Biblical Question

[spidey]

LOL, everyone should learn to read Hebrew and Aramaic (Old testament) and Greek (New Testament). The original text looses some meaning in translation.

[Primal Instinct]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Biblical Question

Originally posted by blm
Very well said...I hate you and your eloquence, lol

:rofl:

I hate that you get the coolest avatars :D

[bad14u]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Biblical Question

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
protect the church from scandal.

If the Catholics want to protect the church from scandal they should could keep a better eye on their priests when they are alone with little boys!

[Klash]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Biblical Question

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
I agree, Spidey. Not only should people take into to accounts the authors (many over the centuries) of the bible, but also take consider the political motivations for certain ommissions and rewritings in the bible authorized by the popes and the vatican counsels. There is a definite slant on certain aspects of the historical accounts listed in this ancient text. These changes were made to the official versions of the Bible over the centuries to either protect the church from scandal or to reflect a desired direction of policy in the Roman Catholic Church, thereby legitimizing their claims with the "history" to support them.

Are you saying that these variables should be taken into account when depending on the Bible for historical accuracy or when depending on the Bible for the "revelation" of God?

Because if the revelation of the Biblical god is dependent on mans knowledge , mans political agenda and the countless other men and their desires and lack of knowledge - the "revelation" of this god is nothing more than written human desires, wishes, agenda's and ego, i.e. editorials, being marketed as "gods word" and taking into account the "lack of knowledge" of the authors, the motivations of the church and state and any other rationalizations for the human errors in a "divine book" are irrelevant.

Even giving it the benefit of the doubt and saying it was "divinely inspired", if you agree that the divinity of this book is dependent on man, his culture and government - the divinity was lost through the filter of mans mind.

[Primal Instinct]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Biblical Question

Originally posted by Klash
Are you saying that these variables should be taken into account when depending on the Bible for historical accuracy or when depending on the Bible for the "revelation" of God?

Because if the revelation of the Biblical god is dependent on mans knowledge , mans political agenda and the countless other men and their desires and lack of knowledge - the "revelation" of this god is nothing more than written human desires, wishes, agenda's and ego, i.e. editorials, being marketed as "gods word" and taking into account the "lack of knowledge" of the authors, the motivations of the church and state and any other rationalizations for the human errors in a "divine book" are irrelevant.

Even giving it the benefit of the doubt and saying it was "divinely inspired", if you agree that the divinity of this book is dependent on man, his culture and government - the divinity was lost through the filter of mans mind.

Great questions, Klash.

There are some people who take every word in the bible as the literal truth. To me, the bible was more of a commentary of the times throughout the ages which was written from both a jewish and later on, an early christian perspective.

I think from a historical perspective the bible can be slanted in such a way as to roll with the politics of the day and to make the religion more appealing to other people or cultures while appeasing the authoritarian state at many points in time. One good example would be the gospels' depiction of the crucifiction of Christ.


With regard to your question concerning man's personal filter of events as reported in the bible, the slightly different versions of the same event can be compared easily. Although the gospels were written anywhere between estimated 40 to 70 years after the fact, they were written in such a way as to:

a) Not stir up negative attention from Roman rulers and established Jewish leaders of the day under threat of retribution to them or the few practicing christians of the day.

b) To make the acceptance of christianity more acceptable (and gain patrons) to the Romans by softening their image of Pilot.



Pontius Pilot was pictured as a humane and almost amiable roman govenor who (depending upon the gospel writer) very reluctantly or at least somewhat reluctantly ordered Christ's execution. In reality, Pilot was a brutal dictator who was relived from duty in 36 AD after much civil unrest (resulting from his interaction with his Jewish subjects) and sent back to Rome where he later was exiled after being tried for excessive cruelty charges. People are not as willing to accept an ideology when they are viewed by the ideologue as an oppressor. Hence, the slanted versions of the crucifiction.


In actuality, Pilot had lots of different options to choose from, as he WAS the appointed Roman govenor of the region. He could have just flogged Jesus or sent the case to the ruler of Galilee or even proclaimed Jesus free to go without penalty. He did not employ those options however. The Jewish establishment at that time was very adamant about prosecuting Jesus. Pilot did not want any repeats of past civil unrest when other people claimed to be messiahs. He would quite willingly give the establishment what they wanted (conviction) to avoid another civil uprising. Jesus was crucified because that was a Roman execution for breaking a Roman law. This somewhat exonerated the Jewish establishment of the day from the dirty details of Christ's executionand they save face with the populace that way.




Another example of an inaccuracy could be that it is now believed by religious scholars that the biblical description of Mary Magdalene was a compilation of different women rolled into one for the sake of simplicty. Other stories in the bible may seem miraculous but do have scientific merit to them, although unbeknownst at the time to the witnesses. One example could be the falling of the walls of Jerico. It is possible that reverberating sound waves from the attacking army could have actually collapsed the walls of the city or possibly even an earthquake strike at some point during the siege.


The Old Testament describes the creation of man (and woman) in the Adam and Eve saga. There were already other people alive during this point in time, just not under a religious sect. I personally believe in the evolutionary theory of man, which can be mostly backed up by scientific methods. If we were to consider the story of Moses and the 10 Commandments in the literal sense, we would have to assume that God himself carved them onto stone and handed them to Moses. If anything, Moses was inspired to carve those commandments either as direct instruction from God or as I believe, as a leader of a nomadic tribe who desperately needed some form of organized and uniform laws to protect life and property of the group members. Back up the commandments by threat of God's retribution and an uneducated and superstitious people are much easier to control. Moses was probably their leader because he was most likely the most intelligent of the bunch. He could therefore invoke religion to provide both the carrot and the stick as incentive to obey.



I also believe that there was also heavy vatican and papal influence skewing the passages in the bible for political gain as well as to avoid scandalous affairs being publicized. Until somewhat recently, the vatican counsulate was actually considered a threat to a Pope's authority. It was a somewhat uneasy relationship between the two entities, even though one is selected from the other.



Who orders the scribes to write and rewrite passages of the bible? Only the Vatican Counsul or the Pope himself has that authority. Not often do the views of one man match those of another. Keeping this is mind, we must recognize that he who controls the history can rewrite history to a point, especially in the early days of Christianity. He who writes the history can therefore influence future events and mindsets of the devout. Communications were certainly not what they are today and until the invention of the printing press by Guttenberg, there weren't even printed books. Everything was either hand written or passed down by word of mouth. As you can imagine, manipulation of information is easy at that level. Hell, later on King James authorized his own version of the bible which is probably the most popular version in the world today.


Over the centuries, the bible was revised countless times and while some passages were added in for various reasons, others were mostly likely lost forever in the multiple revisions. Personally, I believe that the Catholic church has morphed from what may have been a ideologically based religion into a for-profit driven enterprise using ideology as a justification for the accumulation of protected wealth, as evidenced by the crusades and later on the extravagances of Vatican City. Much of the wealth and art in this city has been pilfered from non-christian lands and carried back as a prize for the reigning pope of the day (and the church), as well as the promise of God's absolution for any sins of a crusader as a reward for participating in such endeavors in the Church's name.


I hope this post helps to answer some of your questions.

[GIJoe]

Originally posted by Mr incredible
the bible came about when people realised that through fear they could control people, fear of the devil was then incarnated for someones gain.

More like manipulation and the MISUSE of religion; unfortunately, the Bible has had so many charlatans come along and use it to say what they want it to so the masses can be manipulated. I do not see the emphasis by Jesus in the scriptures constantly emphasizing hell like they do in alot of modern-day churches, but then like so many misinformed disciplinarians, fear motivates and manipulates better than instruction and reward it seems (Saddam Hussein thought so)

On the contrary, the Bible is there because people at that time and at any time seem to get lost without direction and rules to guide them by; it's a book on cause and effect (the rules though were meant for the heart, not as a do and don't in real life per se). But most importantly, a primary focus of the Bible is to show how man given to his own devices tends to degenerate because we naturally think of our own well-being over others, and that without the love of our neighbor considered as equal at least to our well-being, we cannot expect to thrive as a decent society.

We want to be careful blaming the Bible for man's ilk; the Bible is replete with great examples and consequences, and the Proverbs are considered by many to be superior to just about anything written by the likes of Aristotle, Plato, etc. To blame the Bible for society's divisions and squabbles is like blaming the car because it was designed to go faster than the speed limit; anybody can speed and misuse the car, and religion is not any different. People for their own misconceptions or evil entent will use whatever means necessary to accomplish their goals, and religion is available as an excellent tool to sway and manipulate the ignorant and misinformed. Hope I have time to maintain a presence in this thread, as there is a good deal of info out there that would shed light on an area full of so many misunderstandings and deceptions.

Oh, BTW, new sponsor here (www.sterilesolution.com); see you guys around.