Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Can we trust the Bible?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 26th November 2010
In the first three centuries after Christ died c.33ad there was a known 80 different texts about Jesus which gave alternate accounts about both Jesus and Mary Magdalene (written out of the bible after the resurrection, which she was the key witness).
Yet by the 5thC only 27 had been chosen by the patriarchal Catholic Church (incl the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, even some of their writings had been omitted), all others- maybe even one written by Mary Magdalene herself- were deemed by the Vatican heretical, burned and ordered never to be read or spoken of again.
Of course, the papacy made a dramatic and humiliating reverse in 1969 by offically pardoning Mary of Magdalene- she was "not a prostitute" or a 'sinner' after all!
Jesus' mother, the 'Virgin' Mary had other children.
Many aspects of other religions were absorbed into Christianity- the breaking of the bread from the Mithras, and so on- not that Jesus didn't do all the amazing things we think he did, but that the early followers chose to submerge all 'opposition' by superceding them.
Secret gospel of Mark.
Writings omitted from the New testament by the Vatican, decreed in the 4th/5thC.
He describes Jesus at Jericho, suggesting homo-erotic inferences, but his known writings end suddenly after Jesus arrived. Why?
He cured a mad teenage boy- and accompanied him- did they "spend the night together" talking, or...? What alse did Jesus do there? Why was he there?
Peter in Rome.
He was crucified in Rome by the Romans for preaching celibacy.
This was shocking for Romans, where he spoke, and the early church (which Mary of Magdalene preached also?)
Peter preached it to an appreciative noble class, going directly against Emperor Augustus' decree that nobles should procreate, not die out, and boost the populus.
But as Peter's preachings became popular and noblewomen and mistresses denied their husbands and lovers, thus sexless men- some very powerful- became angry and Peter's opposition became too powerful.
The Acts of Paul and Feklah (omitted from the NT)
She was Paul's follower, a feisty and strong woman for that era who refused to be a marriage pawn. She baptised HERSELF and abstained from sex, preaching independently of Paul (shocking people in society), and was sentenced to death, which Paul seems to have taken an ambivalent and cold attitude, not to aid her.
In the Roman arena of death, she is said to have prayed and worked miracles- animals didn't kill and eat her, but her 'miracles' saved her.
Tetullian (2ndC) church father denounced her miracles as 'forgeries'.
Mary of Magdalene
The Catholic church in c.590 branded her a prostitute, Gregory the Great decreed that the NT stories of three "unnamed" and unverified women were her, as only prostitutes apparently washed people's feet with their hair.
Yet NO Biblical text says she was a prostitute or a sinner, and only Luke says she was "possessed".
Only in 1969 did the vatican officially, but almost low-key in tone, admit that Mary was NOT a prostitute or a sinner.
She conveniently (for a patriarchal church) disappears after her VIP role in first winessing the Resurrection of Christ, her role was written out of history.
Early church
In the first 300yrs after Jesus there were 80 known different texts about him, yet by 400ad, from a recorded 400 texts, the Vatican had deliberately only decided upon allowing 27 for the NT (incl. the four Gospels) and one POSSIBLE text by Mary herself? All others were decreed heretical at this time and never to be seen or spoken about by the church again! WHY?
Late 19thC find of the DEAD SEA SCROLLS, (one by a WOMAN!)- they were hidden for safekeeping in these secure caves by early Christian monks disobeying orders to destroy the scrolls, scared of being deemed heretical as the NT and the Gnostics rivalled for the telling of the Bible, they preserved by the dry conditions in urns.
Constantine the Great in the 320's edited which texts were allowed as officially the Vatican's version of the Bible.His successor Theodosius banned all rival religions to Christ - Simon magus; Apppollonius; Mithras - all aspects of of which were subtly absorbed or altered. All Gnostic texts were banned or destroyed.
Jesus the Stonemason?
Traditionally, Christ and his father Joseph were carpenters, men who crafter wood.
But this may have been a mistranslation? "Tachuton" (sp?) - "builder" - the area of Jesus' upbringing was mainly known for stonemasonry, thus it is likely that wood was in far less supply, or desirous for builders in that region?
Was jesus' local town (Tephanus) built by jews in the Roman style and wealth? Did he and his father help build that affluent and opulent city?
So, how can committed Christians (especially women) or any of us, trust what was ('allowed' to be?) released? -
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
Hi Man_Upstairs
We have had this before have we not? Are you Huscarl reborn?
Evidently the early development of a religious belief is a perfectly proper topic for a message board dealing with the past. However we can't be oblivious to the fact that the extraordinary events of the gospels are of fundamental importance to a great many people living in the present. In recognition of this situation may I make two suggestions?
Firstly I think that it is extremely important that historical comments on religious belief, especially those which could be perceived as critical, have a really secure evidential basis. Secondly, it is best to look for more neutral language in which to express such comments. A church may change its collective mind on a matter of doctrine without this change being necessarily 'humiliating'. An individual might be mentioned only in a pseudo-gospel. A decision that this pseudo-gospel should not be incorporated within an approved canon is not the same thing as writing the individual 'out of history'.
Many commentators believe they have found parallels between Mithrasism and Christianity but I think you should be very careful in drawing the conclusion that the Eucharist was absorbed from Mithrasism without extremely good evidence. Do you have an ancient source on which this opinion can be reliably based?
I think your use of the word 'Vatican' to describe the early church authorities is highly anachronistic. I can see that today 'Vatican' can be used describe the Catholic hierarchy in the same way that 'Washington' is shorthand for the US government. Does it make sense to employ Vatican in this sense before, say, the Great Schism of 1054?
Constantine the Great was an extremely powerful emperor and his Edict of Toleration did much to promote the spread of Christianity within the Roman Empire. He probably favoured a single 'official' version of the faith and promoted Councils at Rome and Nicea intended to bring this about. But I am sure it is not true to say that in the 320s he 'edited which texts (which) were allowed as officially the Vatican's version of the Bible'. Faced with a profusion of writings, many inspired by different perceptions of Christianity, I think it is understandable that there was pressure to produce an approved Canon of scripture, but I don't think that this was achieved as early as the Council of Nicea (425). The composition of the New Testament as we know it is a later 4th century event. You are perfectly entitled to question the basis on which this selection was made of course.
I clearly don't share your familiarity with pseudo-gospels but was St Peter really crucified in Rome for preaching celibacy? Augustus had been dead a long time,and did Christianity really spread among the Roman elite at this period, more than 3 centuries before it became a state religion? The concept of celibacy was not unfamiliar to the Romans; the Vestal Virgins were rather naturally expected to adopt this state. The whole matter occurs outside the gospels of course, but isn't the usual assumption that Peter was caught up in the Neronian persecution?
The 'Acts of Paul and Feklah' have totally defeated me. Can you give me a source for this work?
Finally the Catholic Church is arguably 'patriarchal' I suppose, but this criticism might come better from a poster called Person_Upstairs!
TP -
Message 3
Posted by WickerMan (U14275309) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
So, how can committed Christians (especially women) or any of us, trust what was ('allowed' to be?) released?
Ìý
Without commenting on the selective points raised I can readily agree that the image presented to the world by the church has been carefully manufactured.
It was sufficient for me to learn that much of the Christian iconography still worshipped today was either invented, created or located by Constantine's Mother, Helena.
Because my interests in the ancient world lie along the lines of topography & geography I had researched as far as we are able the early history of the Sinai region in ancient texts. Suffice to say, until the 4th century AD the modern region that we call Sinai (hence where Mt Sinai is to be located) was only so named after Helena.
Nowhere in ancient Egyptian, Greek or Roman documents is the name for this region given as Sinai. In fact even the Bible located Sinai in what we call the Negev, bordering on the later political region known as Edom.
So the entire hypothesis of an Exodus journey which ventures into the Southern Sinai peninsula to a 'Mt Sinai' is a 4th century AD fabrication.
The Christian acceptance of Mt Sinai was borrowed from the Jewish religion, and the Jews did not locate their Mt Horeb/Sinai in what we call the Sinai peninsula, it was in the Negev.
Therefore, the Christian Mt Sinai is worshipped in the wrong location, but do you think they care, or are even aware? -
Message 4
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
Hi Twin-Probe,
I actually copied the post (with permission) from someone on another forum, maybe that was this Huscarl or something? Maybe he copied it and so on?
I found it worthy of re-posting? -
Message 5
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
Also, the afore-mentioned 'Feklah' (sp??) was mentioned in a documentary I actually saw a few years ago, but I'll be damned if I can find her on Google now!
But it was as said. -
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
Hi Man_Upstairs
Yes, I've been checking too. Huscarl, who used to post regularly here, used very much the same content as his 'Christmas message' on 27th December last year. It's fine to post interesting snippets in this way, with permission, but I think it is usually better to tell us that you've done this to avoid confusion.
I'd be perfectly happy to debate some of the more controversial areas with you if you wish, but perhaps you wanted to make a statement rather than start a discussion.
TP -
Message 7
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
Yes, apologies for the confusion (and thanks to the OP).
I was aiming generally at a theme that isn't my specialty, but yes, if more knowledgeable members have any ideas about this topic/s, I'd be interested to hear them.
The data seemed mind-blowing to me. -
Message 8
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
Man_Upstairs
If as you suggest that Mary Magdalene has been written out of The Bible then why is she there in St. John 20 witnessing the Resurrection?
I appreciate that St. John 21 is possibly a forgery and that some of St. Paul's Letters have been subject to pious heresies among other discrepancies with the authorised Scripture.
There is also an entire body of Scripture which is called Apocrypha and other Gospels rediscovered in modern times.
The Church, by this I mean Rome, are quite specific in their attitude that The Bible is not the Word of God, as some Protestant sects would have it, but written by men under the inspiration of God. Even then Revelations still leaves me very concerned that I am witnessing an illness; an observation that others have made.
I see little point in engaging in speculation as to the nature of scripture as this path has been well-trodden for centuries. For those who, like me, have come to unorthodox views the modern church does not threaten nor abuse, In fact I have a cousin who is an ordained Anglican priest. He is a very likeable fellow who I choose to support not because of doctrine but because he does help people undergoing severe personal crises for little compensation whatsoever. I call this respect and in the same vein I thank Twin Probe for his constructive remarks. -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
Bible, old Testament, new Testament, renewed Testament (the... Koran) etc. have to be treated like what they are exactly: religious books.They have been written and rewritten and corrected and re-corrected. Trust is an innapropriate word. You either believe in them or not. If the question has to be that if we can trust them then most certainly not! Most certainly not, again and again. Even peripheral stories are 100% incorrect - like for example the great kingdom of Solomon which had to be no greater than a local feud since all neighbouring nations failed to see how great it was (let alone failing to spot it on the map...), all while stories like Jesus and his death are not mentioned anywhere by Romans but only decades after the event in the sense that "there are people who follow the teachings of hypothetic teacher called Jesus". For hebrew writers it seems that Jesus existed but he was the child of a promiscuous (in their eyes) Jewish woman Maria and her Greek lover, a legionaire called (or rather nicknamed) Pantheras. Sour grapes perhaps and accusations but what to believe? Muslims believe that their Koran was the word of Mohamed who spoke and his followers wrote down since himself was illiterate - yet in the very Koran we read that Mohamed was reading and writing... i.e. 100% whatever. There is absolutely no proof that the Koran predates the 10-11th century all while previously the muslim religion was a nebula trying to get more close to the judaic roots and avoid the extensive hellenisation of the orthodox catholic church as well as become a more simplified form of christianism that about then had reached... the philosophical levels and was alienating the common mortals. Religion = manipulation, the opium of the masses as Marx had stated precisely (but then Marx's communism and Lenin's socialism were also 100% religions and had all the elements of religion with their saints, their miracles and other such thingies).
It seems that an important part of humanity - whose percentage is calculated more easily in the largely atheist western societies - i.e. some 15-20% of people - needs to "correct" its own personal deficiencies through religion. It is all about manipulation. People incapable of dealing with other people in more direct ways opt that way : it is kind of the exact thing of people who had never worked a single day in their lifes but had the ambition to represent workers in syndicates and in elections and such....
... you get the point.
So yes. If you want to believe, go on do so. If you want to speak of trust, the issue of the discussion is incorrect, as much incorrect as bringing back to science the question of wether the earth could be actualy flat. -
Message 10
Posted by John David Miller (U14204402) on Wednesday, 1st December 2010
Once you have established the date for the crucifixion and the second usual choice has been my first choice for tens of years, namely between 9 am - 3 pm Friday, April 7, AD30, Passover Eve, and the Sabbath began as from 6 pm on this Friday.
And as the Lord God, is the Time Lord, then for me he reveals that "Number Form Follows Measurement Function. or that Measure Function Follows Number Form."
And from counting some of the time periods of the major Biblical events it is possible to see how the arithmetic shows how these time periods are related.
Hence such arithmetic seems to show the controversial Intelligent Designer.
Thanks -
Message 11
Posted by Wally (U14414065) on Thursday, 2nd December 2010
I see evidence in these repeated discussions which have little relevance to History for a dedicated Mythology Messageboard, which could be added to the Religious site or combined with one of the ethics boards. The History Messageboard is not really the arena to discuss such topics.
-
Message 12
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 27th December 2010
Re Dead Sea Scrolls - according to most authorities, these were the property of, and were concealed by, an Essene community, not "Christian monks" at all, surely?
-
Message 13
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 2nd January 2011
Nik
Thank you for your permission to believe in whatever: sorry, tongue firmly in cheek!
It is my view that religion performs a psychological purpose which is essential for some, useful to many and pointless to others. I think that it is foolish to ignore this characteristic of human behaviour. It is there so to deny it is to disregard an important part of what makes up our species.
One can always dispute over scripture which is why I try not to bother about the detail. It has to be taken at face value as a set of stories to be enjoyed. If there is any instruction that can be taken from it that creates a better person then so much the better for all of us. -
Message 14
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 2nd January 2011
"If as you suggest that Mary Magdalene has been written out of The Bible then why is she there in St. John 20 witnessing the Resurrection?"Ìý
No, I meant that AFTER this founding event she was 'written out' of the Bible by later members of the early church, ie. Gregory or Constantine etc, who decided to make it a strictly patriarchal series of accounts.
Witness the humiliating reverse of the Vatican in 1969 regarding Mary M? -
Message 15
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Monday, 3rd January 2011
Late 19thC find of the DEAD SEA SCROLLSÌý
Sorry to nitpick, but surely the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls was stumbled upon in 1947. That is mid-20th century.
I do take your implied point that we are naive if we believe all this poorly-reported stuff from thousands of years ago which has layer upon layer of being messed about or selected at the whim of various individuals. -
Message 16
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Friday, 7th January 2011
How could she be `written out' when she has been there all the time. I think you mean something else, such as disregarded.
There is no doubt there was mysoginism within the church which led to pious heresies which are very evident in St Paul's letters, but even the church acknowledges that belief is redefined from generation to generation and need not be fixed although orthodoxy would pretend that it is. -
Message 17
Posted by romitalo (U14747882) on Sunday, 9th January 2011
Reading the messages re: the Bible,interesting though they are, leads me to think who was the idiot who "invented " religion. Who was it who sat by a prehistoric fire half a million or more years ago,and saw something among the flames and said out aloud "I see a spirit in the flames and he speaks to me.And it is saying......." Or he could have been grunting it. From then on religion never looked back in what ever guise it took shape.
Think of all the misery and trouble over the centuries it has caused just because some saw,or thought he/she saw,in the flames of a long dead prehistoric fire.
romitalo -
Message 18
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Monday, 10th January 2011
I rather agree that this should not become a debate about the validity or otherwise of religion, mainly because no-one is going to change anyone else's mind on the topic.
Back to the OP - can we trust the Bible? Assuming that the question is posited on the basis of historical accuracy (rather than doctrinal truth), I'd say "it depends". The Bible, as a written source, may fairly be subjected to the same tests as are applied to other texts, such as Gildas or Nennius.
I susepct that much of what is in the Old Testament is pretty much incapable of independent correllation, but there is no reason why archaeology could not find (for example) clues as to the movements of peoples as attested in the OT. Who knows, someone might even find Nebuchadnezzar's palace one day (they might already have done so, for all I know)?
The NT is a slightly different kettle of fish, in that we can say with some certainty that the historical background for the Gospels, if not 100% accurate, is not far wide of the mark. Judea was indeed a Roman province at all material times and the names of some of the Biblical characters can be attested - not least Caesar Augustus. So the backdrop is fine. Whether Jesus himself existed is harder to demonstrate, as I believe there are no other contemporary records naming him. However, at least one of the Gospels was apparently written fairly soon after the events described, so we can be as sure there was a chap called Jesus in 1st C Judea as we can be sure that there was a chap called Ambrosius in 5th C Britain.
Ambrosius had a chum called Arthur, who will be well known to anyone with a passing knowledge of hippy ephemera of the sort peddled by crystal fondling ciderforms in places like Glastonbury. The historical evidence for Arthur is rather more slight than for Jesus, but there are similarities in that both have had heaped upon them a whole canon of alleged deeds and actions which are not attested by any separate contemporary records and which, to a dispassionate observer, all too often have the hallmark of mythology firmly stamped upon them.
The historian must separate the myth from the man and must then concentrate on the man. The myth might help in getting to the man (or it might not), but one must never confuse one with the other if approaching from an empirical and historical perspective.
So can we trust the Bible? Not implicitly but we can, and should, use it as one tool in the box.
Regards
A R -
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 10th January 2011
Re: Message 18.
A R,
thank you very much for this enlightening message to which I fully agree.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 20
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Monday, 10th January 2011
The NT is a slightly different kettle of fish, in that we can say with some certainty that the historical background for the Gospels, if not 100% accurate, is not far wide of the mark. Judea was indeed a Roman province at all material times and the names of some of the Biblical characters can be attested - not least Caesar Augustus.Ìý
I gather that there are, in fact, many strange discrepancies. Historical records exist for that period and there is no mention of the census that caused Joseph & Mary to go to Bethlehem, for example.
A major new town was built approx 3 miles from Nazareth in Jesus's time - a major factor in everybody's lives at that time - and yet there is no mention of it in the gospels.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
±«Óãtv iD
±«Óãtv navigation
±«Óãtv links
±«Óãtv © 2014 The ±«Óãtv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.