Pages: 1 2

 

2009-04-30 06:29:34
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6723|CH/BR - in UK

So I just finished this book - one that was written by a former evangelical, who dissects the Bible, and takes historical and literal approaches to finding contradictions. He tries to piece together what the Bible really means, and among this he discovered there were discrepancies as follows:

Heaven and Hell was not properly introduced until 300 years after the Bible was written. There was the idea of an apocalyptic reckoning, where god would judge you, and based on that you'd be resurrected, and there would be heaven on earth. There was also an idea of reincarnation in the Bible that was later removed.

Jesus was not actually god until a century after the bible was written. He was considered human by the Jews, who were the first followers of the Christian religion. He was considered half human by the Romans, who believed in myths such as Herakles - born of god, half god, half human. Furthermore, there are many arguments that the holy trinity clashes with the idea of only one god.

Lastly - that is to say, the last of my points for now, I may bring up more as I remember them - there are large discrepancies on whether or not you should follow Jewish law (kosher, circumcision etc.), believe in Christ, or simply be a good person to be ok with god.

I thought this was really interesting. Having been an atheist for 6 years, I sort of - I guess the term would be "became" an agnostic over the last year, and this book is actually pushing me more towards Christianity rather than away from it.

What do you guys think about this?

-kon
2009-04-30 07:38:22
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6326|what

konfusion wrote:

Heaven and Hell was not properly introduced until 300 years after the Bible was written.
The idea of "heaven and hell", "light vs dark" and "good vs bad" existed centuries before the Bible was written. When you piece together a lot of the influences on the bible you can see how heavily borrowed the religion is of others.

Take Zoroastrianism for example:

* There is one universal and transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, the one Uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed.

    * Ahura Mazda's creation—evident as asha, truth and order—is the antithesis of chaos, evident as druj, falsehood and disorder. The resulting conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the conflict.

    * Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.

    * Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over evil Angra Mainyu / Ahriman, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end (cf: Zoroastrian eschatology). In the final renovation, all of creation—even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to "darkness"—will be reunited in Ahura Mazda returning to life in the undead form. At the end of time a savior-figure [a Saoshyant] will bring about a final renovation of the world, and in which the dead will be revived.

    * There will then be a final purgation of evil from the Earth (through a tidal wave of molten metal) and a purgation of evil from the heavens (through a cosmic battle of spiritual forces). In the end good will triumph, and each person will find himself or herself transformed into a spiritualized body and soul. Those who died as adults will be transformed into healthy adults of forty years of age, and those who died young will find themselves permanently youthful, about age fifteen. In these new spiritual bodies, humans will live without food, without hunger or thirst, and without weapons (or possibility of bodily injury). The material substance of the bodies will be so light as to cast no shadow. All humanity will speak a single language and belong to a single nation without borders. All will experience immortality (Ameretat) and will share a single purpose and goal, joining with the divine for a perpetual exaltation of God’s glory.

    * In Zoroastrian tradition the malevolent is represented by Angra Mainyu (also referred to as "Ahriman"), the "Destructive Principle", while the benevolent is represented through Ahura Mazda's Spenta Mainyu, the instrument or "Bounteous Principle" of the act of creation. It is through Spenta Mainyu that transcendental Ahura Mazda is immanent in humankind, and through which the Creator interacts with the world. According to Zoroastrian cosmology, in articulating the Ahuna Vairya formula Ahura Mazda made His ultimate triumph evident to Angra Mainyu.
You have a heaven and hell, an end of days apocalypse and a single God - Ahura Mazda. This religion has been traced back up to a thousand years before the "birth of Christ".

If you think a book that talks about discrepancies brings you closer to Christianity, the bible is certainly full of them.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-04-30 08:58:33
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6723|CH/BR - in UK

I know that the Bible is full of discrepancies, that was my point. The reason for the "virgin birth" of Jesus was to confirm a prophecy through Jesus. A lot of facts were tweaked to make Jesus fit into those shoes. My point is that I find it easier to believe with these discrepancies than having the set story that is told. Like the story of Bethlehem - most likely never happened.

Is there no one interested in discussing this at all? xD

-kon
2009-04-30 09:18:50
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6716|Texas - Bigger than France
A lot of people point at the bible and utter "it is written".

"It is written" doesn't mean it's exact.  It's a guide, a ever-changing guide.  Most of what's there is up to interpretation.  The tenants or similarities is what's supposed to be "the truth".

In other words, the bible is not literal, although plenty of people will argue it is.
2009-04-30 09:33:39
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6774|132 and Bush

Many Christians came to the conclusion that the bible is allegorical... around the 1600's.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-04-30 09:38:57
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6703|Global Command
Lot's of virgin births.

Cool map.
2009-04-30 09:48:54
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6168|Truthistan
Take the ten commandments

you get
Exodus --> 20:3 Do not have any other gods before me.
Deuteronomy --> 5:7 you shall have no other gods before me
Exodus  --> 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

These are three examples. the first two say you shall not have any God BEFORE me. Before me does not exclude Gods after me. That would seem to indicated that you could have a hierarchy of Gods like the Greeks with Zeus. In third it says no other God... indicating only one God

Now the church has a number of angels who are probably just lesser gods including the devil who was cast out. The devil is similar to Hades, a lesser God to Zeus.

It would seem to me that the Church used the religious/cultural practices already established to win converts and then tried to move to the one and only God. But being close to Mexico angels and saints are still everywhere.

I think historical drift in practices and culture have lead to different writings and that gets you contradictions.
2009-04-30 10:28:40
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6667|N. Ireland

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Take the ten commandments

you get
Exodus --> 20:3 Do not have any other gods before me.
Deuteronomy --> 5:7 you shall have no other gods before me
Exodus  --> 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

These are three examples. the first two say you shall not have any God BEFORE me. Before me does not exclude Gods after me. That would seem to indicated that you could have a hierarchy of Gods like the Greeks with Zeus. In third it says no other God... indicating only one God
But there can be no Gods after God. 1 Timothy 6:15 - "... King of kings and Lord of lords"
2009-04-30 12:42:43
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6723|CH/BR - in UK

Everyone seems to be treating me like an ultra-religious person who only just discovered the Bible wasn't supposed to be taken literally through this book. I was aware of that before, I was just not aware of how much the actual meaning behind it is distorted by a variety of contradictions.

Examples of which are that everyone must worship Jesus at church vs. the one where you can believe in god on your own, or just be a good person. That is one of the main points even the most liberal of Catholics insist on (the former, that is). That you have to go worship god.

I realize it's a guide... Geez. I'm just saying it's interesting that even the core fundamentals of Catholicism have contradictions among themselves.

-kon
2009-04-30 12:47:15
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6703|Global Command
politics
2009-04-30 13:04:12
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6794|London, England

ATG wrote:

Lot's of virgin births.

Cool map.
Yeah, I saw that flash awhile ago, interesting to see how the major religions spread around the world. Specifically Christianity and Islam, such evil imperialistic religions. Christianity is half and half, Missionaries converting people with "miracles" with also a dose of forced conversion (mainly in Northern Europe) not to mention in later stages the "Pope" condoning all sorts of nasty shit.

Islam doing its dirty work via the sword and the Quaran condoning it all. No surprise there.

Makes you wonder just how the ancient non-imperialistic (somewhat, Bhuddism was spread around alot Asia but I doubt in any sort of imperialistic manner) religions like Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism survived in such climates.

I guess it was the Jews who somehow managed to keep their practise alive in little hotspots in Europe and the Middle East despite the odd "setback"

.The Muslims tried to eradicate Hinduism but were only marginally successful as the timeline shows (all they got out of it was Pakistan and Bangladesh), and I guess Bhuddism/the Far East was always sheltered somewhat by the crazy religions, that and Buddhism/Religion never seemed to be a big part of East Asian culture so Christianity/Islam could never take its foothold. I'm sure they tried. I remember hearing about battles between the Arabs and Chinese/Tibetan dynasties in places in and around Kashmir and shit.

In that sense, East Asia is very lucky that the religion that came and managed to blend into its society was, out of all of the religions, Buddhism. And that it wasn't really ever threatened by anything else throughout history.

Anyway I'm just going off on my own tangent here.....rambling on about world religious history....it's obviously all alot more complex than I make it out to be


tl;dr

ATG wrote:

politics
/thread

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-04-30 13:06:19)

2009-04-30 13:47:35
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6703|Global Command
" I guess it was the Jews who somehow managed to keep their practise alive in little hotspots in Europe and the Middle East despite the odd "setback" "


That is one interesting thing about the Jews; they are a rare surviving culture of the bronze age. They are hated for keeping to themselves and fovoring their own kind in business yet perhaps it is these traits that has allowed jews to survive as a culture ( they are not a race ) where other, say the Summarians and Hittites are gone.
2009-04-30 14:07:45
imortal
Member
+240|6838|Austin, TX

kylef wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Take the ten commandments

you get
Exodus --> 20:3 Do not have any other gods before me.
Deuteronomy --> 5:7 you shall have no other gods before me
Exodus  --> 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

These are three examples. the first two say you shall not have any God BEFORE me. Before me does not exclude Gods after me. That would seem to indicated that you could have a hierarchy of Gods like the Greeks with Zeus. In third it says no other God... indicating only one God
But there can be no Gods after God. 1 Timothy 6:15 - "... King of kings and Lord of lords"
Wouldn't a strict anylasis of that passage conclude that God was simply the 'head god.' and not the ONLY god?  I think you assume that "king of kings" has to be referring to mortal kings?  What if those lesser kings were simply other gods, and not referring to mortals at all?

I really cringe when people describe the bible as being 'written by God.'  None of the New Testament can even be placed closer to the time of the life of Jesus than 40 years after his death, including the Acts of the Apostles, which can not even be shown to have been written by the apostles they were named for.

Last edited by imortal (2009-04-30 14:11:18)

2009-04-30 14:25:16
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6168|Truthistan

imortal wrote:

kylef wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Take the ten commandments

you get
Exodus --> 20:3 Do not have any other gods before me.
Deuteronomy --> 5:7 you shall have no other gods before me
Exodus  --> 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

These are three examples. the first two say you shall not have any God BEFORE me. Before me does not exclude Gods after me. That would seem to indicated that you could have a hierarchy of Gods like the Greeks with Zeus. In third it says no other God... indicating only one God
But there can be no Gods after God. 1 Timothy 6:15 - "... King of kings and Lord of lords"
Wouldn't a strict anylasis of that passage conclude that God was simply the 'head god.' and not the ONLY god?  I think you assume that "king of kings" has to be referring to mortal kings?  What if those lesser kings were simply other gods, and not referring to mortals at all?

I really cringe when people describe the bible as being 'written by God.'  None of the New Testament can even be placed closer to the time of the life of Jesus than 40 years after his death, including the Acts of the Apostles, which can not even be shown to have been written by the apostles they were named for.
^^^ Agreed

To me king of kings and lord of lords would mean that even kings and lords on earth bow to God. As does no other gods before me means that other gods bow to God.

It would have been very easy to write "no other god but me" "no other god exists but me" or "I am the sole god" as in Exodus but it doesn't, it says no others before me and that brings to mind a line where God is first in line, and doesn't exclude what follows after or behind god. It just means he is "numero uno"

To me one of the mysteries is where do angels fit? they must be the lesser gods like the greeks had.
2009-04-30 14:38:13
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6723|CH/BR - in UK

Oh yeah, about the Angels - I feel like the religion evolved in the sense that with emperors around, it was ok to have just one authority figure. Then, with nobility, there was a necessity for a second group of authority. Waiting for a democratic heaven here ^^

-kon
2009-04-30 15:05:52
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6696|...

The religion of Gnostan lacks these contradictions
2009-04-30 19:45:23
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6888|US
What was the title of the book?
2009-04-30 19:48:09
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,977|6805|949

RAIMIUS wrote:

What was the title of the book?
The title of the thread - Jesus, Interrupted.
2009-04-30 20:44:58
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6941

ATG wrote:

Cool map.
So the blue one is Swine Flu?
2009-04-30 21:10:33
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5784|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)
Bible is inspired Word of God. Written by people, but through the Holy Spirit's guidance. The written form of the Bible has changed little from the earliest known copies, and of ancient literature, has the most frequent copies and the most copies ever.
2009-04-30 21:15:11
VspyVspy
Sniper
+183|6846|A sunburnt country
I've always wondered (I am an atheist) that if Mary and Joseph were married, why was she still a virgin?
2009-04-30 21:17:41
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6644

nickb64 wrote:

Bible is inspired Word of God. Written by people, but through the Holy Spirit's guidance. The written form of the Bible has changed little from the earliest known copies, and of ancient literature, has the most frequent copies and the most copies ever.
Are you shitting me? Changed little? Ancient literature?

Hahahaha.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2009-04-30 21:57:16
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5784|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Uzique wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Bible is inspired Word of God. Written by people, but through the Holy Spirit's guidance. The written form of the Bible has changed little from the earliest known copies, and of ancient literature, has the most frequent copies and the most copies ever.
Are you shitting me? Changed little? Ancient literature?

Hahahaha.
True story, little actual change in wording, interpretation is what has changed. People are like that. It is ancient literature even if you do not consider it to be the truth about God.
2009-04-30 22:02:00
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6644

nickb64 wrote:

Uzique wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Bible is inspired Word of God. Written by people, but through the Holy Spirit's guidance. The written form of the Bible has changed little from the earliest known copies, and of ancient literature, has the most frequent copies and the most copies ever.
Are you shitting me? Changed little? Ancient literature?

Hahahaha.
True story, little actual change in wording, interpretation is what has changed. People are like that. It is ancient literature even if you do not consider it to be the truth about God.
I argue that there have been small yet crucial changes in wording, that have equalled in even greater ramifications and complications for interpretation.

The Bible has been passed down, rewritten, censored and authoritised many, many times throughout history- to suit various agendas and institutions. Would you argue that the Henry VIII version of The Bible (possibly the first ever translation into English) is close to the true veracity of the Christian faith? Because it wasn't only interpretation that had changed there...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2009-05-01 02:58:38
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6667|N. Ireland

imortal wrote:

Wouldn't a strict anylasis of that passage conclude that God was simply the 'head god.' and not the ONLY god?  I think you assume that "king of kings" has to be referring to mortal kings?  What if those lesser kings were simply other gods, and not referring to mortals at all?

I really cringe when people describe the bible as being 'written by God.'  None of the New Testament can even be placed closer to the time of the life of Jesus than 40 years after his death, including the Acts of the Apostles, which can not even be shown to have been written by the apostles they were named for.
Whether or not there are other Gods, my previous statement still stands: the passage confirms that there are no Gods after God. It's entirely plausible that there are other, lesser Gods in this world. "Written by God" is definitely the wrong phrase. It was written by people who felt the Holy spirit - hence the book names. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John to name a few of the 'popular' ones.

Uzique wrote:

The Bible has been passed down, rewritten, censored and authoritised many, many times throughout history- to suit various agendas and institutions. Would you argue that the Henry VIII version of The Bible (possibly the first ever translation into English) is close to the true veracity of the Christian faith? Because it wasn't only interpretation that had changed there...
Agreed. It's believed that large chunks of the Bible were remembered by people before they were written down, and so this is definitely going to lead to a slight change in message when you go down the ladder to today. A good example is the commandment: thou shalt not murder. Many interpret 'murder' as 'kill', when there is arguably a difference.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard