The Bible

Thanks for this considered answer.

For my part, I hate war - and I think certain OT passages contribute to men's proclivity to make war (hence my fondness for Marcion, or what we know of him).

Eg, I recall a doco which recorded a British general in Palestine in WW1 proudly proclaiming (after a victory against the Ottoman Turks) that "we killed everything that breathed"…..(...as commanded by The Lord God of Israel?: Joshua 10:40).

Now we have Netahyahu stentoriously proclaiming "Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capital of Israel"; when obviously that is nonsense: the Dome of the Rock, a fine example of early Islamic architecture and one of the city's most recognisable buildings, has been sitting on the temple mount for c.1300 years.
Therefore a more reasonable description of the status of Jerusalem, for our time, is outlined in UN res181, with the proposal for shared administration of the city.

Indeed, a proclamation of UN res 181 would result in Jerusalem becoming a symbol of religious unity for Mankind, thereby achieving it's true destiny...

[Predictably the Trump administration's recent moves to unilaterally circumvent 181 have resulted in lives lost].

Surely the central message of the Gospel is Justice and Peace, not War.

It's time for a new Ecumenical Council, under the auspices of the UN, to hammer out a new 'canon' - one which proscribes all exceptionalist tendencies {eg "you are God's chosen people") - describing Man's relationship to God, which combines all the spiritual and religious traditions, especially those professing belief in the God of Abraham (with Christianity and Islam claiming adherents among more than half the world's population).

 

I asked if you had read " Mere Christianity".

 

It would be vanity to try. You are always right in your own mind.

 

As I said, the natural man cannot understand it or explain these things. Congrats.

 

One argument I've heard by proponents of the Bible being Yaweh's word when compared to other holy books is that it was written by multiple authors over many generations and they all agree with each other over the message.

Well guess what. The holy book of the Sikhs called the Guru Granth Sahib was written by multiple contributors over hundreds of years and the message is consistent.The earliest author was born in the 12th century and the last author died in the 17th century. So based on this argument, is the Guru Granth Sahib the word of God?

Oh, and by the way, Sikhs were martyred for their beliefs as well.

Your arguments that you have the 'one and absolute truth' are dropping.

 

You did indeed. I'm 79. I've read hundreds of books over the years. Can you remember all that you have read? Is that the one about Christian virtues, morals etc. The things he claimed led him to Christianity? You can take my answer as a yes or no as you please. I simply can't remember all the books I've read. I've been more into study books than theoretical Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is all theoretical. Christian morals and ethics are all based on Christian beliefs and they are based on a book. Without that book there would be no Christianity as we know it. And the reliability of the contents of that book are questionable. The Sermon on the Mount is a good sermon with many truths - mostly found in the OT if you study it. Living by that standard one would not need a god to rely on.

 

Who is making that argument?

I am defending the accuracy, integrity, and historicity of the biblical manuscripts from the false narratives that are promoted today by enemies of Christianity and the bible.

Some BELIEVE the bible to be the verbatim, inerrant Word of God. Some BELIEVE the bible is a collection of myths. I have no control over anyone's beliefs, and can only vouch for the integrity, the historicity, and validity of the biblical texts. What everyone believes about the content is up to them.

I have not studied the Sihk's manuscripts, but i doubt they have faced the same scrutiny or criticism as the biblical ones. And i doubt they have the same history of scholarship and textual criticism as the biblical texts. Nor have they been printed, translated, loved, hated, or influenced western civilization, like the biblical texts. But it is a fine comparison, otherwise.

Arguments for Divine Authorship are ALWAYS subjective, or can be interpreted as coincidental or circumstantial. It is not my intent here to convince anyone of inspiration of the scriptures. That is beyond my pay scale. I can only vouch for the integrity of the texts, as accurate renderings of the authors' original writings, and that is primarily regarding the NT canon.

 

Not you, but a Youtube video I saw made that argument (It will take a while for me to dig up, but I can try if you want). Also one person by the name of Empress made that argument earlier in this thread in response to my comment on the Book of Mormon and other holy books.

The Sikhs actually have the original copies of their scriptures (unlike the Bible).

 

Umm... ok. ..not my cup of tea. I prefer freedom of conscience, and Enlightenment principles of self governance, instead of a controlling, ruling elite that tells us what to believe, and controls our thoughts, words, and actions.

But that is just me, as the last free American..

The old canon suits me just fine, as an accurate, historical account about the Greatest Man who ever lived..

IMO, His solutions for the ills of mankind are much better than anything an ecumenical council might come up with.

 

Yes, we have a lot more anthropological information from the 17th century, than the first. That should not be surprising, or indicative of superiority.

A more fair comparison would be writings contemporary with the biblical times.

My point is not a comparative religion one, but the historical validity of the bible. Evidence from 2k yrs back is more sparse than recent events or writings. Jim Jones or Mary Baker Eddy will have more contemporary evidence, for their words or existence. I do not have anything comparable for Jesus.

There are living people today, who WILL attest for the SPIRITUAL reality of Jesus, and scholars can vouch for the historical veracity of the biblical accounts. But that is all we can do, for a Person and event from ancient times.

 

I find it very tragic that at the age of 79 you have found yourself to be the sole arbitrator of good and evil. I would have thought life would have taught you to walk with a little more humility. The Book is augmented by the testimony of "millions" that have gone before you.Your age does not entitle you to wisdom by any degree.

 

Agreed. The bible is the ONLY valid, historical account of the life and teaching of Christ. No Christ? No Christianity.

That is why i question and challenge the critics of the nt manuscripts to evidence their accusations of 'error!', 'changes!', and other such smears against the historicity of the biblical texts.

False. This is a prejudicial accusation, with no evidence. It is a hostile assertion, with no basis.

..such as? How do you define, 'good'? How do you arrive at 'truth?'
Let's look at some of that 'sermon'..

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.
if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.

Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

This is 'good', and 'truth', to you? You find wisdom and insight for your life from these teachings? Do you actually believe any of these things? Or incorporate them into your life?

I don't think so.. you seem to promote the opposite, from your posts.

Remember the trilemma, from an earlier post, and a quote from 'Mere Christianity,' a book recommended by another poster:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. . . ~C. S. Lewis

 

You judge a book by its cover? You don't know me. You don't know my life. You don't know what I have done or not done in my life outside of religion. You really know little about me but my view of religion.

The quote from CSLewis was simply his view. For those who actually doubt the authenticity of the Gospels - that Jesus actually said what the writers say, and that he actually meant what Christianity claims - would dispute with him.. I don't think for one moment Jesus said he was 'the Son of God'. As a Jew he would have. said justifiably 'I am a son of god' as all Jews believed and as the OT shows. 'I called my son, Israel' out of Egypt'. God/Jahweh the Father. L don't think for one moment that the miracles attributed to Jesus actually occurred. So yes, CSLewis came to his conclusion by accepting the authenticity of the Bible stories..

The phrases of the beatitudes are taken from OT. context as in the Pentateuch. Jesus simply takes them and translates them from the OT theme of Justice
and translates them into the NT theme of love and mercy. Augustine claimed that Christ, by His teaching, secured what the Original law intended. This appears to be the emphasis of the Sermon on the Mount..

The sermon is in the style of OT Wisdom Literature.

You called me a bigot earlier. Read your own posts.

 

Where have I said I am the sole arbiter of good and evil? You're just making things up, as usual. According to you, Christianity is the sole arbiter of good and evil. So why try to bully me. Like another poster you don't answer questions, just criticise.

Humility? Am I proud just because I point out the fact that so many do not really understand the Bible, though they proclaim it? Because some posters cannot accept that the Bible might be wrong when placed against ancient history etc? Proud because I have spent years studying things that are relevant to understanding the Bible while others have concentrated on what their 'teachers' tell them? If you are satisfied with that - so be it. Many Christians are like Jehovah's witnesses - once outside what they have been told to believe they are lost. Christianity wiIl die out with you as science and archaeology improves..

I have more to learn about the Bible when compared with history, archaeology etc.

Bold. The Qu'ran has millions of testimonials - but does that make it right? So have many other religions. Are they right?

 

This is very ironic, since you are constantly disparaging my knowledge, education, and motivations.

I can only reply to your words, which i have done. I have offered intelligent debate, for this topic, and you have returned ad hom, smears, and unbased assertions. Your motivation SEEMS to be to smear Christianity and the bible, without evidence. That exposes a biased, prejudicial view, and makes rational debate difficult, if not impossible.

 

Hardly. Have you read the sermon on the mount? Almost every beatitude is prefaced with, "you have heard it said," with a Jewish saying or tradition. Then Jesus preempts with, "But I say to you," and His conflicting override of the traditional status quo.

Neither the sermon on the mount, nor any of Jesus's teachings, were regurgitated from prior traditions, but were unique, spoken with authority, and revolutionized the status quo of religiously striving toward God. He copied no one, as you falsely accuse, nor was His message a 'me too!' religious mimicry.

No facts. No evidence. ..Just distortions and hostile beliefs with no basis. It IS an indication of religious bigotry, so the shoe seems to fit. Your 'errors!' are just typical anti-christian talking points and phony caricatures, from skeptic sites, and demonstrate no knowledge, scholarship, or wisdom.

If this is all you have, all i can do is expose it, since propaganda, not intelligent debate, seems to be your goal.

 

We in the Catholic church have, since Nicea, struggled, however, with what Jesus meant when he said, for example, "I and my Father are one."

Any theories?

 

One entity. The Gospel of John is very clear from the first Sentence on. "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was God and the Word was God......" what is the Word? The very expression of God. The Bible is the Word. Jesus is the Word. Jesus was there at the beginning. Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.....' the Bible clearly denotes that His entities, Jesus and His Spirit, were involved in the idea of mankind created in their image. Early Christians were referred by others as "People of the Word".

 

Good idea.
Let's look at the Nicene Creed as adopted in 325

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost.
But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I bolded the part you alluded to.

Historically, there was much conflict from false teachings, dubious 'letters', and 'gospels'.. ..heretical teachings from the likes of Arius and others, and no universal standard for defining the faith.

Arius, the gnostics, and others spiritualized Jesus, denied His deity (or humanity), and/or added/removed things from the original manuscripts, that were used by the early church as a guide for orthodox faith.

Irenaeus originated the phrase, in ~ ad 180, which was incorporated into the Nicene Creed.

Here was his quote:
Jesus Christ was not a mere man, begotten from Joseph in the ordinary course of nature, but was very God, begotten of the Father most high, and very man, born of the Virgin.

Irenaeus affirms BOTH Jesus's Deity and His humanity, unlike the heretics, who denied either or both.

Irenaeus authored a huge volume of work, quoting nearly every passage in the manuscripts, which became the consensus for a canon in Nicea, a century later.

We owe a debt of gratitude, for the early church fathers, who constantly battled distortions, lies, and heresies, to preserve, for us, the historical, original scriptures compiled in the nt manuscripts. They 'defended the faith', that was once for all delivered to the redeemed.

Perhaps this is inadequate as an explanation, which it must be, using human, finite words to describe the Divine, Who is indefinable by mortal man.

 

In almost all cases the phrases used in the Beatitudes are familiar from an Old Testament context, but in the sermon Jesus gives them new meaning.[10] Together, the

Beatitudes present a new set of ideals that focus on love and humility rather than force and exaction; they echo the highest ideals of Jesus' teachings on spirituality and compassion.[10] Wiki

After the brief exposition about the members of the kingdom, the Lord now gives truths about the nature of the kingdom itself (5:17–4. This section is characterized by the repeated phrase, “you have heard it said, … but I say.” Jesus is going to do some interpretation of the Old Testament Law for His listeners, and He prefaces this by first stating He came not to abolish, but to fulfill the Law. Then He emphasizes the fact that “not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away until all is fulfilled.” Now, He makes this clear at the outset because He knows that what He is about to say is going to shock His listeners. He wants them to listen carefully and not take what He is about to say as negating the Law in any sense. Bible Org

he Beatitudes, as the sermon's first words, come not with threats, but describe the new community in christological terms to identify believers with Jesus ( 5:3-11 ). They are God's law fulfilled in Jesus and applied to Christians. The community in Christ described in the Beatitudes is a continuation of Israel in which the prophetic word is not annulled but fulfilled and remains in force in him and not as separate legislation

The Sermon on the Mount begins in Matthew 5:3-12 with the Beatitudes. Why? It’s not an historical accident. The beatitudes intentionally echo the blessings of Deuteronomy 28:1-14 that Israel proclaimed from Mount Gerizim after entering the holy land. Jesus v Torah

The next set of examples are from the “Sermon on the Mount,” in which Jesus gives ethical instruction. Each time Jesus begins “You have heard that it was said…” and contrasts it with “…but I say.” He is not contradicting the Torah, about which he would have said, “It is written.” The phrase “You have heard that it was said” referred to popular understandings of the Torah—the way it was understood and applied, the way people learned it from their parents and teachers, the way it was repeated at the watering trough and the back alleys and the shoemaker’s shop. Sometimes that was the same as what the Torah had to say; sometimes not. Yet the basis of those understandings was the text of the Torah. Jews for Jesus.

Now please yourself what you believe.

 

Well, you should source your cut & pastes.. and, most of you rebuttal agrees with what i said, so i don't get the pissy challenge at the end.

Look at the passage you referred to. You think Jesus just echoed these same things?

Nothing that Jesus said in the passages i quoted before had a parallel in deuteronomy. How can you accuse Him of plagiarism?

Deuteronomy 28:1If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. 2 All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the Lord your God:

3 You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country.

4 The fruit of your womb will be blessed, and the crops of your land and the young of your livestock—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.

5 Your basket and your kneading trough will be blessed.

6 You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out.

7 The Lord will grant that the enemies who rise up against you will be defeated before you. They will come at you from one direction but flee from you in seven.

8 The Lord will send a blessing on your barns and on everything you put your hand to. The Lord your God will bless you in the land he is giving you.

9 The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the Lord your God and walk in obedience to him. 10 Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they will fear you. 11 The Lord will grant you abundant prosperity—in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your ground—in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you.

12 The Lord will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands. You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. 13 The Lord will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the Lord your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom. 14 Do not turn aside from any of the commands I give you today, to the right or to the left, following other gods and serving them.

Show me the parallel passages, and the plagiarism from Jesus, in these passages. Put them next to each other so everyone can see it.

Or, retract your false and absurd accusation of plagiarism.

 

Yes. So says Irenaeus. What do you believe Jesus meant when he said "I and my Father are one"?
This is in some English bibles translated as "I and the Father ...." but the issue is the same.

Even if we agree that Jesus was "divine", and I am happy to so stipulate, it begs the question: what does divine mean? If we accept that god infused every atomic particle in the universe (do we? I currently say yes), then how is Jesus any more or less divine than the rest of us? We all call God "God the Father."

The most intriguing thing about the words of Jesus is that some tell us who he is and whence and why he came, but many perhaps most, simply address the question "how should we live?"

I actually tried to analyze this once, but some of the quotations were so cryptic that I frankly don't know what he was talking about. Do not even the gentiles do as much? You must therefore be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.' Matt. 5:48

Here's another one: But when you fast, put scent on your head and wash your face, so that no one will know you are fasting except your Father who sees all that is done in secret; and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you. Matt. 6:18

Here's my take: Jesus believed himself "sent" by the Father in the sense of "inspired," "illuminated," or "directed to preach." I do not believe that there was some other physical place (heaven) from which he "came down from Heaven," though I hypocritically say it ever Sunday. I believe my understanding is supported by scripture. The parables are easy enough to understand.

But what of: In truth I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt at all, not only will you do what I have done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, "Be pulled up and thrown into the sea," it will be done. And if you have faith, everything you ask for in prayer, you will receive.' Matt. 21:21

I don't know what that means, if it was properly transcribed, or why it was said. (I have no doubt that it is a genuine attempt to report what an actual person actually said.)

 

I would like to interject if I may....my Pastor is a well studied man. We just discussed the fig tree and Matt 21:21. What he has said is that most of the time, and especially here, when Jesus refers to "mountains" he is speaking of governments or man made institutions. It makes sense because Rome was an oppressive force as well as the Temple system of Jerusalem.

 

It doesn't say that it parallels the phrases. It says it parallels the blessings in Deuteronomy. Jesus said he had come to fulfil the Law - not do away with it. He accepted the Law of Moses but showed a better way. The judgement of the OT was to be the Mercy of the NT.

Jesus used the OT regularly for quotations. His parable of the vine - Jeremiah, the shepherd Ezekiel and others are all taken from the OT.

Matthew 5:2 Isaiah 57;15
Matthew 5:4 Isaiah 61:2
Matthew 5:5 Psalm 37:11
Matthew 5:6 Isaiah 55:1-2

Shall I go on.

Jesus is using OT teachings and quotations. Plagiarism? Hardly plagiarism if he's using his own scriptures.

 

I've offered you facts. You simply don't want to follow them up. Your problem - not mine. Did you follow up the Numbers references I gave you?
Do you really believe it happened? Did god provide millions of quail per week, Manna to satisfy 2.5-3 million people? Did water from a rock satisfy that many? How long was the queue for the water? How long did it take to satisfy such a number? Where did they get the corn for bread? How long did they have to wait while babies were being born or the sick were being treated, and the cattle / sheep were giving birth on the journey? Burying the dead? Where did the effluent from that number of people go while they were camped?.
How, and why, should a million soldiers march 1000 miles from Ethiopia over many weeks feed and water itself, and then be defeated by Asa's mere 40000. Especially when no other ancient Empire army could mass a fraction of that number.