Do you believe in a supernatural creator, God or gods of any sort?

[Interbane]

I'm not sure that any person who defends the integrity of the bible is in touch with human nature. People change and manipulate and create and recombine, forget and rationalize and hallucinate.

Unless the "originals" are found for comparison, it's reasonable to assume that those ancient documents which exist have been altered from what came before them.

Any single piece of writing, if copied with perfect fidelity, would not be discarded. The point of copying is to replicate, and two are better than one, especially considering the rarity of written text during that time.

Any single piece of writing, if altered when transcribed, would likely be discarded as old and outdated, especially since the texts in question have supposed sanctity. Two differing accounts would be a bad thing.

[Doulos]

Thank you Doulos:

Please note that;
a) the first and greatest commandment is not to love one another, but to love God.
b) 1 John 5:3 expands upon the meaning of love by stating, "This is love for God: to obey his commands."
c) This affirmation of the need for obedience to God is reflected in the closing phrase in this passage as well, which reminds us that, "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

It is just that I believe that the gospels and the epistles were written after Jesus had gone - and then 'they' began making up rules.

When quoting Jesus' reputed words, he is reported as saying:

Love one another
Love your neighbour as yourself
Feed my sheep
Do unto others as you would...etc
If you love me.....feed my sheep
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

He claims that when you show mercy to the least of creatures you show it to him...

By loving our fellow-man we are loving God, because there is no other way to love God.....we cannot love Him except through humanity.

Instead of following this simple way - we have made up rules - separated into different denominations - and fought and killed about those cursed rules.

And lost the simplicity of the original teachings.

Doulos, I have had this discussion on this forum, so often before that I am becoming a bore......I don't seek to convert anyone to my way of faith, I only want you to understand why I believe what I believe.

Quoting scripture will not work, because I am convinced that it has been mightily distorted over centuries. I have absolutely no faith in any of its words. I accept the spirit of what the man seems to have been trying to say.

How do you accept the spirit of what a person says unless you deal with the record of what a person has said? If I said that you said you believed in child cannibalism, your reaction would probably be to say that you had not said that (along with some curses and mental knives thrown in my direction ). If I was to say that I'm simply stating the spirit of what you said, I would hope that you would correct me by pointing me to the fullness of what you actually did write.

Whether you accept or reject the teachings of Christ is entirely up to you, and I mean that sincerely. I would merely ask that you make that decision based upon the fullness of what is written. If you note, I have not sought to convert you, but simply to correct a misconception about what you think Christ taught.

You are correct that the New Testament accounts were set to paper after the death of Christ. This does not mean that they were inaccurate though.

It's generally accepted that the stories they tell were in oral circulation well before this time, and the evidence suggests strongly that people at that time had more trust in a respected oral witness than in writing on a page. Yet even this suggests that the sole role of the New Testament authors was as repeaters of what Jesus said, and even a rough reading of the letters of the New Testament will show that the authors did much more than that.

What the Bible asserts is not that the New Testament writers were merely human tape recorders, but that they were given direct guidance by God. The Greek word for them was ἀπόστολος is the same word that Muslims use to describe Muhammad. Muslims translate it as either apostle or prophet, but the meaning is of one who speaks the words of God.

From a Biblical perspective, the authority of the New Testament does not rest solely upon whether the writers are repeating exactly what Jesus said. Their writings themselves are considered as divinely guided.

John echoes this when he says;
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
(John 16:13-15)

Once again, you are entirely free to reject the beliefs and teachings of the Bible. I would only ask that you reject or accept them based upon what they teach and assert about themselves.

[Doulos]

I'm not sure that any person who defends the integrity of the bible is in touch with human nature. People change and manipulate and create and recombine, forget and rationalize and hallucinate.

Unless the "originals" are found for comparison, it's reasonable to assume that those ancient documents which exist have been altered from what came before them.

Any single piece of writing, if copied with perfect fidelity, would not be discarded. The point of copying is to replicate, and two are better than one, especially considering the rarity of written text during that time.

Any single piece of writing, if altered when transcribed, would likely be discarded as old and outdated, especially since the texts in question have supposed sanctity. Two differing accounts would be a bad thing.

Not sure what you're getting at Interbane.

We have more manuscript evidence for the books of the Bible than for any other ancient text, and we're talking orders of magnitude more.

Manuscript evidence for the New Testament includes nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, 34-36)

Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment (John Ryland's Gospel of John fragment, John Ryland's Library of Manchester, England) being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

I think what's happened in recent years is that people have voiced doubt over traditional academic understandings, on the basis that these are often written by believing Christians. We should certainly test any data we get, but this is the purpose of peer reviewed academic writing, and the traditional assertions of biblical authority have gone through that ad infinitum.

[Doulos]

Penelope, I believe you're right about when the scriptures were written. It was after Jesus was gone. One of my co-workers (I'm an anthropologist and my co-worker is an anthropologist that focuses on religion) said that it's generally believed by scholars that most of the men who wrote the New Testament hadn't even known Jesus.

Personally I also believe the scripture has been distorted over time. How can anyone argue against that? Things were changed. Whole books were taken out. There seem to be several educated posters here so I have no doubt you've heard of the Council of Nicea. Anyway that's just my two-cents.

Are you correctly understanding what the Council of Nicea did though? The popular view is that they 'selected' the books of the NT canon, but the academic consensus goes against this.

Nicea, as a reaction against Marcion's anti-semitic collection of texts, promulgated the already accepted texts of the Christian faith. There were a few books which were still contested in authority, but the core of the biblical canon was in place at this time.

The popular thinking (ie Da Vinci Code... great fiction, lousy history) that Christian leaders would gather and try to include or exclude 'new' scripture is pretty silly. As anyone dealing with religious people will attest, we're pretty conservative and nit picking about what is considered scriptural.


re: scriptural distortion
Figures I'm used to hearing ascribe a 99.5% accuracy to the earliest manuscripts, with deviation normally being in areas that do not affect textual meaning. You colleague should be able to refer you to relevant texts on this.

[Penelope]

Doulos:
How do you accept the spirit of what a person says unless you deal with the record of what a person has said?

I can read Shakespeare's plays - I know they are not true historical fact - but I understand the truth of what he is saying about human nature.

I can read what is recorded as having been said by Jesus. There is very little evidence that Jesus existed, and yet, and yet, something seems to have happened and affected people around that time. It might have been a man, and the core of what he seems to have been teaching is sound and simple. Even a child can understand it. Look after one another. I think all the rest is mumbo jumbo. And like the pharisees - obeying the letter of the law whilst ignoring the spirit of the teachings.

You are correct that the New Testament accounts were set to paper after the death of Christ. This does not mean that they were inaccurate though.

If we read and compare the four gospels - there are discrepancies. I'm not going to list them but you can Google them easily enough. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm


Olivia22 - Thank you for your input. An educated person, with expertise, like yourself, can get the spirit of what this person (Jesus?) was teaching but also a child or a person of low intellect, that is what makes me take notice. I might add, that it is easy to understand what is being required of us - Love One Another - it is by no means easy to accomplish. I couldn't even achieve 'Like one another'. But, I happen to believe that there is a spirit that helps us, my evidence is that it has helped me. This kind of evidence is only useful in convincing me personally, so no use to convert anyone else, and that is because all of our relationships with this 'spirit' are personal. Some people are very good at demonstrating this spirit. I myself am a very poor example. I am also a veritable gas-bag. Wish I knew how to be more succinct.

[Interbane]

Not sure what you're getting at Interbane.

Everything from the notes that were taken by the authors of the bible, at that exact moment they were "witnessing" what Jesus did, all the way up through the oldest verifiable document we have. That is all missing. Now, I realize it's ridiculous to propose the ancients took notes and later transcribed them. But I'm speaking generally. Every piece of information, whatever that may be, from the time of Jesus through the earliest dated copies.

That means, of all the 25,000 documents that have been discovered, they corroborate the earliest dated text(as applicable). The time in question is during the growth of Christianity. The critical first few decades, when the story was originally written. We have nothing from that time.

I would never be able to remember a long series of events after a decade. Small fragments here and there at best. Unless the authors wrote of what they saw within a year or two of the supposed events, I don't trust them. Human memory is nowhere near as high-fidelity as we would like it to be. The original rough drafts were no doubt changed many times, refined and harmonized. Even people who write testimonies a single month after witnessing a memorable experiences are shown to contradict one another.

I dont' trust human nature, and I don't trust any claim to the fidelity of information transcription without checks and balances that simply didn't exist back then.

[AK Phillips]

Ok, I have lost focus.

I have no desire to be arrogant but I find that people who live by scripture do so because they believe in what has been interpreted to them by another person. They want to be good people. I ask, why do they need to be told when they are good people?

Point 1, every single word that is in the bible, regardless of who choose to include it, was originally transcripted in colloquial versions of Aramaic, not latin.

Point 2, if you accept an Aramaic interpretation of original scriptures, you also accept that no one who met Jesus actually attributed miracles to his name.

Point 3, paul created a messiah (but never actually met jesus).

Ok, so everything above is an appreciation of linguistic interpretation. Lets now understand the intellectual effect of the political decisions made in 323 AD in Nicea.

And then you ask yourself, what of what I know is true? How will I ever know what to do, who will I know if i am going in the right direction?

If you learn to love yourself instead of love god, and challenge every other aspect of this, you will start to understand the power you have.

[Penelope]

AK Phillips:

If you learn to love yourself instead of love god, and challenge every other aspect of this, you will start to understand the power you have.

But then you encounter teachings which resonate and make you question all that you thought you knew.

"You know, actually we have no love - that is a terrible thing to realize. Actually we have no love; we have sentiment; we have emotionality, sensuality, sexuality; we have remembrances of something which we have thought as love. But actually, brutally, we have no love. Because to have love means no violence, no fear, no competition, no ambition. If you had love you would never say, ''This is my family'' - you may have a family and give them the best you can; but it would not be ''your family'' which is opposed to the world. If you love, if there is love, there is peace."

From "Talks by Krishnamurti in India 1964"

This week, here in the UK, a little girl aged five has been abducted. The police seem to have imprisoned the man who took her, but he won't tell them what he has done with her. People have been searching the hills and valleys of beautiful Wales. How can we feel about this person. I can't love such a creature. So I need help to deal with my emotion, which is hatred.

When I pray to ask the spirit to help me to deal with this - I feel as though that help comes from outside of me. It is not forgiveness....I can't forgive....

but Krishnamurti's teachings came in a email to me, just this week - and when I transpose the word, love, for the word hatred I can find peace amid the turmoil of my thoughts. I feel as though, we live and learn....and that there is a providence out there in the ether, teaching our souls to grow. Well, perhaps....it is 'hope'.

[Doulos]

Doulos:
How do you accept the spirit of what a person says unless you deal with the record of what a person has said?

I can read Shakespeare's plays - I know they are not true historical fact - but I understand the truth of what he is saying about human nature.

I can read what is recorded as having been said by Jesus. There is very little evidence that Jesus existed, and yet, and yet, something seems to have happened and affected people around that time. It might have been a man, and the core of what he seems to have been teaching is sound and simple. Even a child can understand it. Look after one another. I think all the rest is mumbo jumbo. And like the pharisees - obeying the letter of the law whilst ignoring the spirit of the teachings.

Hello Penelope,

Would you read only part of Shakespeare though, and ignore large parts of the rest of his text as meaningless or contrary?

By all means come to your own conclusions about what is true or not, but if we're going to not just obey the letter of the law then it's kind of important to look at the fullness of the teachings.

When we look at teaching which agrees with what we already hold, we aren't 'growing' much though. I find that meditation on things I disagree with or don't understand leads to greater rewards. That doesn't necessarily mean agreement, but it usually involves change.

Why do you think there is little evidence of a historical person of Jesus though? I'm just curious because I would say the exact opposite; that our evidence for his historical existence is very strong.

[Doulos]

You are correct that the New Testament accounts were set to paper after the death of Christ. This does not mean that they were inaccurate though.

If we read and compare the four gospels - there are discrepancies. I'm not going to list them but you can Google them easily enough. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_john.htm

Religious Tolerance speaks a lot about 'us', but it's virtually all the views of one man; Bruce Robinson. If you read the 'About Us' section, this is quite apparent, and I recall he used to be more explicit about the site being his personal viewpoint.

Much of Robinson's post is questionable here, as he puts in a lot of his own interpretation of things rather than letting the text speak.

If you're actually interested, I could walk you through any of his comparisons which you view as especially strong.

Once again, you're welcome to make your own mind up about things. If you hate it, fine... I would just ask that you deal with the reality of the text versus just through the filter of a person's opinions.