You can see why they left it out. Lots of demon-fighting craziness.

Anyway - even among the 4 evangalists that were accepted, don't think they knew Jesus personally.

It would be like me and my mates writing about the life of JFK there circa 2006 with lots of copying and pasting going on between us.

"...and he did go unto the town of Dallas in the province of Texas and a great multitude did welcome him and shout praises unto him."

topper75

Wibbs wrote: »

Not quite that simple. Among the literate it also found favour. Indeed some of the greatest minds humanity has ever brought forth followed it. Isaac Newton was also a theologian.

Yes absolutely loved, loved, loved the bible.
Convinced it contained a secret code.

One of the greatest known human minds but there you go.

Divil for the alchemy too.

Edgware

topper75 wrote: »

Gospel of Thomas is a truly ment-TAL read. You can see why they left it out. Lots of demon-fighting craziness.

Anyway - even among the 4 evangalists that were accepted, don't think they knew Jesus personally.

It would be like me and my mates writing about the life of JFK there circa 2006 with lots of copying and pasting going on between us.

"...and he did go unto the town of Dallas in the province of Texas and a great multitude did welcome him and shout praises unto him."

"And Judas begot himself to a grassy knoll"

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

topper75 wrote: »

Anyway - even among the 4 evangalists that were accepted, don't think they knew Jesus personally.

Probably not. The first gospel (Mark's) was written an estimated 40 years after the death of Jesus, and the last (John's) about 60 to 70 years after. It's generally accepted that the authors relied for their sources on stories that had been passed down orally about Jesus, rather than their own personal experience.

Tacklebox

The Christian abrahamic religion is more Celtic and pagan in its root's than middle Eastern.

Basic it went from east to west to east.

A lot of Irish Welsh and Scottish scholar's are responsible for the holy book of the new testament.

_Brian

Wtf ? wrote: »

They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ? It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then so shorthand was out of the question too. I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?

You have to first put humans into context.

Humans recorded their history orally through stories. Stories were used to pass down information on families, regions and humans in general through generation after generation.
Stories were used to educate people and warn of dangers.

The bible, and other holy books from that time are a collection of such fables. An effort to collect together stories to educate people on how they might live a better life.

It’s not a factual history text.

Wheety

Bob

The silk road by Peter Frankopan has a really fascinating bit about the spread of Christianity and how images of floods, sacrifice, plagues of the locus, etc all became common imagery in the culture of Europe because of the spread of Christianity even though they were not common occurrences in Northern Europe.

lawred2

_Brian wrote: »

You have to first put humans into context.

Humans recorded their history orally through stories. Stories were used to pass down information on families, regions and humans in general through generation after generation.
Stories were used to educate people and warn of dangers.

The bible, and other holy books from that time are a collection of such fables. An effort to collect together stories to educate people on how they might live a better life.

It’s not a factual history text.

really?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

_Brian wrote: »

It’s not a factual history text.

It's not, and wasn't seen so for centuries, because the Catholic Church was seen as the final authority on issues of religion and morality, not the Bible itself. The tradition of biblical literalism emerged after the Reformation, and now it's commonplace among Christian fundamentalists to claim that if it's in the Bible, it must be true.

uck51js9zml2yt

Jolene Teeny Gum wrote: »

Probably not. The first gospel (Mark's) was written an estimated 40 years after the death of Jesus, and the last (John's) about 60 to 70 years after. It's generally accepted that the authors relied for their sources on stories that had been passed down orally about Jesus, rather than their own personal experience.

MAtthew, John and possibly mark ( for parts) were eyewitnesses.
Luke spoke to eyewitnesses.

James and jude(the brothers of Jesus wrote a letter each. Peter(an eyewitness) wrote 2 letters. Paul wrote most of the rest. Hebrews we was anonymous but accepted as part of the new testament.
The Old testament was written by an Egyptian prince(former slave). Shepherd's, royal advisors and a host of others.

_Brian

Messiah Cold Form wrote: »

MAtthew, John and possibly mark ( for parts) were eyewitnesses.
Luke spoke to eyewitnesses.

James and jude(the brothers of Jesus wrote a letter each. Peter(an eyewitness) wrote 2 letters. Paul wrote most of the rest. Hebrews we was anonymous but accepted as part of the new testament.
The Old testament was written by an Egyptian prince(former slave). Shepherd's, royal advisors and a host of others.

Eyewitnesses to what ?
A person who could capture an audience and recant fables to put across a point on morality. I don’t think there were any eyewitness to water into wine etc etc.

And I’m not just religion bashing.
I think religion has an overall positive influence on society providing it’s not let run wild with power and ruin people’s lives.

Many people have poor parenting skills and religion is a tool of sorts to help install at least some moral guidance in children.

begbysback

mariaalice wrote: »

The silk road by Peter Frankopan has a really fascinating bit about the spread of Christianity and how images of floods, sacrifice, plagues of the locus, etc all became common imagery in the culture of Europe because of the spread of Christianity even though they were not common occurrences in Northern Europe.

Yea, probably the most logical interpretation on the origination of religion, also similar explanation in another book, think it might the rational optimist

Gwynplaine

It's about as real as a Roald Dahl book.

smilerf

A load of monks off their head on drugs

lawred2

smilerf wrote: »

A load of monks off their head on drugs

much more sinister than that

there's money in fairy tales and crowd control

Feisar

To quote 50, "Many, many, many, many men"

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Messiah Cold Form wrote: »

MAtthew, John and possibly mark ( for parts) were eyewitnesses.

And what's your evidence for that claim?

valoren

smilerf wrote: »

A load of monks off their head on drugs

It's like the antiquity version of modern pot heads talking ****e to each other and one of them saying;


"Brethren, we shouldst writeth this down!"

decky1

think it was written on the basis of 'We'll have none of that here'

Agricola

In 2019, Hollywood studios make $100m blockbusters depicting superheroes doing all kinds of miraculous stuff in order to amaze the masses.....

In 119AD, peasants in the middle east wrote about superheroes doing all kinds of miraculous stuff to amaze the masses.....

Franz Von Peppercorn

Wtf ? wrote: »

They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ? It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then so shorthand was out of the question too. I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?

1) It wasn't hammers and chisels. This was all within the literate historical age. The Roman era. Jews were literate, of course, before the Roman era.

2) Nobody really says that the writers of the gospels were eye witnesses anymore, if they ever did.

Avatar MIA

Gwynplaine wrote: »

It's about as real as a Roald Dahl book.

His autobiographies :eek:

lawred2

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

1) It wasn't hammers and chisels. This was all within the literate historical age. The Roman era. Jews were literate, of course, before the Roman era.

2) Nobody really says that the writers of the gospels were eye witnesses anymore, if they ever did.

plus how can you be an eye witness of a lot of events that didn't happen

mobileforest

Wtf ? wrote: »

They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ? It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then so shorthand was out of the question too. I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?

hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone? Jesus lived in the Roman Empire not the age of the flintstones. They had more modern methods of recoding than that. But yeah history, even recent history, isn’t always reliable and therefore some inaccuracies will occur. Personally I find it weird that often the people who question the new testament (which is based on thousands of source material matching up) are often the same who quote Ancient Greek philosophers, many of whos works are based on as few as a dozen or less source materials.

Dravokivich

_Brian wrote: »

Eyewitnesses to what ?
A person who could capture an audience and recant fables to put across a point on morality. I don’t think there were any eyewitness to water into wine etc etc.

And I’m not just religion bashing.
I think religion has an overall positive influence on society providing it’s not let run wild with power and ruin people’s lives.

Many people have poor parenting skills and religion is a tool of sorts to help install at least some moral guidance in children.

I don't know why you expect religion is a big part of a positive contribution to society. I'd argue it has no impact on whether society succeeds or fails. Those folks that smashed up lidl last year, would more than likely identify as catholic.

Tacklebox

lawred2 wrote: »

much more sinister than that

there's money in fairy tales and crowd control

Well thank **** the hipster movement and their chemically enhanced self castration via soya.. didn't take over FFS

nozzferrahhtoo

lawred2 wrote: »

plus how can you be an eye witness of a lot of events that didn't happen

The same reason many more people than is physically possible attended a certain Rory Gallagher gig I guess. People can be led to claim they witnessed things they did not actually witness. Some of them may even be led to believe they did witness it when they did not.

The "Indian rope trick" is a good test of this. People attest to it being amazing despite us having no knowledge that it A) was ever performed ever or actually exists.

It is funny though how eye witness testimony works in religion. You have any number of contemporaneous eye witnesses to the miracles performed by Sathya Sai Baba and pretty much everyone in Ireland knows he is a fraud anyway and do not buy the accounts when they hear them.

But similar accounts in the distant past in amongst a barely literate bronze aged peasantry.... who are all now long dead and can not actually be met and interviewed......... and suddenly they attain all manner of credibility.

How does that work exactly, I wonder.

Grayson

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

2) Nobody really says that the writers of the gospels were eye witnesses anymore, if they ever did.

There are some.


There's a great channel I watch on youtube called Religion for Breakfast

I'd recommend that anyone with a passing interest in christianity and western religions should watch it