Primitive man was very afraid of nature and thought nature was an expression of a personal God. Science has exposed that God is not where we thought he was. Thunderbolts of lightening were not God being angry. Earthquakes are not punishments but movement of teutonic plates. Science like Toto in the Wizard of Oz has pulled back the curtain leaving us wondering that what we thought is not true. God is dead, in other words whatever we thought is no longer true. He was never there. We made him up.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
I see what you're saying, except that there's the Bible. It's easy to make up stories, but impossible to make up the Bible.
ReplyDeleteTell me how the Bible is impossible to make up.
ReplyDeleteHave you read my blog on Divine Preservation? There were hundreds of books that could have been included in the Bible. Only these 66 were. So, many biblical stories were made up.
Click here
I read your blog on divine preservation.
ReplyDelete"There were hundreds of books that could have been included in the Bible. Only these 66 were. So, many biblical stories were made up."
That could be circular reasoning. The other way to look at it is, the 66 books of the Bible are specifically those that are divinely inspired.
The Bible's unity and consistency can't be attributed to Emperor Constantine or any bunch of humans. No human beings would care to put together such a unified text that spans thousands of years—why would they have such an ambition? We humans might hope to achieve a goal within our own lifespan, and when we die our ambitions necessarily die too.
Nor would any humans be *able* to coordinate such a work over thousands of years.
However, I understand that your regard of the Bible isn't so high. It's one opinion that, "We can see for ourselves the contradictions and the flaws of the Bible if we read it with an open mind and not read the Christian mumbo-jumbo trying to explain all the bizarre text." I don't see the Bible as a flawed or self-contradicting. I don't wish to be wrong in my assessment either—the Christian walk is a significant commitment, and as the Bible itself says, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." That is to say, I really don't want to waste my life chasing folly. Far from it, I think this book is amazing, and it overturns the way I would otherwise live my life.
There is a way to test your theory—dig up any of those other books, and see how they compare. Well the "Gospel of Judas" was making a few folks excited a few years back, so I had a read. Can't say I was impressed. It sounds like a grade 8's submission for a class assignment: "Write your own gospel of Jesus in the eyes of some other person." "Hey I know: I'll do Judas!"
(As for the Catholic church, that's a story in itself. Since they feel free to overturn the commandments of God, I don't think they should be entrusted as speaking as representatives of God.)
It is not how you look at it. It is how it happened. Many devout Christians loved the books that were excluded and by force they were told to burn them. They loved them and hid them in jars, otherwise we would not even know they exist. It does not sound like divine direction to force followers to burn books. It sound like scare humans trying to preserve their ideas.
ReplyDeleteNor would any humans be *able* to coordinate such a work over thousands of years.
Well, the odd thing humans have coordinated these books. Scholars agree on that one. The Hebrews had their literature just as the Greeks had theirs. It was the force of the Roman Empire that lead to pulling them together into one book. Thus the origins are Catholic which you appear to have some concerns about.
It is not atypical for people to write stories or have an oral tradition. It was an ancient pass time. In fact the Jews were quite influenced by the Egyptians. The god Horus, which Moses was aware of, has many parallels to Jesus. The Greeks wrote extensively for centuries, whose writings have done more for the good of mankind than the Bible.
You are aware that Christian scholars believe Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write their name sake book. They were written after their death most likely and someone else wrote down the stories, copying from each other. That was a quite standard practice during that time.
The Bible is not so unique as you think. Remember the Catholic Church had 1500+ years to burn anything contrary which they gleefully did. They burned books as well as people. There are countless documents and free-thinking people we will never know about.
However, you read the Bible and live in most likely a Christian nation. If you read something you have never read before and it does not present your world view you say it is not like the Bible therefore it is wrong and also how divine the Bible must be. That is a non sequitur and a very human response. So, I offer that you have stuck yourself into a box and prefer not to look elsewhere because it is foreign. Should Constantine have leaned towards Gnostic holy books you would be making the same arguments about what you now know as the Bible. If you had been born in Iran you would be arguing how divine the Koran is. Humans are routine oriented animals. They stick with the familiar.
There are very odd things in the Bible, some quite immoral. It doesn't point to a perfect, good god. Perhaps you are aware of its entire tolerance of slavery, violence against non-believers and treating women as property. I plan to write blogs to show that the Bible is nothing special (except if that is all you read and have your eyes half closed). So, please pop by now and again if you would like to see and understand the evidence.
Your account of history is an entertaining read but not the facts. If you're going to talk about the history of the Bible, you first have to talk about the Jewish preservation of the Old Testament. Then, the history of why the Old Testament is an integral part of the Christian religion. You would then have to acknowledge several centuries during which the 27 New Testament books were regarded as authoritative, prior to Emperor Constantine. You would have to mention Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tatian, the Muratorian Canon, Origen, Eusebius.
ReplyDeleteUnderstandably, you regard the Bible as just another human creation, in no way unique compared to other human literary endeavours. You attribute its assemblage and unity to the power and influence of the Catholic church.
The Catholic church conspiracy theory is nice, but has the difficulty that the Bible itself is in conflict with Catholic doctrine. How can the Catholic church be credited with the ultimate assembly of the Bible if:
* It has overturned/contradicted its laws.
* After carefully burning everything contrary to the Bible (as if they could achieve that), and the Bible supposedly being their careful construction, they deemed the Bible itself too dangerous for lay people to read. The Bible was made available to the masses at great personal cost to certain people whose actions opposed the will of the Catholic church.
* They didn't include the "Gospel of James" aka "Nativity of Mary" in the Bible, which has the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and failed to purge references to Jesus' brothers and sisters from the Biblical gospels.
* There is a Catholic insertion that found its way into the King James translation: 1 John 5:7-8. But the availability of ancient manuscripts exposes this.
The evidence suggests that the assembly of the Bible was something beyond the capability of the Catholic church to control it.
"Well, the odd thing humans have coordinated these books."
Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. It's one thing to coordinate the books. It's another to make their contents unified over so many centuries. The Bible is unified; the writings of any other group of people are not--be it the American forefathers, the Catholic popes, or the Greek philosophers. True, the unity of the Bible has certainly been challenged. It's worth investigating the specific allegations.
Finally, you talk about immorality in the Bible. That's a separate topic which I agree also deserves scrutiny.
I believe I did say the 27 books of the NT were considered authoritative, but they were not the only ones. You have to pick and choose who you quote to support that. Like minded men ultimately pulled these books together.
ReplyDeleteThere were no tablets of stone etched with God's finger. There were no golden plates handed to a man by an angel. For the gospels men wrote down what they had heard and assigned it an authoritative name after most if not all of the apostles were dead. Paul's letters were most likely written by him or someone actually wrote his dictated words. They also preceded the writing of the Gospels. How is it that Paul never mentions the details found in the Gospels of Jesus? Wasn't Christ the key? Wouldn't his life served as lessons for the flock? Paul didn't reference them or maybe didn't know of them.
The Koran was memorized words or fragmented written down words of Mohammed. Then after his death they were collected and coordinated in a similar way to the Gospels. This was human exercise. But if you ask a Muslim he would say it is divine.
Do you think Clement's epistle to the Corinthians was inspired?
Craig McQueen wrote:
The Catholic church conspiracy theory is nice, but has the difficulty that the Bible itself is in conflict with Catholic doctrine.
That would be a Protestant position. I agree that the Catholic church meant to keep the masses ignorant on the contents of the Bible simply because prior to Constantine there were so many splinter groups. It had to be hidden and a priesthood established just as Israel had done. Keep the flock ignorant. Tell them only what they need to know. Avoid free-thinking. However, they needed the Bible to prove their authority. Upon this rock (peter) I will build my church .
Do you disagree that the Catholic Church was the vehicle used to keep the Bible "safe" for centuries? There was no one in the non-Western "Christian" world that knew of its existence.
To me it is so telling that the Bible does contradict itself because there are so many churches. No one can agree on its meaning. It is a great piece of literature but quite muddled in his presentation. Of course I did hold for decades that it was the Word of God and took it literally, but found that opinion was quite strained by actually reading it which I did countless times.
I wrote about the Bible and slavery on MLK day here
Happy MLK day. Please post there if you like regarding the immorality of the Bible to perpetuate such a heinous crime against humanity.
Craig McQueen wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to coordinate the books. It's another to make their contents unified over so many centuries. The Bible is unified; the writings of any other group of people are not--be it the American forefathers, the Catholic popes, or the Greek philosophers. True, the unity of the Bible has certainly been challenged. It's worth investigating the specific allegations.
The collection of the Hindu scripture (The Vedas and Upanishads) cover a much greater expansive of time than the Bible, even preceding it and it has consistency and unity. The Buddhist scripture is quite expansive and I have read some of that with interest. I found it was very consistent. Could it be you are just used to the Bible?
So how is it impossible for the Bible to have been put together by humans. We agree imperfect humans wrote it. We agree imperfect humans decided which books were to be a part of the one book. These humans acknowledged they were even sinners. If there was a divine hand involved it was quite hidden.
Why didn't God write it himself? He apparently did that for the 10 commandments but that artifact is mysteriously lost. Why didn't Jesus write anything? That would be much more evidence than any other religion's scripture. Imagine if God etched His words on a mountain side for all to see and no science could show a human touch. That would be worthy of a omnipotent, omniscient, all loving Father. Instead he hides and we are his forgotten children, particulary those who lived in lands for thousands of years with knowing this God, this Jesus. That is abandonment. Also, why would he speak to a primitive, isolated group of desert people? It reminds me of those who claim to have make contact with aliens. No one else gets to see them for themselves. We have to take their word for it. Suspension of disbelief.
We deserve better.