Why is the Bible wrong?

by StinkyPantz 108 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • seedy3
    seedy3

    Hooberus,

    The accounts of the lives of these gods are very mythical, whereas the accounts given in the new Testament are written in the historical.

    I misunderstood your point, and with that out look I can agree. Most religous writtings were not in book form, with the exception of the Book of the dead from egypt, but that book really didn't deal with historical data, it was more or less a rule book and what you do if something goes wrong type book. Most of the rest of the writings were in poetry and song, not in a "Story" or "Novel" form like the OT was.

    Yes the gospels were not written by Paul, as well as the others you mentioned, that I fully agree with and I think most scholars as well do. But that does not keep it from being Paulien Christianity, most books of the bible (NT) were not discovered or I should say used until later in the 2nd century, with the exception of some of Paul's letters (the Gospel of Mark is also date to the later half of the first century circa 65-75ad). As peacefulpete said Paul and the other writers of the NT books did not quote from the Gospels. An interesting quote from the Sierra Reference Encyclopedia is as follows:

    Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of theNew Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and a Greek convert named John.

    Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever.

    The beginning of Christianity stands two figures: Jesus and Paul. Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of their religion, in that the events of his life comprise the foundation story of Christianity; but Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time. The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism and converted to Christ. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion

    Now many of the books atributed to even Paul are not by him, they were written by someone else and given his name. The only books that are a match to having been written by Paul are I Corinthians, Romans, II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Galatians, Philemon, and Philippians.

    Now the gospels...... they are another work of fraud, none of them were written by anyone that knew Jesus, The book of Luke is in acutallity a copy of the Gospel Of the Lord with some editing, the Gospel of truth was written by Marcion who was considered a heritic, but in actuality it appears he had a profound infulence on Christianity as well as Paul. His influence is still being debated however. here is a link to his gospel and a comaprison of the 2 gospels (Luke and Lord) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/Library.html

    The Gospel of Mark is the ealries known, but some argue that Matthew was earlier. Mark has been shown to have been edited, the verses after chapter 16 verse 8, have been added and are not found in the earliest copies, so it really makes me wonder what else has been changed. Aside from that Mark never met Jesus.

    Matthew really doen't show up on the scene until about the begining of the 3nd century, but there is a reference to it by Eusibeus speaking of Paipius in the early 2nd century refering to Matthew, but this is debated hotly and the Matthew paipius refers to is thought to be the Gospel of the Hebrews not the gospel we now know as Matthew.

    John........ This quote sums it up best for most of the gospels:

    "As with the synoptics, the real name of the author of John is unknown. Certain similarities between the gospel, letters and Apocalypse that now bear that name led the early Christians to imagine that they had been the work of a single author; and since the redactor of Apocalypse had called himself Ioannes, that name was attached to the unsigned works also. In fact, while the author of Apocalypse had been a Jew whose Greek (Koine) left a lot to be desired, the author of John was a native Greek whose handling of that language was skilled and erudite."
    - William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus

    John is also considered very anti-semitic in many circles, but that is another topic.

    Seedy

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    I'd like to answer some textual issues brought up here.

    peaceful pete said:

    "hooberus...No paul did not write the gospels. The 4 (4 chosen to represent the Pythaorean oncept of completeness according to church fathers) were selected from the 80 or so Gospels circulating in the second century and edited after the Pauline letters were written and eventually accepted. Howmany times did Paul quote from them? none. How many times did he refer to them? none."

    If the fact that Paul never quotes from or refers to the 4 Gospels proves that the Gospels did not exist prior to Pauls letters, then the opposite could also be proven: The fact that the 4 Gospels never quote from or refer to the letters of Paul proves that Pauls letters did not exist prior to the Gospels. If the same argument can be used to prove both then its no argument against either.

    peacefulpete said:

    "The only time he "quotes" Jesus it is a verse not in the Gospels. Of course the last supper allusion might be viewed as an exeption except that the only place it is found is in Luke 22:19,20, and these verse do not appear in the oldest copies of Luke.. It was added late perhaps in the 4th century to corroborate Paul's claim that Jesus instituted a Paganesque Eucharist."

    "All the early MSS except D testify to the presence of Luke 22:19b-20 in the account of the Last Supper" Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, 1990 edition p.99

    Luke 22:19-20 is found in P75, Aleph, A, B, C, L,T,W

    P75 is dated c.200 , thus Luke 22:19,20 is found in the oldest manuscript of this section of Luke as well as all other early manuscripts except D which is much later than P75.

  • Phil
    Phil

    In this year 2003 it is hard to believe that the Bible has been written without error. To date there has never been found an original manuscript of the Bible.All everyone has ever had are translations of translations of translations and copies of copies of copies.Before the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, no two translations were ever alike. THe production of books, or translations was exceedingly slow ans erroneous. Translators made many mistakes.

    To have an infallible Bible, the oral tradition would have had to be passed down "infallibly" after having been "infallibly" started followed by thousands of infallible translators and thousands of "infallible" interpreters or "infallible" readers to "infallible" interpreter etc.

    Then we can consider the various hundreds of Bibles available today you may ask which one is the infallible one assuming you can read infallibly.

    You can spend your entire life reading all the documentation there is in the world in search of "THE" religion and you will be more confused than before you started.

    If you make it simple and choose any run of the mill religion, remove the doctrine they epose and live your life by what you have left you will do ok. If you think God is going to help you if you pray to him you are living an illusion. You and you alone can control your destiny by seeking out your own soul that is present in all of us. Once you have found it you will be the happier for it.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    hooberus...I'm sorry I spoke from memory as I should know better. The Luke 22:19,20 pericope is not found in the Benzae Codices NOR any old Latin texts from the 2nd to 4th centuries. Additionally the passage uses words and phases found nowhere else in Luke or Acts. It is the only verse in Luke that implies a substitutionary sacrifice for sins. These unique characteristics coupled with early manuscript exclusion are evidence of late insertion. For this reason most recognise it as a likely addition to the text. This is why the Revised Standard traslation for example includes the passage only as a footnote. There is no excuse for my mistake. It does not however change the point that this text is doubtfull original to Luke. Some of my comment was recalling other alterations in the text that occured during the late third and early fourth century that can be identified with certainty yet are not widely known to be alterations by believers. Changes that reflected changing church views on Jesus parentage and ressurection. But this was another topic entirely. Again I apologise for my dating error. Apparently the addition to Luke occurred around 200-225 ce (dating for P75) and then was retained only in certain manuscripts, as it was not recognised by the Benzae or Latin manuscript writers.

    Edited by - peacefulpete on 16 February 2003 2:10:55

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    hooberus...No authority I've seen suggests that the Gospels were written before Paul's letters. The Gospels do evidence a changing theology developing from Jewish to Hellenistic. This is too great a topic for this forum, but your comment seemed to suggest that Paul's writting did not influence the Gospel stories. The evidence I, and most researchers, believe says different. The fact that Paul does not seem at all interested in quoting Gospels for auhority is difficult to dismiss but when reading Paul's letters when see what appears an almost casual indifference to any historical man caled Jesus. His entire theology revolves around mysteries and secrets apparently unknown to the Apostles. How much of Christianity is actually from the Gospels? Arguably very little. Today in fact "Paul only" Churches abound. They contend that only the books of Paul (dismissing Hebrews generally) apply to Gentile Christians. Do their doctrines greatly differ from those of say the Baptists or Methodists? Very little. This is because Paul created Christianity as we know the word today. Christianity does not require the Gospels at all. They were no doubt compiled by early Christians seeking to attatch a "history" to their new cult. They did this by melding something old (pagan savior myth) with something new (First century Jewish Messianism). Read the books suggested you to learn this for yourself. And to become more familiar with the methods of textural analysis employed.

    Edited by - peacefulpete on 16 February 2003 1:36:55

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    seedy said:
    "The gospels wer not written by anyone that KNEW Jesus, that is virtually a proven fact. The only writings that are known to have existed prior to about 150ad were some of the letters that were wrote by Paul and his followers, nothing more. There is an arguement that mark may have been written in the 1st century, but if it had been it was not public knowlege as the 2nd century leaders never refer to it at all until after about 150ad."

    Testimony of Early Fathers:

    Clement of Rome (A.D. 95) quoted from: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44

    Ignatius (A.D. 70-110) quoted from: Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Collossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, James, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44

    Testimony of Early Manuscript Evidence:

    The discovery of papyrus 52 dated c.110-125 proves that the Gospel of John was already circulating as far away as Egypt early in the second century. And since mostly everyone agrees that John was the last Gospel to be written; then Mark, Matthew, and Luke, were alredy in circulation in the first century.

    "In recent discussions about P52, scholars tend to date it closer to 100 than to 125 (see Aland, 85-87) . . . Its greatest value is its early date, for it testifies to the fact that the autograph of John's Gospel must have been written before the close of the first century." Early manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament p. 56

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    peacefulpete said:

    "hooberus...I'm sorry I spoke from memory as I should know better. The Luke 22:19,20 pericope is not found in the Benzae Codices NOR any old Latin texts from the 2nd to 4th centuries.

    Manuscript P75 (c. 200) is 250 years older than Benzae (c.450). Also Aleph, A, B are older too, though not by nearly as much as P75.

    The greek manuscript situation in Luke 22:19,20 is similar to the situation with Luke 24:3; Luke 24:12; Luke 24:36; Luke 24:40; and Luke 24:52 in which manuscript D with its ommissions stands against all other early MSS. All the omissions in D in these verses are found in older MSS such as P75, Aleph, A, and B. Benzae is however supported in these omissions by a "few Old Latin MSS" (Luke 24:3; 24:36) as well as "some early versions" (Luke 24:12; Luke 24:40; 24:52). But based on Greek manuscript evidence Luke 22:19,20 is original.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    peacefulpete said:

    "The fact that Paul does not seem at all interested in quoting Gospels for auhority is difficult to dismiss but when reading Paul's letters when see what appears an almost casual indifference to any historical man caled Jesus."

    Read Pauls gospel summary in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. It presents Jeusus as being just as historical as "Cephas", "five hundred brethren", "James", "all the apostles", and Paul himself !!

  • seedy3
    seedy3
    Testimony of Early Fathers:

    Clement of Rome (A.D. 95) quoted from: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44

    Ignatius (A.D. 70-110) quoted from: Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Collossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, James, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44

    Well I really question if that is fully true, in the book Formation of the New Testiment, this is what is said about the above statements:

    Clement, c. 100 CE. Greek Old Testament used as scripture. Numerous allusions to gospels, Pauline epistles, Acts, Hebrews, but not quoted as scripture. Unknown 'scripture' quoted in 23.3-4 is probably a Jewish Apocalyptic work. Grant, Formation, p. 77f.
    Clement, c. 125 CE. Refers to a saying from a gospel as scripture. In 11.2, quotes same Apocalyptic work as does 1 Clement. Uses Gospel of Thomas; oral tradition. Grant, Formation, p. 83f.

    Ignatius, c. 125 CE. Uses language and images of 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 (-2?) Thessalonians, and 1 Peter; perhaps Gospel of John; does not call them scripture. The only direct quotations are from Proverbs. Grant, Formation, p. 89f.

    So what they do, is give oral tradition, they do not refer to SCRIPTURE as it were. But as well the early church fathers didn't know jesus and if you look at when the usage of what Josh McDowell has called references to schripture, there is quite a span and infact does not support any inclination that the gospels were written by any one that knew Jesus, it just indicates that there was some stuff or knowlege of the traditions. I think earlier we did conclude that some christian writings were written LATE in the 1st century, but long after Jesus, and most any one that would have known him passed on.

    The discovery of papyrus 52 dated c.110-125 proves that the Gospel of John was already circulating as far away as Egypt early in the second century. And since mostly everyone agrees that John was the last Gospel to be written; then Mark, Matthew, and Luke, were alredy in circulation in the first century.

    Unfortunatly, I do not have time to go into this one right now, I will post on it tomorrow, as I do have information about this subject.

    Seedy

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Human sexual biology proves the Bible is not inspired by god, or if it is, he's a mean bastard.

    1/ Homosexuality is a bad thing in the Bible

    Homosexuality is at least half in genes, according to studies. Other pre-natal factors are also involved. It's not a life-style choice, so punishing people for following their natural inclinations (in a safe sane and consensual way) would be very strange.

    2/ The Bible support monogamy.

    Human males seperated from their female partners, even if they have sex or masturbate whilst away, will ejaculate far more the first time they have sex on their return. This is apparently to overwhelm any other guys sperm. If we our biology supports promiscuity, and the Bible says it's bad, then it cannot come from god unless god likes punishing people for doiung what is natural.

    Is there need for any more proof that the Bible is just another book, and not the literal and complete word of god?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit