The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[7starmantis]

Christianity has, from its apparent inception, been a thorougly Hellenized religious movement. The most basic theological formula in the Pauline epistles, the earliest Christian writings we know of, is that of a mystical communion with the god-man through participation in his suffering, death, and resurrection. This essentially is just a Jewish version of the Hellenistic mystery cults devoted to the pantheus ('all-god') of Osiris-Dionysus that were ubiquitious throughout the Mediterranean. Its certainly not a historical novelty, nor does it fall back on what most would consider traditional Judaism.

I dont think christianity is upheld as novel or even different from other forms of religion or "mysticism". The apparent idea you are disproving is that christianity holds itself as true because its unique from other religions or beliefs. Thats not completely true however. Its uniqueness is not what makes christians believe in christ. Am I missing your point? The fact that similar stories or beliefs exist in no way disproves the factuality of "the bible, hell, and other topics of casual delight". :supcool:
There are plenty that exist including Gilgamesh's account of "The Flood", I dont see that these discount the bibles accuracy at all.

7sm

 

[Marginal]

OK, lets address this. First, the words pneu'ma and nou'ß have nothing to do with one another. They quote it saying "pneuma or nous" but that is an incorect premise. These two words are different. In fact, you can see this as nou'ß is used in the next verse (1 Cor 2:16) The word "mind" in this passage is the word nou'ß or nous. We see a distinct difference and seperation from one word to the next. This is the type of incorrect inclusive transliterating that causes people without a knowledge of greek or the bible to fall prey to misinformation. Freke and Gandy's last quoted passage deals only with nous which we now see has nothing to do with the scripture at hand.

That's your opinion. Who else supports it?

 

[mantis]

dude..
there are people here, like me, who havent read the bible and have no idea what you guys are talking about now!
i tried to say several times that you guys are too hardcore for the "common people" to understand.
if you have 7starmantis rephrase this in "english" i promise i'll have a vote on this.
well, that's not the point of my post here! (otherwise i'll be put on "ignore" by lots of poeple)
my point is there is more than one mistake in the translation of the bible from Hebrew to other languages which caused the bible to become a contradiction to all religions that worship the one God. I do have a document written by a south african gentelman, but I dont think i can upload it here. maybe I can email it to someone who can upload it to look at it.
thanks

 

[7starmantis]

That's your opinion. Who else supports it?

Its no opinion, its fact. Look up any greek lexicon or greek-english dictionary. The two words are different, also try looking at the actual text of the scripture. There is no need for opinions and support of opinions, simple facts will do.

1 Cor. 2:16 (Greek New Testament)

We can clearly see the word here in verse 16.
Now, here is verse 14-15

We can clearly see the word is not in verse 14 or 15 as I stated. No opinion is neccessary on the difference of the words either, just check out a dictionary, concordance, or lexicon.

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

I don't think many of these folks want to believe in unicorns (Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Psalms 92:10, Psalms 29:6, Job 39:9, Job 39:10)

Ok, so much to adress, so little time. I'll address the unicorn issue now, as it seems to be a common one.

OK, the term "unicorn is found in the KJV of the bible 9 times. (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7). However, the term does not appear in the American Standard Version or most other of the modern translations. That should tell us that the problem is one of translation, not a problem with the original text.

We haev established that the unicorn (from mythological literature) was a horse like animal with a horn protruding from the center of its forehead, correct? Well, there is actually no refrence of this "animal" in the bible. The hebrew words used in these texts is "re'em", which is translated to "wild ox" as we have allready seen. Most scholars agree it refers to a large ox that is now extinct. Now, the greek old testament (Septuagint) transliterates "re'emes" by the word monokeros which literally means "one horn". This is based on certain pictographs which were among the ruins of ancient babylon. These carvings depicted this wild ox in profile form, thus appearing to have one horn (Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, C. Pfeiffer, H. Vos, & J. Rea, Eds., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999, p. 83). From this background derived the "one horn" perception.

Biblical evidence however, indicates otherwise. We see in Deut 33:17 the "re'em" is described as having "horns" plural, not singular "horn".

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Let's look at another connection with Jesus and the Old Testament.

In 1 Kings 13 a prophet comes to conflict with a king:

And when the king heard the saying of the man of God, which he cried against the altar at Bethel, Jerobo'am stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, "Lay hold of him." And his hand, which he stretched out against him, dried up, so that he could not draw it back to himself.

The altar also was torn down, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD.

And the king said to the man of God, "Entreat now the favor of the LORD your God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored to me." And the man of God entreated the LORD; and the king's hand was restored to him, and became as it was before.

Now if we look at Jesus during the miracle at Bethesda:

Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."

Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.


In both stories we see a hand being stretched forth...one to be withered, the other to be healed. Both stories use Greek variations of the phrase " stretched forth his hand," as well as the term "whithered." In both the prophet has the authorities seek his arrest for what he's done.

Also note that in the fourth Gospel (John) Jesus does a similar Sabbath day healing...but of withered legs. John borrows this story from Mark 2, where Jesus performs a similar miracle but not on the Sabbath. There too he is opposed by the authorities (teachers of the law), not for violating the Sabbath, but for forgiving sins. In both John and Mark Jesus says essentially the same thing to the cripple in question, directing him to pick up his bed (mat) and walk home.

Thus Mark's Sabbath account of the withered hand and withered legs becomes John's account of withered legs. Both spring (John indirectly via Mark) from a source found in the Old Testament.


When you combine this with Heretic's information concerning Greek and Egyptian influences on Christianity, you start to get a bigger picture of how the Gospels were formed.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

A common reaction to valid points concerning the bible's accuracy is to try and throw such a large amount of information out in such a short time it will hopefully (but not accurately) eclispe the truth.

With the amount of information posted here to "prove" the gospel's (or the complete bible's) innacuracy, I thought it fitting to post a few points concerning its accuracy.

Here is an interesting point to think about as far as the gospel's (New Testament) writers and their supposed fabrications.

OK, the writers of the gospel accounts definitely affirm that Jesus Christ claimed to be the Son of God, and that he performed miracles to authenticate that affirmation. Further they state that even though he was put to death, he rose from the dead, forcefully demonstrating he is Jehovah’s beloved Son, and that his authority must be respected. There is really no dispute about what the record claims.

Now, the question at hand is the accuracy of these claims. This is a common debate by the way. Skeptics believe these writers fabricated these stories and the events never happened. Lets think about this logically for a moment.

"Logically speaking, either there is existence after death or there is not. If there is post-death existence, there either is accountability for one's earthly conduct, or there is not. The "law of the excluded middle" demands one or the other. If there is no post-earthly existence, it matters not what one does in this life. If, however, one believes that he will be held accountable for his earthly conduct in eternity, he will be more inclined to act in a morally responsible way in this life. Now, reflect upon the implications of this principle in light of the charge that the New Testament writers lied about the events in the life of Christ.

If they believed in eternity and accountability before God, why would they falsify the records regarding Jesus, knowing that such lies would exclude their entrance into heaven? Lying is conceded to be unethical universally, and, according to the Scriptures, liars will be excluded from heaven (Rev. 21:8).

On the other hand, if the Gospel writers did not believe in eternal accountability, and so, they callously fabricated the documents that affirmed Jesus’ divine nature, why would they have subjected themselves to the persecution that accompanied Christianity, since “this life” would be all they believed they would ever enjoy?" (Wayne Jackson - Christian Courier: Archives)


7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The early Christians were fond of parable and allegory. Fictions, created to espouse what they believed were spiritual truths, were not off limits. It was not an age where historical accuracy was demanded. There were no academic or journalistic standards of ethics for writing. An evangelist did what he felt he had to do to impart the Gospel...and employing a style of historically fictional writing then common was perfectly natural. Myths were a literary form.

Back then deceit itself was not the sin we now consider it to be. Let's look at some of the writings by various church fathers on lying and evangelism.

St. Jerome wrote:

"I will only mention the Apostle Paul. ... He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him:

‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."

(St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus, xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)


Jerome elsewhere wrote:

"To confute the opposer ... one argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another ... Origen, Eusebius [et al] write at great length ... Sometimes it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is useful."


Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea wrote:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

In his "A Vindication," Edward Gibbon comments on Eusebius:

I shall only observe, that the Bishop of Caesarea seems to have claimed a privilege of a still more dangerous and extensive nature. In one of the most learned and elaborate works that antiquity has left us, the Thirty-second Chapter of the Twelfth Book of his Evangelical Preparation bears for its title this scandalous Proposition, "How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived."

Richard Carrier writes:

So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a "good idea" worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.


John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople, makes an appeal for dishonesty in the name of the cross:

"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

(Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1).


A contemporary of Augustine, Bishop Faustus (interesting name) wrote with full honesty:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."




Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

The fact that ancient writers (considered saints by some, not all) spoke or wrote of deceit in no way has any bearing whatsoever on what the bible actually teaches about deceit. The bible teaches it to be wrong in any case, these so called christian leaders are obviously in disagreement with the bible itself and thus would be "sinning" and wrong according to its (the bible's) teachings.
See, we can't say "Christianity" in a discussion about the bible and include those who did or do not preach its teachings. The term "Early Christians" has been used in this thread to include examples that are far from in line with biblical teachings. We are not discussing "Modern Day Definitions of Christianity, Hell, and other topics of Casual Delight", we are discussing "The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight". Regardless of who claims the term Christian, the only thing that has bearing on the bible's errancy is the bible and its teachings. Because some human (who is not perfect by anyones standards) does something or says something that is inconsistant with the bible in now way proves anything about the bibles accuracy, or errancy. Someone who claims to be a christian and then "sins" or does something against what the bible teaches means nothing, in fact that is expected even according to the bibles teachings. I guess that would actually prove the bible to be acurate in that sense.

7sm

 

[Marginal]

Its no opinion, its fact. Look up any greek lexicon or greek-english dictionary. The two words are different, also try looking at the actual text of the scripture. There is no need for opinions and support of opinions, simple facts will do.

Who supplied the definition? Why you you accept it as fact? Does everyone? How many people contributed to this definition, and what are their qualifications?

Not stating my opinion on the matter. Just contributing to a better, more productive debate.

 

[mantis]

The fact that ancient writers (considered saints by some, not all) spoke or wrote of deceit in no way has any bearing whatsoever on what the bible actually teaches about deceit. The bible teaches it to be wrong in any case, these so called christian leaders are obviously in disagreement with the bible itself and thus would be "sinning" and wrong according to its (the bible's) teachings.
See, we can't say "Christianity" in a discussion about the bible and include those who did or do not preach its teachings. The term "Early Christians" has been used in this thread to include examples that are far from in line with biblical teachings. We are not discussing "Modern Day Definitions of Christianity, Hell, and other topics of Casual Delight", we are discussing "The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight". Regardless of who claims the term Christian, the only thing that has bearing on the bible's errancy is the bible and its teachings. Because some human (who is not perfect by anyones standards) does something or says something that is inconsistant with the bible in now way proves anything about the bibles accuracy, or errancy. Someone who claims to be a christian and then "sins" or does something against what the bible teaches means nothing, in fact that is expected even according to the bibles teachings. I guess that would actually prove the bible to be acurate in that sense.

7sm

sorry 7sm you gotta step out of the picture a little bit and reconsider what you have just said here.
doesnt "distinguishing" between modern day, old day, and all-day christianity tell you something about that religion?
alos, read this part again: "Because some human (who is not perfect by anyones standards) does something or says something that is inconsistant with the bible in now way proves anything about the bibles accuracy, or errancy."
doesnt this tell you about the bible that IS written by humans (also consider assemlies, and other mod's they do to the bible) doesnt this tell you ANYTHING about the bible, considering what you just said?
no offense, no hard feelings. (I still like 7* )

 

[heretic888]

Its no opinion, its fact. Look up any greek lexicon or greek-english dictionary.

Okay. Let's do.

From the Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon:

psu_chi-kos , ê, on,

A. of the soul or life, spiritual, opp. sômatikos, hêdonai; hormai; pneuma ps. the spirit, or breath of life; nosos Adv. -kôs; opp. sômatikôs, noerôs; also, heartily, from the heart.
2. of the animal life, animal, opp. ho pneumatikos.
3. brave.
II. for the soul or spirit of one deceased, ps. dôra didous.
III. cooling.

pneuma^t-ikos , ê, on,

A. of wind or air, kinêseis; phuseis; aeros psuchrotês; p. [organon] a machine moved by wind; mêchanêma.
2. of the nature of wind or air; p. xêrotês, i. e. a dry vapour.
b. of subtle substance; ousia, opp. hugra.
3. inflated, distended with air, husterai .
4. Act. (= pneumatôdês 1.3 ), causing flatulence, oinos; brômata, Adv. -kôs by flatulence.
5. breathing, exhaling, euosmia.
II. of the breath or breathing, to p. morion, ho p. topos.
III. of spirit, spiritual, interpol; opp. sarkikos, psuchikos. Adv. -kôs.
IV. hoi P. a school of physicians who referred all questions of health to pneumatic agencies.
V. conveying pneuma, koilia, of the left ventricle of the heart (opp. haimatikê).
VI. Rhet., Adv. -kôs in one breath (cf. pneuma VI), apoteinesthai Hermog.

And, just for the record, neither Freke & Gandy nor myself ever claimed pneuma and nous are used interchangeably in the aforementioned Corinthians passage. That is taking what was actually said out of context.

Laterz.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

As far as the word "signs", we are talking about hebrew and greek here, not both greek. The greek word used in John is shmei'on while the hebrew word used in Exodus istwa. While these both can be translated to the word "signs" they are a bit different in meaning.

The Hebrew scripture that was translated into Greek is the Septuagint, which was used to draft the Old Testament sample I've provided in this thread (from the Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century). The Greek word you've given for "sign" is used in both accounts. Kudos to your translation.


Let us flee to Egypt...

In the Gospel of John we see a connection with Egyptian myths mentioned earlier with the climactic miracle of Jesus raising Lazarus.

The characters of this drama are Jesus and Lazarus, as well as the latter’s two sisters—Mary and Martha. John borrows the characters of the two women from the synoptics, blending the “immoral” woman who wiped Jesus’s feet (Luke, chapter 7) with the woman who anointed Jesus’s head with oil (Mark, chapter 14). The Mark and Luke narratives are unrelated—Mark’s account takes place in Bethany at the house of Simon the Leper while Luke’s version takes place in Nain at the house of a Pharisee. Neither name the woman in question. John synthesizes both stories into one and names the woman as Mary and gives her a sister, Martha. It is important for Lazarus to have two sisters as we will see.

In Egyptian mythology the God Osiris dies and is interred in the Necropolis at Annu, known also as the “House of Annu.” He is mourned by two sisters, Isis and Nephthys. He has been in a tomb for four days, bound in burial linens and is starting to rot. Osiris is then resurrected.

Contrast the two accounts.

“House of Annu,” when semitized, becomes “Beth-Anu.” Bethany is the location of John’s resurrection story. Lazarus is the Greek form of the Hebrew “Eleazar.” The God Osiris, when semitized, becomes “El-Osiris.” The similarities are striking.

It is said of Osiris, “O Osiris, the King, you have gone, but you will live; you have slept, but you will awake; you have died, but you will live.” Upon learning of the death of Lazarus Jesus says, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I shall go and wake him.”

When told this, Martha objects, saying “Sir, by now there will be a stench. He has been there four days.” After Osiris is resurrected we are told, “Osiris speaks to Horus, for he has removed the evil [which was on the King] on his fourth day.”

The dead one in Annu is told “ I am Horus, O Osiris, the King. I will not let you suffer. Go forth, wake up.” The dead one in Bethany is told with a great cry, “Lazarus, come forth.”

The burial linens must be removed. In Annu Osiris is told, “O King, live, for you are not dead. Horus will come to you that he may remove your bonds; Horus has removed your hindrance.” At Bethany we hear, “The dead man came out, his hands and feet swathed in linen bands, his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said, ‘Loose him; let him go.’”


The oldest fragment of John’s Gospel…indeed the oldest portion of the New Testament ever found…is dated from the early 2nd century and was found in Behnesa, Egypt. The Coptic church in Egypt is considered one of the oldest in Christendom…with a cross that incorporates the Egyptian Ankh…a symbol representing eternal life.

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm

http://interoz.com/egypt/chiste1.htm

Further references:

R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), p. 164.

E.A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the opening of the Mouth (New York: Blom, 1972), p. 124.

Illustrations below, left to right: Egyptian Ankh, two Ankhs held by Thutomoses I, Coptic cross 3rd century, Coptic cross 6th century.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

Who supplied the definition? Why you you accept it as fact? Does everyone? How many people contributed to this definition, and what are their qualifications?

Not stating my opinion on the matter. Just contributing to a better, more productive debate.

NO problem, you have a good point. The answer is to look at any lexicon, concordance, or greek-english dictionary. Actually Heritic provides one down a bit, lets take a look...

Okay. Let's do.

From the Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon:

Ok, I think the confusion is coming from not distinguishing between "phusikos" (fusikovß) and "psuchikos" (yucikovß). This can be very confusing. The first (phusikos) means literally governed by the instincts of nature. The second (psuchikos) means the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion. (Crosswalk Greek Lexicon)
Your lexicon not only ignores the distinction between two words, only one of which is used in said passage, but it also contradicts itself with its meaning of one word, while accurately confirming my translations. Lets see here, what you left off of your quote was this....

• A.of the soul or life, spiritual, opp. sômatikos, hêdonaiArist.EN1117b28 ; hormaiPlb.8.10.9 ; pneuma ps. the spirit, or breath of life, Plu.2.1084e, [p. 2028] etc.; nosos ib.524d. Adv. -kôs Ph.1.81 ; opp. sômatikôs, noerôs, Procl.Inst.139; also, heartily, from the heart,LXX 2 Ma.4.37, 14.24.

• • • 2.of the animal life, animal,ho ps. anthrôpos the natural man, opp. hopneumatikos, 1 Ep.Cor.2.14, cf. Ep.Jud.19, Phot. s.v.

• • • 3.brave,Alex.338.

Now, we can see that deffinition A contradicts itself with deffinition 2. It then goes on to list which one is used in the passage:

1 Ep.Cor.2.14,

We see that Def. 2 is listed in your source as the one being used in said passage.

And, just for the record, neither Freke & Gandy nor myself ever claimed pneuma and nous are used interchangeably in the aforementioned Corinthians passage. That is taking what was actually said out of context.

Actually, lets see what they said via your quote:

"The Psychic does not receive the things of the spirit of God; they are foolishness to him; he cannot recognize them, because they are Pneumatically discerned, but the Pneumatic discerns all things."
(Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?, Three Rivers Press)

Of course, Freke and Gandy keep things simpler by giving us a direct English transliteration (our English psyche is derived from the Greek psuche), but this doesn't alleviate matters when a shared meaning or interpretation of the terminology is not understood. This, then, pertains to the relevance of just what psuche and psuchikos, as well as pneuma and pneumatikos, actually mean within a Hellenistic context.

Freke and Gandy (in Jesus and the Lost Goddess) felt it best to transliterate psuche into the English psyche (which is typically defined as 'mind' or 'self'), apparently seeing the two words as having an equivalent meaning within a Hellenistic context:

OK, we can see that Freke and Gandy felt it best to trasnliterate the word psuche into psyche. Thats all well and good, but then we see them interject this transliterated word psyche into 1 Cor 2:14-15 where the untransliterated word (they themselves used) psuche is simply not found.

Thats either a mistake or an intentional interjection of a word that will help "prove" their point.

Now, lets take a look at:

"At the center is our essential identity, which the ancients called pneuma or nous. Pneuma is usually translated 'spirit', but today this word has become all but meaningless. Nous is traditionally translated 'intellect', but this is misleading as we now associate the word 'intellect' purely with rational thought, whereas nous is the witness of all experiences, whatever their quality. Plotinus describes nous as 'a knowing principle'. It is that in us which knows. It is the subject of every experience, which each one of us calls 'I'. It is the sense of being in every human being. It is who we are. A more appropriate modern translation for both pneuma and nous is 'Consciousness'."

Thats simply incorrect. The ancients did not refer to "identity" as pneuma or nous. Why would they use two completely different words to refer to the same thing, thats a contradiction and is simply not found in the pages of the bible itself.
I didn't claim they said nous was in 1 Cor 2:14-15, but that the explination and use of the word nous is irrelevant because they have an incorrect (intentional or not) transliteration of the word.

Just for my source requesting friends
nou'ß (nous) - the mind, comprising alike the faculties of perceiving and understanding and those of feeling, judging, determining

1. the intellectual faculty, the understanding

(Crosswalk Greek Lexicon)

pneu'ma (pneuma) - [font=Arial, Helvetica]the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated [/font]

1. [font=Arial, Helvetica] the soul[/font]

(Crosswalk Greek Lexicon)

sorry 7sm you gotta step out of the picture a little bit and reconsider what you have just said here.
doesnt "distinguishing" between modern day, old day, and all-day christianity tell you something about that religion?
alos, read this part again: "Because some human (who is not perfect by anyones standards) does something or says something that is inconsistant with the bible in now way proves anything about the bibles accuracy, or errancy."
doesnt this tell you about the bible that IS written by humans (also consider assemlies, and other mod's they do to the bible) doesnt this tell you ANYTHING about the bible, considering what you just said?
no offense, no hard feelings. (I still like 7* )

Heh, no hard feelings whatsoever!
Yes, your right, the distinguishing of the "periods" of people does tell you something, but what? What it tells you is the question. What do you think its tells you about the "religion"?
Yes, the bible was written by humans who are agreeably not perfect, but it claims to be inspired by a perfect "god". To prove its not perfect, we cannot simply prove that humans are not perfect, thus the bible is wrong. We must prove the bible itself to be inaccurate, something I have seen tried many times, but nothing complete or verifiable as of yet.


7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

We must prove the bible itself to be inaccurate, something I have seen tried many times, but nothing complete or verifiable as of yet.

Now that you've said that, let's look at an inaccuracy or two.


Mark's account of the arrest and trial of Jesus very clearly has it occur during Passover, and his last supper with the 12 apostles is the Passover meal (Mark, chapter 14). An unmistakeable chronology is given of the events leading from his departure from Jericho to his arrival in Jerusalem, the preparation for eating the Passover meal, his subsequent arrest and crucifixion (Mark 14-15).

In traveling to Jerusalem from Jericho, Mark has Jesus and his followers pass through Bethphage and Bethany (Mark 11). This betrays Mark's geographical ignorance of the area, as one must pass through Bethany first to get to Bethphage on the way to Jerusalem, as seen on this map:

http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/israel-first-century.html

For Mark, Jesus's blood was symbolic of the blood of the Passover lamb. As it is, he has him arrested the night of Passover (which began that evening at sundown and extended to the next evening). Matthew and Luke follow his lead in this.

John has Jesus arrested the night before the Passover, and the last supper isn't a Passover meal at all (John, chapters 13, 18 and 19). He attributes Paschal significance to Jesus's crucifixion by having John the Baptist identify him as "the Lamb of God," and having Jesus killed at the very hour the Passover lambs are slaughtered.

Mark, on the other hand, has Jesus's disciples going into town to prepare for Passover (and the last supper before his arrest that evening) at the exact same time John has Jesus on the cross.




Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

Now that you've said that, let's look at an inaccuracy or two.


Mark's account of the arrest and trial of Jesus very clearly has it occur during Passover, and his last supper with the 12 apostles is the Passover meal (Mark, chapter 14). An unmistakeable chronology is given of the events leading from his departure from Jericho to his arrival in Jerusalem, the preparation for eating the Passover meal, his subsequent arrest and crucifixion (Mark 14-15).

In traveling to Jerusalem from Jericho, Mark has Jesus and his followers pass through Bethphage and Bethany (Mark 11). This betrays Mark's geographical ignorance of the area, as one must pass through Bethany first to get to Bethphage on the way to Jerusalem, as seen on this map:

http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/israel-first-century.html

Ok, so what your saying is that the listing of two cities which were close in proximity is somehow establishing an order of which came first? Lets look at the verse in KJV...

And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples

This doesn't establish an order of what city came first, it simply says that they neared Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany. In Texas if your coming East from El Paso all the way through to Louisianna, you must might pass through the Dallas/Ft Worth area. Is that incorrect? If we look on a map you actually pass through Ft Worth first. Its not incorrect that you pass through what is commonly called the "Dallas/Ft Worth" area even if you literally pass through Ft Worth first.

I dont really see the importance in this, you would have to show some type of order being presented by the author. I see none in the english text or the greek text either.

I've got to run, I'll address the second point later.

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

So far we've seen a number of Old Testament influences on the New Testament, where New Testament authors drew heavily from the Septuagint (a Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures, referred to below as "LXX") in drafting their Gospel accounts of Jesus's life.

Gospel authors borrowed from each other, of course, changing those versions of the works of their predecessors when they disagreed with them, or when the previous version conflicted with their theological interpretations.

Now we go to the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus goes to pray prior to his arrest.

Luke's account draws heavily on imagry and vocabulary from the Septuagint. In Septuagint III Kings 19 we find Elijah fleeing from Ahab and Jezebel. Knowing the authorities are out for his arrest, he sits under a broom tree and prays for deliverance. An angel of the Lord appears to him and he goes forth to meet his fate. In Luke Jesus, aware the authorities are out for his arrest, prays for deliverance under the olive trees of the garden. An angel appears to him as well, and he then goes on to meet his fate. Both men gain strength from the angelic apparition, and the Greek in both accounts is similar.

In Mark's account of Gethsemane we find Jesus saying "My soul is deeply grieved, even unto death; stop here, and stay awake." (Mark 14:32-34). Mark takes his text from Jonah in the Septuagint, where the prophet Jonah says "I am greatly grieved, even unto death." (Jonah, 4:9 LXX)

Jesus's despair in Mark draws heavily on Psalm 116, which uses the imagry of a cup of salvation during a time of despair. Jesus pleads "Father...take this cup away from me" (Mark 14:36).

These observations support the idea that the stories of Gethsemane are fictions. Jesus was alone in any case, and no one could have possibly witnessed his anguish. His disciples were all asleep.

Matthew and Mark both borrow from Zechariah in likening Judas to the "worthless shepard" (Zechariah chapter 11). This character abandons his flock to slaughter and for profit, rather than provide for them. Matthew specifically writes:

Then one of the Twelve, the man called judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What will you give me to betray him to you?" They weighte him out thirty silver pieces. From that moment he began to look out for an opportunity to betray him. (Matthew 26: 14-15)

In Zechariah the worthless shepard breaks his staff and gives up his position:

If it suits you, give me my wages, otherwise keep them." Then they weighed out my wages, thirty pieces of silver." (Zechariah, 11:2)

More later...I'm off to hear Lewis Black do stand up.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

It seems this thread has run its course of debate and is now being used as a sort of pulpit to simply proclaim ones beliefs of the bible. There is no debate (To engage in argument by discussing opposing points). It seems I'm the only one discussing opposing points now.

The past several posts which try to show some similarities between the Old and New Testaments stories is heavily incorrect in points which I've pointed out, but not only that, I don't see what they are proving or showing. The fact that similarities exist between stories proves nothing. I only see a bit of a conspiracy theory emerging here that is totaly void of fact and or proof.

I'm not trying to offend, but the ignoring of opposing points in order to simply paste your own agenda is truly not debate or discussion. I've countered the past several with serious facts that show the theories to be incorrect, these facts however are simply ignored for the next paste of opinionated beliefs. Without discussion on both sides points, this thread is moot.

Until serious debate is occuring, I think I'll stand back a bit. I think the thread has lost its focus and is not even really making any type of point anymore, just a great place for ones opinions to be heard (or read).

:asian:
7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Feel free to refute anything I've posted. I'm giving you plenty to work with, of course. If you're having a difficult time dealing with all of it, be as selective as you like. If your refutations have merit, then they have merit. People can judge between my posts and your counters to them.

You've posted that the Bible has no contradictions. I'm posting contradictions and giving an explanation for their existence. The authors wrote independently, borrowed freely from the Old Testament and Egyptian and Greek mythology in drafting their stories, and borrowed freely from each other.

In that essence, I'm debating the inerrancy of the Bible by providing suppositions to the contrary and giving them support through an analysis of the texts themselves. That is my point, so I disagree with your contention the thread has no point. If you can't deal with the information I've provided and make counter-points of your own, then do indeed stand back.

If he has the time and inclination, I'd like to see Heretic's treatment of John from the standpoint of the mystery religions...and then perhaps something on the synoptics. Many scholars suggest the synoptics became increasingly less Jewish and more Hellenized as the 1st century progressed. Do you concur?

Let's take a look at he trial of Jesus.

Mark reports that the disciples deserted Jesus and ran away (Mark 14:50). Peter follows eventually and waits in the courtyard while Jesus goes inside and appears before the High Priest.

In Mark none of the apostles witness the trial, so lacking eyewitnesses he has to create a scene. For this he again borrows from the Septuagint and takes a number of passages from Daniel and the Psalms.

In Daniel 6:4 we find:

Then the governors and satraps sought to find occasion against Daniel; but they found against him no occasion.

Mark 14:55 echoes this:

The chief priests and the whole Council sought testimony against Jesus in order to kill him, but they found none.

Mark goes on to mimic verses from either the twenty-seventh or thirty-eighth Psalms:

Some having stood up gave false evidence against him. (Mark 14; 57)

Unjust witnesses standing up asked me… (Psalm 34, LXX)

The high priest standing up, in the midst, asked Jesus… (Mark 14:60)

Many gave false evidence against him, but their testimonies were not consistent. (Mark 14: 56)

Unjust witnesses have stood up against me, and injustice has lied within herself (Psalm 26; 12 LXX)

Oddly, during this time Mark presents the story of Jesus tearing down the temple as false evidence:

Some stood up and gave false evidence against him to this effect: “We heard him say, ‘I will pull down this temple, made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ But even on this point their evidence did not agree. (Mark 14:57-59).

John, on the other hand, is struck by this symbolic imagery of the temple being torn down and has this false evidence actually become a genuine quote from Jesus:

Destroy this temple, …and in three days I will raise it again. (John 2:19-21)




Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

A couple of things:

1) Contrary to what has been previously stated, the Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon does indeed distinguish between phusikos and psuchikos. Not only this, but it also provides a wealth of related information concerning the terminology, including: the frequency of the query in classical poetry and prose (respectively), a list of words with similar definitions to the query, a list of words that regularly appear with the query in both poetry and prose (respectively), and direct citations to serve as examples for each definition accompanying the query.

2) Also, in case anyone is interested, the aforementioned lexicon is based on the text:
Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.
ISBN: 0198642261

3) The idea that the same word can have conflicting meanings, depending on both the context and the source, is hardly a 'contradiction'. I'm quite frankly surprised anyone with such an obvious degree of intelligence would make such a boldly naive assertion, to tell you the truth. In any event, the authors cite numerous examples of each usage of the words along with the accompanying definition, so it becomes something of a non-argument, anyway.

4) The primary definition of the word psuchikos is an adjective form for psuche. According to the 1978 Oxford Dictionary I have in my living room, this is also the primary definition for psychic ('[...] of, relating to, or pertaining to the psyche and its functioning'). As such, the English psychic does indeed become a direct transliteration of the Greek psuchikos (just as psyche is a direct transliteration of psuche).

By contrast, the definition of psuchikos as "of the animal life, animal" is a secondary definition.

5) Just because the lexicon I used claims the secondary definition is used in the second chapter of 1 Corinthians does not necessarily make it so. I was merely citing the lexicon as demonstrating there are multiple interpretations and definitions of the word psuchikos, which I think has been adequately demonstrated at this point. As to whether any given usage has a particular meaning in mind, this is solely dependent on the context in which the word is used. I will address the context of 1 Corinthians 2 in my next point.

6) If you read the entirety of the second chapter of 1 Corinthians, you will find that the secondary definition of psuchikos (which 7starmantis has previously asserted was the only definition of the word) -- 'of the animal life, animal' -- makes little sense in light of the context the author is writing within.

The author begins by proclaiming that, when he first came to the Corinthians, he desired that they 'know nothing' other than the gospel of 'Christ crucified'. He then states his teaching does not rest on 'eloquent words' or the 'wisdom (sophia) of men', but on God's word. But, curiously, the author then goes on to mention that there is a 'wisdom' (sophia) spoken among the 'initiated' or 'completed' or 'fulfilled' (teleos).

In other words, he references a deeper understanding that only those fully completed or initiated into the teachings can possess. This is not only evocative of mystery school symbolism, but it also belies any definition of psuchikos in this context as referring to 'sensous' or 'carnal' truths. Psuchikos, in this context, seems to refer to individuals that not yet fully 'initiated' or 'completed' within Christ.

If you don't believe me, open up a Bible and read through the second chapter of 1 Corinthians yourself. At no point does the author even allude to hedonistic or carnalistic desires. Instead, he distinguishes between the doctrine of 'Christ crucified' which he first taught to his audience as compared to the 'wisdom of the initiated' that he was reserving for the Corinthians when they were 'mature' or 'perfected' or 'fulfilled' (teleos) enough to receive.

This is very, very telling.

7) This, of course, also demonstrates a trend that Freke & Gandy bring up in their books about Christianity. Namely, that much of the New Testament (particularly the Pauline epistles) is translated in such a way so as to conceal their relationship to both the Hellenistic mystery schools and to Christian Gnosticism. It is less of a translation and more of an interpretation. An interpretation, mind you, that is intentionally worded to confirm the existing belief structure within mainstream Christian doctrine. Pure self-confirmation.

8) In the works of Plato, Philo Judaeus, Plotinus, and the Corpus Hermeticum, the words pneuma and nous are used in precisely the way that Freke & Gandy suggested.

I'll try to get to the rest a little bit later on tonight.

Laterz.