Why is the Bible even considered in the first place as being foundational for Christianity?

[shawn001]

They are still rewriting different Bibles.

Let's not forget about John Wycliffe or William Tyndale.

William Tyndale was burned at the stake for trying to get the Bible published in English for everyone.

The murderous history of Bible translations

 

[DavidFirth]

They are still rewriting different Bibles.

Let's not forget about John Wycliffe or William Tyndale.

William Tyndale was burned at the stake for trying to get the Bible published in English for everyone.

The murderous history of Bible translations

So you've proved that evil people exist. How insightful.

 

[shawn001]

So you've proved that evil people exist. How insightful.

I am pointing out history, which I believe is insightful. Don't you think history is insightful?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have heard this so often, as if it is supposed to mean anything. OF COURSE it was an easy bet to make that people would scoff at The Bible and Chrisitanity. They are such an easy targets... it would be scarier if there weren't people who scoffed at it, to be honest. As soon as it is the case that there is no one who does any scoffing any longer, it is my belief that humanity will have lost all credibility, and probably all of our utility to ourselves and the universe at large with it.

I honestly picture the writers of The Bible sitting around at one point saying: "You know... a lot of people just aren't going to buy all of this BS, anything you guys can think of to help with that?" And one of them pipes up with an absolutely brilliant idea: "I know, you put in a line saying God/we/whoever already knew they were going to reject it, and therefore their objections will PROVE the validity of the text!" Then there are high fives all around as they all grin like trolls.

Throughout the Bible, references abound stating that people would scoff, reject, etc. It seems like it's more a clever disclaimer designed to retain believers, and discouraging critical thought and examination on the whole affair. Basically put, it implies that a person must not question it critically, but just believe it, because that's what the Bible says.

I noticed that those types of dismissive passage's are intentionally put and written that way to reinforce a sense of credibility using a form of reverse psychology to which if people scoff, people therefore must hate it because it's being scoffed at and a personal sense of defense comes into play.

It's a type of victimization played out that's notably different than the arguments and debates commonly associated with peer review concerning supporting or unsupported fact.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There's quite a few theories pertaining to the Bible's authorship and compilation.

http://listverse.com/2014/09/08/10-theories-about-who-really-wrote-the-bible/

 

[arthra]

No one even knows who first wrote it. It could have been written by anybody, anytime, anywhere. There is no established/known authorship for each individual book within the Bible either. Guessing game? The Bible is not a two thousand year old book as some claim it to be.

Thanks for your post "nowhere man"!

My view is that that while the authorship of the Bible may not be clear it still represents a record of over a thousand years of revelatory experiences.. Admittedly it has been translated and gone through a transition from verbal to literary stages and passed into a variety of cultures and meanings.. still it remains the classic statement of Western civilization and a source of our spiritual culture. I took a course when I was in University entitled "The Bible as Literature" and learned a good deal.. I would also recommend studying the languages in which the Bible was written to learn more about the meanings of scripture. George Lamsa translated the Bible from Aramaic and explains many of the terms used in scripture and suggests that Aramaic idiom holds a key to better understanding of the Bible. I recommend the Lamsa translation to you:

Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text: George M. Lamsa's Translation From the Aramaic of the Pe****ta: George M. Lamsa: 9780060649234: Amazon.com: Books

 

[DavidFirth]

I am pointing out history, which I believe is insightful. Don't you think history is insightful?

Makes me wonder why men keep making the same mistakes over and over on larger scales.

 

[omega2xx]

I had considered the abortion issue a derail. I didn't plan on going into the issue. But the more I think about it the more I think it goes to the heart of the OP. So I will go into it a bit more. Although I still think the issue should be it's own thread. But I don't care enough to start one, as the pro-abortion people get tiresome with their bad science and the anti-abortion get tiresome with their fake scriptures.

What is tiresome is the pro-death folks like you, saying our Scriptures are fake. To make my point, post the fake Scriptures and explain why they are fake,. With my prophecy hat on, I predict you will not do this.

I don't think murder is a useful term in the discussion, because it's too subjective. As was pointed out:

Here is your first problem. Murders is not subjective, i t is very specific---it is a premeditated killing

murder is in the eye of the beholder.

Your hold gets deeper.

]Abortion is, of course, homicide.

Not exactly. Homicide only refers to killing. Killing can be accidental or premeditated. When it is premeditated it is murder.

A human being choosing death for another human being. But some are totally prolife. My mother would have died years before I was born if surgical abortion weren't available in the early 50s. I also know a woman who got a late term abortion to get even with the baby's father over something else. I, personally, consider that a murder. Except that it was legal, even though she had to fly to another state because it wasn't legal in the state they lived in.

Abortion is legalized murder.

Two ends of a huge spectrum, with a gigantic gray area in between. I don't claim to know which feticides qualify as murder and which are justifiable homicide. Nor do I think that you can.

Let me help you. Murder is premeditated' abortion is premeditated, abortion is murder.

And the Bible is no help.

It is if you understand it.

People interpret the Bible to mean what they want It to mean. Even when a simple and clear reading of a competent translation doesn't say what they want it to mean. Which is what you are doing here, and anti-abortion people often do. You are superimposing your opinion on the Bible, when the authors didn't say what you want to believe. Religious people do that quite commonly. They strongly believe something, and reinterpret Scriptures to support the belief even when it isn't actually there.
Like abortion.

Some do, conservative Christians do not.

]People reinterpreting Scriptures to support what they want to believe, rather than what It obviously says, is why I don't see that the Bible is really the foundation of Christian theology.

You do not understand the Bible well enough to make such a statement.

Christianity is a variation of Judaism, designed by Saul of Tarsus mainly, to appeal to a Greco-Roman pagan audience. Jewish Scriptures flatly deny the possibility of a "Son of God", or a New Covenant, or a Triune pantheon of persons of God, or Original Sin, Heaven and Hell, or a host of the other fundamental teachings of Christianity. Those teachings just aren't there. Believe whatever you want, but the Original Testament doesn't support Christian theology at all.

Not true. Thanks for validating the statement I just made.

The Bible is not the foundation of Christianity. It doesn't support much of any of the basic Christian teachings.

Thanks again for reinforcing my statement that you do not understand the
Bible and now I will include you don't understand Christianity either.

]PS ~If you want to talk more about an atheist prolifers position I will be happy to do so. But it probably needs a new thread~

I have had my say. If anyone wants to jump in with their say, it is an open forum.

 

[omega2xx]

Irrelevant. Selling a child is selling a child, clearly a biblical principle if the terms of how to do it are spelled out.

The point is the reason for selling it and that it was not a permanent condition, as I explained.

I notice that you chose to evade the comment about capturing the children of defeated enemies. Good choice again - unless somebody notices and comment on it.

If I did it was inadvertent. Post it again and I will comment on it.

If you're going to be a bad faith disputant, expect to have it made explicit.

If you can make it more specific,do so.

Read it again. That scripture is about the pregnant woman.

Use the context, which includes the penalty if the child is killed.

You evaded yet another rebuttal, the one cataloguing 13 translations that contradict you. No comment at all from you on that.

I didn't evade it. I mentioned that you conveniently omitted verse 23 which includes the death penalty if the child dies. By not explaining why you did that, it is you who has evaded my comment.

That was probably the best tactic. There was always the hope that nobody would notice or comment, and the issue would just go away forgotten.

I am sure other with a better reading comprehension noticed I did reply and that you have not address why you omitted v23

I don't think that there is much mystery why you chose to do so, but feel free to clarify if you can.

I have done my part. Now it is time for you to do yours.

The oral tradition is that abortion is proscribed in Christianity. It has no biblical support.

I gave you the Biblical support and the Bible is written at about a 10th grade reading comprehension level. If you can't understand it, don't blame the 'Bible.

 

[David T]

Considering the notably strong dependency and reliance on an unsupported written text,. It's not far fetched at all to see Christianity as being nothing other than a literary cult.

It's simply amazing how people just accept a completely unsupported text at face value, without ever considering its source and origin proper before committing themselves, effectively making the Bible a superficial work without a basis of origin to go by of which it's content can be traced back to its source.

Now we are getting into an area that is never discussed here generally speaking and that is how are perceptions formed and what are the influences. We can look an insane person, have a clear diagnosis, ehere the mind has spun so far inward, it no longer has any contact, except with itself and yet if you flip over to cognitive science, neuro psychology, philosophy, theology, and on and on of all the "ologies" at the accedemic level none really deals directly with that. Individuals may, jung said mental disorders were 90% driven by neurosis, he might be low. But if you step into the accedemic literate domain the whole enviroment is neurotic by its own nature. There is a rather facinating evolution of the term alma mater which btw its modern incarnation are the catholics, the university of bologna, 1094. My degree was the foundational degree "theology" or laws of god, along with "laws" or lawyers of civil society. That eventuallly lead to " laws of nature" or laws of physics. My degree was the original science degree called the queen of science!!!! Ha!!!! Now thats ****ed up and little has changed in 1,000 years in this culture. The clothing changes with each generation, and that becomes each generations "we really know whats going on mantra" when all evidence points that we don't, thats "normal". That said i might have a clue, but i also have "normal" envy!!!! Take the blue pill not the red pill!!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I had considered the abortion issue a derail. I didn't plan on going into the issue. But the more I think about it the more I think it goes to the heart of the OP.

Abortion and same sex marriage were offered as examples of Christian theology without scriptural support to a Christian poster that conservative Christianity had no oral tradition. He's been arguing ever since that his Bible proscribes abortion. I agree with you: That is on topic.

 

[columbus]

Here is your first problem. Murders is not subjective, i t is very specific---it is a premeditated killing

If this is what you believe then we are very much in agreement. In my experience, most conservative Christians are fine with premeditated killing (such as preemptive war, capital punishment, and environmental damage) as long as it is legal. I oppose all those things as well as elective abortion. I am glad to hear that you do also. Kudos.

However, the OP specifically asked us not to do this.

I don't want my thread spin off into an off topic tangent on abortion either.

There are many threads on the abortion topic. Feel free to resurrect one if you want to keep discussing this.
Tom

 

[ronandcarol]

"Nowhere Man, post: 5234658, member: 17642"]No one even knows who first wrote it. It could have been written by anybody, anytime, anywhere. There is no established/known authorship for each individual book within the Bible either. Guessing game?[/B]

You could doubt ANY book you want to. How do you know anything at all is factual? The accounts in the Bible were passed down from generation to generation. The New Testament was written by eye witnesses; people who actually walked and talked and touched Jesus! It all has to be read and taken in and believed in faith. And it even states in the "Bible" that you won't believe a single word of it unless you have the Holy Spirit helping you. (paraphrased a little) It takes faith. It has the power to save your soul.
ronandcarol

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You could doubt ANY book you want to. How do you know anything at all is factual? The accounts in the Bible were passed down from generation to generation. The New Testament was written by eye witnesses; people who actually walked and talked and touched Jesus! It all has to be read and taken in and believed in faith. And it even states in the "Bible" that you won't believe a single word of it unless you have the Holy Spirit helping you. (paraphrased a little) It takes faith. It has the power to save your soul.
ronandcarol

You recommend faith?

Great. By faith, I can believe anything, including that the Bible is a creation of man. Although I didn't come to my present position by faith, by faith I can continue to hold all of my present beliefs with or without a reason for any of them.

Although I am an agnostic atheist, by faith I can believe that there are no gods and convert to strong atheism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You could doubt ANY book you want to. How do you know anything at all is factual? The accounts in the Bible were passed down from generation to generation. The New Testament was written by eye witnesses; people who actually walked and talked and touched Jesus! It all has to be read and taken in and believed in faith. And it even states in the "Bible" that you won't believe a single word of it unless you have the Holy Spirit helping you. (paraphrased a little) It takes faith. It has the power to save your soul.
ronandcarol

Not a single person that is being depicted in the Bible has shown to exercise faith in the manner that it's being defined as it is today. It just dosent help much to reference eyewitness accounts, works based on inspiration, or anything or anyone else for that manner if nobody knows who they even are. It's a reason why the Bible is largely regarded as a work of fiction.

Aside from that nuance with exception made towards how acceptance can somehow be reached based solely on applying principles on faith alone as it applies to the Bible itself, it is in all actuality as a written record, remains as an unsupported literary work with an unknown point of origin leaving no accreditation as to who in particular even authored the compilation of books contained in them nor establishing it's contents through a traceable lineage.

Oral tradition is hideously unreliable, and is evidenced by the many resulting contradictions and subsequent confusion that results from penning accounts from multiple unknown sources into a written compilation. Any sense of accuracy would come after a written record is established, and even that presents issues when more than one author is involved.

Substantiated literature is far different than unsubstantiated literature as it has the proper evidence's by which it's confirmed, traced, and accredited, and as a result presents far more straightforward material as opposed to narratives that conflicts, and creates undue confusion over what it is trying to depict or record to the reader.

The Bible clearly lacks that, and relies entirely on hearsay for it's foundational credibility making its content unconfirmed and credulous at best.

 

[whirlingmerc]

No one even knows who first wrote it. It could have been written by anybody, anytime, anywhere.

There is no established/known authorship for each individual book within the Bible either. Guessing game?

The Bible is not a two thousand year old book as some claim it to be.

Oral tradition has time and time again proven to be unreliable in terms of accuracy no more different than oral recollections are now.

King James had no access to the Dead Sea scrolls. They were found in 1947. Bit of a problem there. Wouldn't you say? Apologists?

God didn't write it. It's not God's word.

So..

It's therefore obvious people themselves not God that also, for some strange reason, remains completely anonymous other than for a collective acknowledgment right out of the blue, that they were definitely people inspired by God. Whoever they were. . .. How does that work?

The New Testament is largely eyewitness testimony or written by someone who talked to eye witnesses

 

[Twilight Hue]

The New Testament is largely eyewitness testimony or written by someone who talked to eye witnesses

It's more a case of allegory concerning eyewitness accounts as it presently stands. What good is saying there are eyewitness if nobody even knows who the eye witnesses are, or where they came from?

 

[shawn001]

It's more a case of allegory concerning eyewitness accounts as it presently stands. What good is saying there are eyewitness if nobody even knows who the eye witnesses are, or where they came from?

Have you ever looked into Zoroastrianism?

"
Zarathustra (in Greek, Zoroaster) was a Persian prophet who at the age of 30 believed he had seen visions of God, whom is Ahura Mazda, the creator of all that is good and who alone is worthy of worship. This was a departure from previous Indo-Persian polytheism, and Zarathustra has been termed the first non-biblical monotheist.

There is disagreement among scholars as to exactly when and where Zarathustra lived, but most agree that he lived in eastern Iran around the sixth century BCE.


Zoroastrianism

Zoroastrian beliefs

Zoroastrian beliefs

"Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." Mary Boyce.


Background:
The religion was founded by Zarathushtra in Persia -- modern-day Iran. It may have been the world's first monotheistic faith. It was once the religion of the Persian empire, but has since been reduced in numbers to fewer than 200,000 today. With the exception of religious conservatives, most religious historians believe the the Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs concerning God and Satan, the soul, heaven and hell, the virgin birth of the savior, the slaughter of the innocents, resurrection, the final judgment, etc. were all derived from Zoroastrianism.

Zorastrianism

 

[omega2xx]

Considering the notably strong dependency and reliance on an unsupported written text,. It's not far fetched at all to see Christianity as being nothing other than a literary cult.

It only seems unsupported by non-believers.

It's simply amazing how people just accept a completely unsupported text at face value, without ever considering its source and origin proper before committing themselves, effectively making the Bible a superficial work without a basis of origin to go by of which it's content can be traced back to its source.

That is the opinion of most Christians about evolutionist accepting the doctrines of Darwin, and his evangelists---FAITH ALONE.

 

[omega2xx]

If this is what you believe then we are very much in agreement. In my experience, most conservative Christians are fine with premeditated killing (such as preemptive war, capital punishment, and environmental damage) as long as it is legal. I oppose all those things as well as elective abortion. I am glad to hear that you do also. Kudos.

However, the OP specifically asked us not to do this.

There are many threads on the abortion topic. Feel free to resurrect one if you want to keep discussing this.
Tom

You still do not understand "premeditated." Defending our self from the one who starts the war in not premeditated and it is not murder. Cap;ital punishment is killing, not murder and God established the punishment for murder(Gen 9:6). To equate harming the environment with murder is absurd.