So I recently decided to try reading the Bible just to see what the big deal was, and to see how far I could get. Not very far, it turns out. So I've been looking around for some sort of bible guide for the non-believer, which has been a bit of a challenge. I was considering Asimov's guide, though. Anyone here have a suggestion?
I tried reading through the bible and highlighting anything that I found odd, contradictory etc. After quite a few pages of full highlights I lost interest.
You could read through the Skeptics Annotated Bible http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
The bible seriously confuses me, as I feel its written with so many metaphors and riddles.
I wish there were footnotes for it. XD either way, I don't really care.
I did read the whole thing back when I was religious....I wasn't so religious after I did that.
I think it is a very hard read.
The language is aweful, the thou's thy etc
The amount of repetition and the unnecessary babble.
I was in a hotel last week and they had a bible, I had another go at reading it but really only got to page 3 or 4. It is such an awful ready.
"Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
6 And Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh.
7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters.
8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.
9 And Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan.
10 Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters.
11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died.
12 And Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel.
13 Then Kenan lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters.
14 So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.
15 And Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared."
Isn't this just dull, boring and stupid writing. Who can read through this rubbish?
This one was pretty amusing too: http://www.thebricktestament.com/ Maybe I'll just go with that for now :)
Quote from: Firebird on February 03, 2012, 02:04:07 PM
This one was pretty amusing too: http://www.thebricktestament.com/ Maybe I'll just go with that for now :)
+1 I love that website, I bought myself the Brick Bible for xmas :D
If you really want to understand it, I could offer a couple of suggestions:
1) Get a modern translation - no "thee's and thou's."
2) Skip the genealogies - they were important for the Jewish people who focused on tribes and the priesthood, but are boring to read and of little import now.
3) Look over a Bible outline first, to get the flow of the entire book (actually, the flow of the 66 books that make up the Bible). Here's a Christian one, but it still serves to give you an overall view.
http://bibleoutline.org/
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 03, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
If you really want to understand it, I could offer a couple of suggestions:
1) Get a modern translation - no "thee's and thou's."
2) Skip the genealogies - they were important for the Jewish people who focused on tribes and the priesthood, but are boring to read and of little import now.
3) Look over a Bible outline first, to get the flow of the entire book (actually, the flow of the 66 books that make up the Bible). Here's a Christian one, but it still serves to give you an overall view.
http://bibleoutline.org/
As if it was written in King James language/speech only. :)
The Lego version is much more palatable, but it is still extremely dumb. Would have been better if they used the Star Wars lego pieces. God could have been Darth Vader. The Snake could have been Obi-Won. Adam and Eve could have been Han Solo and Lea.
The creation story is a waste of time. No value in it whatsoever. It gives a nonsensical mythical telling of how the earth formed. I guess people were wondering about night and day, and animals and people, man and woman, sun stars and moon and plants and food. But the story is pointless, just a myth.
The garden of eden story.
Still very silly and pointless. Talks about a tree of life and a tree of knowledge. I guess the author was pondering about life and death, man and woman, why people wear clothes and feel ashamed of being naked. Why a woman's birth experience seems more painful than other animals, why a snake slithers.
It is incredible to think that grown adults take this seriously and build up the concept of "original sin". It is just a myth story, it has no historical truth, no natural truth. It's nonsense.
It certainly leads towards two themes that I find very disturbing:
- Man being important and woman being there to serve the man.
- People being punished for what their ancestors did.
Cain and Able.
I guess a recognition that the eldest child is often jealous of the next sibling.
And showing how bad parenting, seemingly favoring one child over another can cause distress and disharmony, conflict and murder.
Nothing divinely revealing or particular intelligent. Just intuitive human observations of sibling rivalry. This chapter is pretty much a waste of time.
Quote from: Stevil on February 03, 2012, 07:13:13 PM
Cain and Able.
I guess a recognition that the eldest child is often jealous of the next sibling.
And showing how bad parenting, seemingly favoring one child over another can cause distress and disharmony, conflict and murder.
Nothing divinely revealing or particular intelligent. Just intuitive human observations of sibling rivalry. This chapter is pretty much a waste of time.
This happens all the time too. I am envious of my gf who is a single child. My lil sister is being coddled so much right now. My father probably feels a stronger bond with her anyway, cuz she believes his rubbish. She prays a lot I found out, and thinks our mom is watching over her. *eye rolllll* bleh
The idea here is to read the Bible as literature; understand what all the passages mean, where they came from, how people took them literally and affected out history in real life based on these mythical stories. I'm not debating the merits of the stories or whether they make any sense. I figure that if I'm going to argue the bible doesn't make sense, I may as well understand why :)
I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said, but I'm interested in watching conversation develop. I've always said that the Bible alone often makes the best case for atheism.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 03, 2012, 06:04:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 03, 2012, 05:41:24 PM
If you really want to understand it, I could offer a couple of suggestions:
1) Get a modern translation - no "thee's and thou's."
2) Skip the genealogies - they were important for the Jewish people who focused on tribes and the priesthood, but are boring to read and of little import now.
3) Look over a Bible outline first, to get the flow of the entire book (actually, the flow of the 66 books that make up the Bible). Here's a Christian one, but it still serves to give you an overall view.
http://bibleoutline.org/
As if it was written in King James language/speech only. :)
I used to attend a Southern Baptist in Arkansas where the preacher gave one of those sermons where he was yelling at the congregation. Part of the sermon was about the King James Bible and why it's the only translation a real disciple of Jesus should read. When I was Christian, I always was puzzled by the idea that one bad translation was better than any other bad translation.
Quote from: Firebird on February 03, 2012, 10:08:47 PM
The idea here is to read the Bible as literature; understand what all the passages mean, where they came from, how people took them literally and affected out history in real life based on these mythical stories. I'm not debating the merits of the stories or whether they make any sense. I figure that if I'm going to argue the bible doesn't make sense, I may as well understand why :)
This is an extremely tall order. I've read the Bible all the way through twice, the NT three times and read bits and pieces of almost every day for over 15 years. I still don't understand all of it...and who could?
You're not going to do this any time soon. Not that I would discourage you, far from it, but it's a very long...years long...process. And you're gonna need help by reading books and websites, listening to theists claims and doing the research to counter-argue back. Good luck!
Quote from: RunFromMyLife on February 04, 2012, 12:08:24 AM
I did a year-long reading plan and read the entire KJV...as literature. I sort of regret not digging deeper into it WHILE I was reading it because you can bet your ass that won't happen again.
What, are you not a glutton for punishment? ;)
I got a lot out of Don't Know Much about the Bible: Everything You Need to Know about the Good Book but Never Learned by Kenneth C. Davis.
The title is kind of lame, but it's a really informative book.
Quote from: Firebird on February 03, 2012, 01:21:02 AM
So I recently decided to try reading the Bible just to see what the big deal was, and to see how far I could get. Not very far, it turns out. So I've been looking around for some sort of bible guide for the non-believer, which has been a bit of a challenge. I was considering Asimov's guide, though. Anyone here have a suggestion?
It's not a guide but Karen Armstrong's
The Bible: a biography gives a lot of historical perspective on how and why the bible was written. It's very interesting and I found it useful in understanding the bible better.
I didn't even know Asimov wrote a guide, I'm going to have to look that up. My only suggestion is to stick with it. The endless begots can be awful boring but also informative -- informed me that the Mormon fundamentalist practice of marrying of nieces to uncles really does have biblical backing.
I have read the KJV bible as well as a few other religious books, my views on the majority of those books now with one exception is "what a waste of time". the time I spent reading those books could have been spent reading more interesting works of literature or doing something more enjoyable, even though a few months ago I would have recommended reading them, now I can honestly say don't bother go do something fun instead with the time you would spend reading/studying them. I once thought it was a good reason to have the knowledge of those books so when conversing with someone of a particular faith you could try understand their reasoning, what I have learned is that their sense of reason is not the same as my own.
The Bible Unearthed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed) is a really good book on the OT that shows how poorly the biblical narrative stacks up against the archaeology of Israel, and how anomalies in the biblical text give away that it was mainly written in the 7th and 6th Centuries BCE, pretending to depict figures and events centuries earlier.
It doesn't try to explain what any of the mythology means, but it does give you a good timeline of when the OT was written, who the major players were in its creation, and also the larger socio-political world of the Near East at the time that influenced the writers.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 09, 2012, 04:51:48 PM
The Bible Unearthed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed) is a really good book on the OT that shows how poorly the biblical narrative stacks up against the archaeology of Israel, and how anomalies in the biblical text give away that it was mainly written in the 7th and 6th Centuries BCE, pretending to depict figures and events centuries earlier.
It doesn't try to explain what any of the mythology means, but it does give you a good timeline of when the OT was written, who the major players were in its creation, and also the larger socio-political world of the Near East at the time that influenced the writers.
That book sounds far better and you might actually learn something from reading it. I will check it out.
Watched this Hitchens lecture on the law books of the bible (basically a critique that's also a commentary on the frailty of using it as a source of morality). It might not be exactly what you're looking for, but it's entertaining and might give you some good verses and points to go on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUr_JKFckE4
Just my thoughts - if you're looking to study the Bible as literature, whatever version you go with (KJV would be my preference), you'll want a guide that studies it from the original Greek (not quite the original language, but the oldest) and Hebrew to get the purest understanding of its meaning.
Like Gawen, I've read through the Bible twice, and have devoted a bit of study to selected portions of it, though I can tell from reading his posts here that I haven't put the work into it that he has! (By the way, Gawen, I haven't totally forgotten about your "Are you sure God does not exist?" thread; I've done some work on a critique of the OP, though I already know it'll be inadequate.) I agree with his analysis of the situation from an atheist perspective; it's a tall order. I also agree to some extent with what some others have said: for many people it's really a waste of time.
Since others have suggested different books which give interesting approaches to the Bible, I thought I'd throw out a suggestion of my own: God: A Biography, by Jack Miles (http://www.amazon.com/God-Biography-Jack-Miles/dp/0679743685). An informative, but also very entertaining read, in which Miles looks at the development of YHVH as a literary character through the Tanakh only.
Quote from: Crow on February 09, 2012, 05:20:54 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 09, 2012, 04:51:48 PM
The Bible Unearthed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed) is a really good book on the OT that shows how poorly the biblical narrative stacks up against the archaeology of Israel, and how anomalies in the biblical text give away that it was mainly written in the 7th and 6th Centuries BCE, pretending to depict figures and events centuries earlier.
That book sounds far better and you might actually learn something from reading it. I will check it out.
It's well worth reading Crow, I've been rereading it over the past few days and was thinking of starting a few threads based on it. Archaeology has shown Yahweh to just be a minor western semitic deity, and the Old Testament to be mostly a mythical creation of the late monarchy, exile and post-exilic age (7th-5th centuries BCE). And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.
Quote from: Crow on February 09, 2012, 11:58:12 AM
I have read the KJV bible as well as a few other religious books, my views on the majority of those books now with one exception is "what a waste of time". the time I spent reading those books could have been spent reading more interesting works of literature or doing something more enjoyable, even though a few months ago I would have recommended reading them, now I can honestly say don't bother go do something fun instead with the time you would spend reading/studying them. I once thought it was a good reason to have the knowledge of those books so when conversing with someone of a particular faith you could try understand their reasoning, what I have learned is that their sense of reason is not the same as my own.
Well, some of us DO enjoy reading the Bible. And just because I can spend 45 minutes researching the Bible today (just read parts of Deuteronomy) doesn't mean I can't also read parts of "Jutland" tonight before I go to sleep.
Quote from: Too Few LionsAnd once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.
That!
I just lost my train of thought!!! Don'tcha just hate that? *muddle through...adlib, dammit*
So I go back to the OP...
QuoteSo I recently decided to try reading the Bible just to see what the big deal was, and to see how far I could get. Not very far, it turns out.
I reckon your first problem was equating "Bible study" with "to see how far you could get." I doesn't work that way. I have not yet personally met a Christian that has read the entire Bible with the exception of a couple ministers. Vast sections are completely boring. We cannot see through the completely male dominated, misogynistic, superstitious eyes and minds of those that wrote the Bible. Context can be misleading, mistranslations, fatal flaws, contradictions, etc., etc., etc. will knock you around. But you will find very few of these without some sort of help. Even on this very discussion board an atheist told me I had taken verse out of context! (when it was made clear I did not), so you see, believers will tell other believers they are wrong and the same from time to time with nonbelievers. Even atheist Mythical Jesus believers are at odds with those atheists that think Jesus existed.
A few weeks ago, a coworker exclaims to me he's going to read the Bible. He never even got to the "begots"...*chucklin*. You need help. There are some very fine books out there, some already spoken of in this thread. There are hundreds of websites; just do a google search of "atheist Bible study" and you'll find some. I say "atheist" bible study because I've found that many of those sites are more interested in critical study without the bias a local church would call "bible study". We are not just wanting to know
the meaning of something Paul or Jesus said. We want to know if Paul or Jesus
really said such a thing - is it an interpolation, mistranslation, etc. That is what many call Biblical criticism.
And youtube has some extremely intelligent Biblical criticism and critical biblical history videos. Critical Biblical study is monumental - emphasis on the mental. It's not for everyone. I dare say very few people will put in the time and effort...and believe me when I tell you (Recusant gives me great praise and I appreciate it) I scarcely scratch the surface in comparison to those published writers, youtubers and (in recent years I have learnt most from) critical biblical hobbyist on websites and other discussion boards.
Gawen have you ever thought about applying your critical thinking to the Koran as well as the bible, I would certainly be interested to hear some of your thoughts on that.
Quote from: Crow on February 10, 2012, 04:49:44 PM
Gawen have you ever thought about applying your critical thinking to the Koran as well as the bible, I would certainly be interested to hear some of your thoughts on that.
Thought about it from time to time. I've read bits and pieces of the Koran, usually when some sort of idiocy or contradiction comes to light. But since I live in the U.S., Christinanity (not a typo) stays to the forefront. Honestly, I don't even have or could tell you who to read about it. I'll have to rectify that some day.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
That doesn't seem right to me. Of course you cannot prove that a person didn't exist. Can you prove to me that Xylonbythepylon didn't exist?
You cannot prove that an event that has no residual effect, nothing lasting, nothing tangible never happened. Can you prove that Xylonbythepylon didn't drown and his friend Sandypants didn't pull him out of the water where Xylonbythepylon miraculously came back to life?
Quote from: Stevil on February 10, 2012, 06:58:33 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
That doesn't seem right to me. Of course you cannot prove that a person didn't exist. Can you prove to me that Xylonbythepylon didn't exist?
You cannot prove that an event that has no residual effect, nothing lasting, nothing tangible never happened. Can you prove that Xylonbythepylon didn't drown and his friend Sandypants didn't pull him out of the water where Xylonbythepylon miraculously came back to life?
But if I wanted to undermine the ancient and venerable faith of Xylonbythepylonism, the burden would be on me to show that the account of him as told in the Gospel of Sandypants was not true, or else show that X. himself didn't exist. I personally don't care to do this, so I have no burden. My point was simply to show that Christianity itself is based on the account about Jesus, and is not dependent upon the OT presentation of Yahweh. The OT could be totally wrong, and the account about Jesus could still be accurate. The latter is not essentially dependent upon the former. Just undermining the OT still leaves the core of Christianity intact.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
QuoteBut if I wanted to undermine the ancient and venerable faith of Xylonbythepylonism, the burden would be on me to show that the account of him as told in the Gospel of Sandypants was not true, or else show that X. himself didn't exist. I personally don't care to do this, so I have no burden. My point was simply to show that Christianity itself is based on the account about Jesus, and is not dependent upon the OT presentation of Yahweh. The OT could be totally wrong, and the account about Jesus could still be accurate. The latter is not essentially dependent upon the former. Just undermining the OT still leaves the core of Christianity intact.
But now wait, Jesus claimed divinity based on his connection to the "god" of the OT,namely YHWH. If that connection is taken away, what exactly is making him any different from the gladiators that followed Spartacus and were crucified, or anyone else that me that horrifying fate? I mean he had some good ideas that people Zarathustra had also talked about centuries before, but his divinity hangs on the basis that he was the "Son" part of the trinity. Otherwise he is just another philosopher, albeit one with some delusions of grandeur for thinking himself as a Messiah and "god"...
And Ecurb, the burden of proof is always on the person that makes the claim, not on the person that challenges it. You say Jesus existed and was a real person. I say that I don't believe that he ever existed as a real person. The burden of proof is on you. I say that Gandalf the White was actually mistaken to be Merlin, and he lived and died somewhere around 700 AD. You say that you do not believe that he ever existed as a real person. The burden of proof is on me.
More to the topic, I've just gotten to the Moses part of the Brick Bible. I think I'll finish it and try to find my old bible, and read them side to side (and most likely use an online bible as well, since mine is in finnish, but it should be interesting to compare the traslations ;D )
Quote from: history_geek on February 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
QuoteBut if I wanted to undermine the ancient and venerable faith of Xylonbythepylonism, the burden would be on me to show that the account of him as told in the Gospel of Sandypants was not true, or else show that X. himself didn't exist. I personally don't care to do this, so I have no burden. My point was simply to show that Christianity itself is based on the account about Jesus, and is not dependent upon the OT presentation of Yahweh. The OT could be totally wrong, and the account about Jesus could still be accurate. The latter is not essentially dependent upon the former. Just undermining the OT still leaves the core of Christianity intact.
But now wait, Jesus claimed divinity based on his connection to the "god" of the OT,namely YHWH.
And that's the entire crux of the problem. Some yokel can claim all he wants to claim. But he can't claim Messiahship. The Jews had criteria for their Messiah, but Jesus fulfilled none of it. Hypothetically speaking, anyone can claim divinity or others can claim it for someone else...and who cares? But when a so called saviour of the world comes along and there's criteria for that saviour to fulfill...and does not, well....you've pretty well shot yourself in the foot. Not only is the foundation nonexistent, so are the walls. This has been done for many years now, thanks to critical Biblical scholars.
Quote from: history_geek on February 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
But now wait, Jesus claimed divinity based on his connection to the "god" of the OT,namely YHWH. If that connection is taken away, what exactly is making him any different from the gladiators that followed Spartacus and were crucified, or anyone else that me that horrifying fate? I mean he had some good ideas that people Zarathustra had also talked about centuries before, but his divinity hangs on the basis that he was the "Son" part of the trinity. Otherwise he is just another philosopher, albeit one with some delusions of grandeur for thinking himself as a Messiah and "god"...
Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection. Undermining the OT doesn't do the trick. It doesn't matter if he ends up being the Jewish Messiah or not. He claims that he is the Son of God, and that is confirmed by the resurrection (if that occurred). If the OT is destroyed (as the post above implied), then Jewish concepts of Messiahship don't matter, anyway.
Quote from: history_geek on February 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
And Ecurb, the burden of proof is always on the person that makes the claim, not on the person that challenges it. You say Jesus existed and was a real person. I say that I don't believe that he ever existed as a real person. The burden of proof is on you. I say that Gandalf the White was actually mistaken to be Merlin, and he lived and died somewhere around 700 AD. You say that you do not believe that he ever existed as a real person. The burden of proof is on me.
In this context, I was responding to the claim that undermining the OT also undermines Christianity. The person who made that claim assumed the burden of proof. I merely responded that this is not correct. I was not trying to establish Christianity - I was refuting a claim that it had been undermined by an attack on the OT.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 10:42:44 PM
Quote from: history_geek on February 10, 2012, 09:18:14 PM
But now wait, Jesus claimed divinity based on his connection to the "god" of the OT,namely YHWH. If that connection is taken away, what exactly is making him any different from the gladiators that followed Spartacus and were crucified, or anyone else that me that horrifying fate? I mean he had some good ideas that people Zarathustra had also talked about centuries before, but his divinity hangs on the basis that he was the "Son" part of the trinity. Otherwise he is just another philosopher, albeit one with some delusions of grandeur for thinking himself as a Messiah and "god"...
Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection. Undermining the OT doesn't do the trick. It doesn't matter if he ends up being the Jewish Messiah or not. He claims that he is the Son of God, and that is confirmed by the resurrection (if that occurred). If the OT is destroyed (as the post above implied), then Jewish concepts of Messiahship don't matter, anyway.
Quote"But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32, cf. Mark 12:26, 27, Luke 20:37-38)
Moreover He said, "I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. (Exodus 3:6)
Quote"Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matthew 15:7-9, cf. Mark 7:6, 7)
Therefore the LORD said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men..." (Isaiah 29:13)
http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/2008_09/05
Jesus also makes references to Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, Genesis, and many other books that are in the OT. Another point is that some of the gospels if not all of them (I'm not quite that familiar with the book(s)), point out that he fulfills prophesies mentioned in the OT of the Messiah.
So Jesus is tied to the OT by his hands and legs. That is simply how it is. Once the OT goes out of the door, so does his claim for divinity, and the possible resurrection doesn't change that. Because without the OT account, it has no meaning, since the sins that he supposedly died for were committed against YHWH of OT, the "god" of Abraham.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection. Undermining the OT doesn't do the trick. It doesn't matter if he ends up being the Jewish Messiah or not. He claims that he is the Son of God, and that is confirmed by the resurrection (if that occurred). If the OT is destroyed (as the post above implied), then Jewish concepts of Messiahship don't matter, anyway.
Resurrection means nothing. Several people were resurrected. Does this mean they are all God's sons? Nope.
Christians just cannot seem to get it in their heads. It sort of goes like this...
God, the same god of Christianity, makes several covenants, deals, commandments (what have you) with his "chosen people". These covenants, etc., last for eternity. The Jews have criteria for the Messiah they have been waiting for. Some guy comes along and claims to be or others claim him to be that Messiah. This so called Messiah does not fulfill Jewish requirements for Messiahship. God is not going to dump his covenants with his chosen people. I have gone over this in this discussion board.
Now, a few people take up the cause of this "messiah" and make many miracle claims about him as does the so called messiah as well. But none of the miracle claims proves the alleged messiah is divine, divine from the Jews God, God's son, his mother divine or any of the miracles actually happened. It's no wonder the Jews never believed it.
Enter Paul who preaches his own theology and usurps control from the new Jerusalem church. Even Paul makes mention that if the resurrection never happened, what good are his words?
Of course, this is assuming/presupposing any single itty bitty part of it actually happened and happened just the way the Bible says it does.
If Jesus is connected to the OT in any way (as Christians are so fond of claiming) and the OT can be fairly well trashed (as it has been) then that should cast a very dim light on the NT, if any light at all.
I have talked to a lot of Christian preachers. I've been a confirmed member of 6 different denominations at one time or another, and attended many of the smaller "non-denominational" churches in strip malls. Not once have I heard that Christianity could even exist without the OT. In every case, undermining the entire OT undermines the importance behind the Lamb. OT prophesies played such a large part behind what Matthew and Luke wrote about Jesus. Why was he Jesus of Nazareth but born in Bethlehem? This is why I think there was some guy who got a little popular and whose followers made him a legend. If they just went with the prophesy, why not just name him Jesus of Bethlehem? Why make up some story about a census that historically did not happen?
While some communist named Jesus may have existed, it doesn't prove anything. Yeshua (Joshua) was an extremely common name. There may have been a lot of Jesuses. Every denomination preaches parts of the OT that supports their ideas, and ignores parts that do not. If you take away the OT, the NT doesn't mean anything because the prophesies don't have fulfillment and the Jews don't have their savior. There is a reason most Jews have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah in their prophesies... and the followers of Jesus realized this and had to take their savior to the gentiles to gain any traction. The prophesies mark the messiah as the savior of the Jews. If the OT has any weight, Jesus is not that savior.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
I find it hard to believe that this is true. Even if Jesus did not exist as a specific individual, much less one who rose from the dead, there are still the teachings which must surely be worth something on their own to Xtians, just as the Buddhist teachings would be worth something even if the Buddha did not really exist. Does Xtianity really come down to nothing more than a bet to escape death? (I assume the promise of immortality for followers is the reason the resurrection is such a big deal)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 10:42:44 PM
Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection.
There is no historicity of the resurrection, only myth. For historicity there needs to be evidence.
Quote from: Stevil on February 11, 2012, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 10:42:44 PM
Jesus referred to God as "Father." If he was the Father's Son, his claim to that connection was confirmed by the resurrection. To destroy Christianity, you have to destroy the historicity of the resurrection.
There is no historicity of the resurrection, only myth. For historicity there needs to be evidence.
And who SERIOUSLY believes in zombies? :) I don't.
So you see, critical Biblical study goes much deeper than the usual Christian apologetic type of study such as looking for and making up false prophecies like the Isiah 53 stuff. An example of shoddy study:
http://www.thingstocome.org/silence.htm
Deals with Paul's commands that women should be silent in church - I Corinthians 14: 34-37
After what seems much thoughtful study into the Greek language to find terms for "laleo" ("to speak,") or "sigao" ("be mute"), for example, the end result in the summary is:
QuoteOf course, while doing any of these things, they should be careful to observe the instructions our Lord has given regarding the exercise of spiritual gifts, including those that relate specifically to women.
Where is the problem? Well, the "Lord" didn't say that...Paul does. Then, on top of that, some scholars consider verses 34 and 35 interpolations. And the website uses the Bible in other areas to prove the Bible meanings it is studying. Still, after all that the author comes to his own conclusions to shore up his belief system. So where is the critical study in that webpage? I couldn't find it either.
Quote from: Gawen on February 11, 2012, 12:22:00 PM
So you see, critical Biblical study goes much deeper than the usual Christian apologetic type of study such as looking for and making up false prophecies like the Isiah 53 stuff. An example of shoddy study:
http://www.thingstocome.org/silence.htm
Deals with Paul's commands that women should be silent in church - I Corinthians 14: 34-37
After what seems much thoughtful study into the Greek language to find terms for "laleo" ("to speak,") or "sigao" ("be mute"), for example, the end result in the summary is:
QuoteOf course, while doing any of these things, they should be careful to observe the instructions our Lord has given regarding the exercise of spiritual gifts, including those that relate specifically to women.
Where is the problem? Well, the "Lord" didn't say that...Paul does. Then, on top of that, some scholars consider verses 34 and 35 interpolations. And the website uses the Bible in other areas to prove the Bible meanings it is studying. Still, after all that the author comes to his own conclusions to shore up his belief system. So where is the critical study in that webpage? I couldn't find it either.
'
And that's one of the things that has always made me scratch my head. Why are the alleged letters of Paul and the others equally treated as the word of "god" along with the other books of the OT and NT, when it's rather obvious that they are just writing their own opinions? Further more, wasn't it that only prophets could pass down "the word of god", because of their special connection or whatever phrase they use to imply that they have a phone line to upstairs? And wasn't John the Baptist the last prophet according to the NT? ???
On the other hand, if we think that they were included to the cannon because of political motivations and agendas of the rulers of a certain empire....
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 11, 2012, 03:06:22 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
I find it hard to believe that this is true. Even if Jesus did not exist as a specific individual, much less one who rose from the dead, there are still the teachings which must surely be worth something on their own to Xtians, just as the Buddhist teachings would be worth something even if the Buddha did not really exist. Does Xtianity really come down to nothing more than a bet to escape death? (I assume the promise of immortality for followers is the reason the resurrection is such a big deal)
His teaching might not be so lose much of their meaning, apart from those that require him to be what he claims: the son of "god" or "god" in physical form, who through death and and resurrection cleanses mankind of its sins against a specific "god". And when you take that out, as I said, he is little more then another philosopher who taught much of the same things in the centuries before him. But the irony is that most of those ideas, like the golden rule, are still pretty much ignored by most believers, who instead focus on his "divinity" and promise of an eternal after life....
Quote from: history_geek on February 11, 2012, 02:48:41 PM
His teaching might not be so lose much of their meaning, apart from those that require him to be what he claims: the son of "god" or "god" in physical form, who through death and and resurrection cleanses mankind of its sins against a specific "god". And when you take that out, as I said, he is little more then another philosopher who taught much of the same things in the centuries before him. But the irony is that most of those ideas, like the golden rule, are still pretty much ignored by most believers, who instead focus on his "divinity" and promise of an eternal after life....
Then it may well actually improve Xtianity to take the divinity out and leave only the philosophy so that people can concentrate on that rather than the selfish and questionable goal of personal immortality.
Quote from: history_geek on February 11, 2012, 12:10:29 AM
So Jesus is tied to the OT by his hands and legs. That is simply how it is. Once the OT goes out of the door, so does his claim for divinity, and the possible resurrection doesn't change that. Because without the OT account, it has no meaning, since the sins that he supposedly died for were committed against YHWH of OT, the "god" of Abraham.
Jesus was born into the world of the OT and had to deal with the OT because it was the prevailing world view among his people. But the resurrection stands on its own. Are you serious in your statement that without the OT a resurrection has no meaning? A real resurrection means that there is hope of eternal life, irrespective of Jewish messiahs or original sin. It means that someone conquered death, and offers the same hope to us. It doesn't matter that early Jewish Christians interpreted the resurrection in terms of the OT. We are not bound by the OT 2000 years later. But if the resurrection occurred, then we have to deal with what that means, and it means that there is hope for the same thing to happen to us. To me, that's a hope worth investing in. And if the means to appropriating the reality of resurrection for myself is faith, that's pretty good news.
Regarding the evidence for the resurrection, stevil, we have the same evidence that we do for many historical events - someone's testimony. You have that of Paul and that of John, both of whom claim to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Take it or leave it.
And gawen's statement that "many people were resurrected" reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus' resurrection. It wasn't a resuscitation like that of Lazarus or Jairus' daughter - it was a conquest of death. So, again, take it or leave it. But don't misinterpret it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 12, 2012, 03:26:08 AM
Quote from: history_geek on February 11, 2012, 12:10:29 AM
So Jesus is tied to the OT by his hands and legs. That is simply how it is. Once the OT goes out of the door, so does his claim for divinity, and the possible resurrection doesn't change that. Because without the OT account, it has no meaning, since the sins that he supposedly died for were committed against YHWH of OT, the "god" of Abraham.
Jesus was born into the world of the OT and had to deal with the OT because it was the prevailing world view among his people. But the resurrection stands on its own. Are you serious in your statement that without the OT a resurrection has no meaning? A real resurrection means that there is hope of eternal life, irrespective of Jewish messiahs or original sin. It means that someone conquered death, and offers the same hope to us. It doesn't matter that early Jewish Christians interpreted the resurrection in terms of the OT. We are not bound by the OT 2000 years later. But if the resurrection occurred, then we have to deal with what that means, and it means that there is hope for the same thing to happen to us. To me, that's a hope worth investing in. And if the means to appropriating the reality of resurrection for myself is faith, that's pretty good news.
Regarding the evidence for the resurrection, stevil, we have the same evidence that we do for many historical events - someone's testimony. You have that of Paul and that of John, both of whom claim to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Take it or leave it.
And gawen's statement that "many people were resurrected" reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus' resurrection. It wasn't a resuscitation like that of Lazarus or Jairus' daughter - it was a conquest of death. So, again, take it or leave it. But don't misinterpret it.
First of all, yes, I was and am serious when I say that without the OT the death and resurrection of Jesus have no meaning, because it is the will of the OT "god" that this all happens. That is what the scripture says, as far as I can understand it. Without that context, that meaning, his resurrection is no more "special" then those of any other claimed ones.
And as for "evidence of the resurrection", eye witness testimonies are not alone sufficient evidence. As has been many times noted, that also holds true in the court of law, where an eyewitness testimony is considered as the most unreliable pieces of evidence. It this wasn't the case, archaeology might be in trouble every time it brings up other evidence that might contradict these testimonies that until then have been considered as cold hard facts. And as I like to say, only religions sell absolutes. Geology, and all history related fields, are based upon science which doesn't give absolute answers to everything, but gives us the most accurate answers based upon the evidence presented. With noting but religious scriptures to go by, the story of Jesus and his miracle re-birth have very little credibility.
But if we agreed that eyewitness testimonies were sufficient, stand-alone evidence that require nothing else to support them, what about these other guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_god#List_of_life-death-rebirth_deities
Wouldn't it mean that all of these guys are just as true as Jesus, and have just as much claim to divinity? If not, why? And how wouldn't you be playing the favor game , where you ignore the other in favor of one that you want to be true? Besides, there is no method to test personal experiences to verify their accuracy with reality. Well, maybe brain scans, but....
Lastly, I do not consider it "misinterpretation" to disagree with you interpretation, especially when all subjective interpretations are of equal value when it comes to religious scriptures.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 12, 2012, 03:26:08 AM
Regarding the evidence for the resurrection, stevil, we have the same evidence that we do for many historical events - someone's testimony. You have that of Paul and that of John, both of whom claim to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Take it or leave it.
There were no eye witnesses. He was supposedly buried in a tomb and then someone found the tomb empty. So the exciting event was missed.
Historical events have other evidences, birth certificates, death certificates, government records. Some historical events have evidence in the rocks or fossils.
If we are to take knowledge from the account of two eyewitnesses, then we must accept alien abductions, big foot, loch-ness, ghosts, fairies all to be true.
I have read somewhere that there is significantly more evidence for the Roswell incident than there is for the resurrection, hence going by that standard you must accept that aliens crashed at Roswell.
Quote from: history_geek
Lastly, I do not consider it "misinterpretation" to disagree with you interpretation, especially when all subjective interpretations are of equal value when it comes to religious scriptures.
...and religious experiences.
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubA real resurrection means that there is hope of eternal life, irrespective of Jewish messiahs or original sin.
A "real" resurrection? And your evidence is that of a person whom never met Jesus except in a vision and another who wrote decades after the event?
QuoteIt means that someone conquered death, and offers the same hope to us.
Even if one single solitary person was brought back to life after 3 days dead...2000 years ago...what possible difference could it make to anyone, especially since no one has been brought back from death agter being dead 3 days since?
QuoteIt doesn't matter that early Jewish Christians interpreted the resurrection in terms of the OT. We are not bound by the OT 2000 years later.
I have already explained to you (and others) how wrong you are.
QuoteAnd if the means to appropriating the reality of resurrection for myself is faith, that's pretty good news.
It would seen that for those who have had this faith for the last 2000 years has faith misplaced.
QuoteRegarding the evidence for the resurrection, stevil, we have the same evidence that we do for many historical events - someone's testimony.
And it hasn't gotten anyone very far, has it?
QuoteYou have that of Paul and that of John, both of whom claim to be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Take it or leave it.
The evidence is spurious in the case of Paul, who used the early stories to his own greed and theology. John is so far removed from any actual evidence that his mystic Jesus rivals that of astrology.
Quote
And gawen's statement that "many people were resurrected" reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus' resurrection. It wasn't a resuscitation like that of Lazarus or Jairus' daughter - it was a conquest of death.
Either a person is dead and resurrected from death or he/she isn't. There is no difference from any of the several resurrections proclaimed in the NT. Either that, or the laws of physics were different around the years 30CE.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 10, 2012, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 10, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
And once you destroy Yahweh and the OT, I think you take away the foundation upon which the gods of Christianity and Islam are built.
Well, maybe you undermine the fundamentalist construct of Christianity this way, but Christianity itself rests upon the events of Jesus' life, especially the crucifixion/resurrection. To truly destroy Christianity, you would have to prove either that Jesus didn't exist historically, or at least that the crucifixion/resurrection account is false.
No Bruce, I think you're wrong as everyone else on this forum is saying. The point is that Jesus' claim to divinity is that he's the son of Yahweh, the god of the Israelites / Judahites / Jews. Jesus makes it clear in the gospels that the god of the OT is his father. Destroy that god and you destroy Jesus' claims to divinity, Jesus is then just the son of a mythical deity, no different from Heracles.
It also seems to me that right from the beginning, Christians have specifically linked the story of Jesus to the Old Testament, believing Jesus supposedly freed people from the laws of the OT and redeemed the 'original sin' of Adam.
Quote from: Stevil on February 03, 2012, 07:07:37 AM
I think it is a very hard read.
The language is aweful, the thou's thy etc
The amount of repetition and the unnecessary babble.
I was in a hotel last week and they had a bible, I had another go at reading it but really only got to page 3 or 4. It is such an awful ready.
"Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
6 And Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh.
7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters.
8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.
9 And Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan.
10 Then Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years after he became the father of Kenan, and he had other sons and daughters.
11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years, and he died.
12 And Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel.
13 Then Kenan lived eight hundred and forty years after he became the father of Mahalalel, and he had other sons and daughters.
14 So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he died.
15 And Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared."
Isn't this just dull, boring and stupid writing. Who can read through this rubbish?
For reasons I'll never understand, all this bland, witless, dull as dust crapola gives Xians a raging hard-on...spiritually speaking.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on February 16, 2012, 02:12:32 AM
Quote from: Stevil on February 03, 2012, 07:07:37 AM
I think it is a very hard read.
The language is aweful, the thou's thy etc
The amount of repetition and the unnecessary babble.
I was in a hotel last week and they had a bible, I had another go at reading it but really only got to page 3 or 4. It is such an awful ready.
"Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. (etc., etc.)
Isn't this just dull, boring and stupid writing. Who can read through this rubbish?
For reasons I'll never understand, all this bland, witless, dull as dust crapola gives Xians a raging hard-on...spiritually speaking.
I've just checked out Asimov's Guide to the Bible from my local library (and nearly wrenched my arm out of its socket carrying both volumes to my car), so I hope in about 3 weeks to have at least some clue.