The Faith & Religion mega Thread

"The Quest for the Historical Jesus" (e.g. here and here) is quite fascinating to me. Many people have observed that, when "Jesus" is speaking at various points throughout the Canonical Gospels, and certainly(!) in the cataclysmic Book of Revelation, He seems to be speaking out of both sides of His mouth. You get the niggling impression that someone else is speaking for Him in the books that we now have in our hands, and many feel that this is very likely to be the case. In the many "non-canonical gospels," this sense of deliberate manipulation (or, pure fiction ...) is even more apparent.

The provenance of these texts must always be carefully considered: "how did this text wind up in our hands?"

Fundamentally, the texts were always "very politically charged." In many societies there is [still ...] no distinction between "church" and "state," and the bishops were more powerful than the king. Therefore, this bare fact should always be kept in mind as you read and consider. Plenty of people over time had a vested interest in having "Jesus" say what they wanted Him to say, and they were in the position to [potentially ...] "make Him say just that." They were the scribes and the transcribers, and they knew how to read. But, for us, it is only speculation. If they did such a thing, we cannot know.

Nevertheless: You are not reading "contemporary accounts" of people who were actually with Jesus, taking dictation. The author of Luke/Acts even directly says as much: "I'm trying to get to the bottom of this." And (s)he was writing "relatively soon after" the recounted events had occurred. (Did "eyewitnesses" still exist? Once again we simply do not know.)

Even "author"-titled books such as Peter might in fact be all or partly pseudepigrapha, and we would never know for sure.

It is certainly interesting that we know by-far less about this "religious Founder" than we do about any of His contemporaries – Muhammad, The Buddha, and so forth. And, very few other sources make even the most-oblique mention of Him, even in the writings of apparently well-traveled historians of the day. "We have what we have," and we should consider "what we have" without – as I said – ever being able to know for sure. In this realm, there is simply no "certainty." These books were not carved on stone tablets by the Finger of God. They are what they are.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Nevertheless: You are not reading "contemporary accounts" of people who were actually with Jesus, taking dictation. The author of Luke/Acts even directly says as much: "I'm trying to get to the bottom of this." Even "author"-titled books such as Peter might in fact be all or partly pseudepigrapha, and we would never know for sure. It is certainly interesting that we know by-far less about this "religious Founder" than we do about any of His contemporaries. And, very few other sources make even the most-oblique mention of Him, even in the writings of apparently well-traveled historians of the day. "We have what we have," and we should consider "what we have" without – as I said – ever being able to know for sure. In this realm, there is simply no "certainty." These books were not carved on stone tablets by the Finger of God.

You're trolling, of course.

You're latching on to the words of a 20th century medical apprentice as a way to uncover the truth about one of whom we have bundles of inspired information. And that is the basis on which you unseat the entirety of recorded Scripture?

The Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures has been firmly established by many authorities as twenty two books (= our 39 today), and no more. Even Josephus commented on this Against Apion Book 1 #8. These were the books God had inspired, and nothing else offered was accepted.

The Greek text was also agreed by early influential men listing the books they accepted as valuable for teaching. I'm not bothered listing such in answer to a troll. Interesting in this regard are these words

Originally Posted by Romans 3:1-2 What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcision?  A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.

All the inspired Greek texts were written by natural Jews who were contemporaries of Jesus. Applying that razor, false books fall by the wayside. Likewise, applying the razor of 2 Tim 3:16-17, books like the Epistle of Polycarp were left out simply because they were not "beneficial for teaching." They didn't do harm, but they did no good either.

To mentally unseat such thorough study so close to the time of the events on the basis of Schweitzer's work is not actually a crime in itself. It's wrong in the extreme, but Governments no longer burn people at the stake, and gilloutines & racks have fallen into disuse. That's the price of progress . Mind you, Witnesses probably wouldn't last long under the old system either, if I'm honest.

I'm not saying anything about "trolling" when I observe that you refer to these particular books as being: "inspired." Which is probably as close to "writ by the very Hand of God" as one can get. You assert that they were "firmly established" by "authorities," but exactly what does that mean? Likewise, who decided what was and was not "beneficial for teaching?" And, who exactly made that "rule?" (Don't assume that it was actually "Paul.")

When you say, "these are the books that God had inspired, and none others were accepted," kindly recognize that this was a human decision and nothing more. Inevitably also, it was a very political one, because religion and government were one and the same. God Himself did not appear to them in a pillar of smoke and say, "yes, this one ... no, not that one." Yet they confidently asserted their right to "speak for God" as though He actually had. And, at the time, they were in the political position to be able to do so and make it stick.

If you look at these texts from a bluntly historical research viewpoint, the provenance of many is not as "cut and dry" as you suggest. We know that none of the authors of the "canonical Gospels" actually saw Jesus. We haven't found a single credible document whose author claims that he did. We find references to "source documents" but don't have copies of them. We can (and do ...) speculate endlessly, but we do not and cannot know. And the same can be said of a great many texts unrelated to any of these ... even those that are "not really that old."

There are many words that can be used in reference to ancient or very-old texts, but "certain" is not one of them. There is too much opportunity for "too much water to pass under the bridge, undetected." Too many human hands touched them over these many years. And, many of them had an agenda. We may think that we see "clues," but the "proof" is now lost. And this, like it or not, is the "starting point" that everyone has to work from ... unless they believe in holy inspiration, which conveniently removes all doubt and replaces it with dogma.

P.S.: After reading the above post for myself, I just want to be pre-emptive and make it abundantly clear that I do not disparage you for using words such as "inspired." If this is the way that you choose to believe about these things, then I know that I would "be sinning against you" if I were to appear to be besmirching it. Therefore, "I do not." You're just as entitled to believe as you do, as I am.

I simply believe differently. "You're in this lane; I'm in that one." (And if this means that one day I'll be shoveling coal to keep you toasty in your celestial mansion, turn up the thermostat a little bit as you think about me.) I see a very interesting compilation of various religious texts – among many others not included – which in and of themselves have "a very interesting history in the compilation process alone." I don't find "the Hand of God" in the selection, and I don't find in any of their words "pre-emptive Truth." (Nor do I have need to do so.)

As to my personal, deeper, religious thoughts – "I pray in secret."

I am also keenly interested in the politics: in the purely human side. Let the record show, for example, that many nations to this day have embassies in Vatican City. The Roman Catholic Church, and the eastern Coptic Church, both far outlived the Empire that birthed them. In many respects, "The Pope" is closer to a "King of Kings" than we humans have ever before come. And yet, that Office also has an incredibly tumultuous and blood-soaked history, full of Humanity at both its best and its worst.

And, by the way, my interests are not confined simply to the Christian religion. There are many others, and every one of them is just as human as all.

You obviously missed it when I pointed out that God is big enough to look after himself. That extends, in my view, to choosing the inspired books for his guide to the human race. As to what "inspired" means, the boss/secretary illustration fits well. Sometimes the boss will dictate pretty exactly what is said in a letter. At other times he can be a bit vaguer - Write to him, give him 7 days to pay up or we'll sue." God inspired works to a greater or lesser extent. Historical works refer to a few contemporaneous external Jewish sources. Moses included extracts from a few contemporaneous genealogies.

The Hebrew Canon has been set for 2400 years, and the Jews today accept the same 22 scrolls = 39 books we do. Nothing has been added since Malachi. Curiously, even prophets hated by the priests or the royalty of the day (e.g. Jeremiah, Isaiah) had their writings preserved for posterity.

It would have really been a step up for any Christian if he was "inspired" to write a book in 2nd second century. It would have been a shortcut to great respect. Many tried. None were accepted. Peter set another yardstick

Originally Posted by 2 Peter 1:21 Prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

There is quite a corpus of early Christian writings, and the overwhelming yardstick for accepting a book was consensus. Collections of books were being made by the end of the 1st century. You look them up if you want to question the integrity of the books, and take up the argument with men 1700-2000 years dead. You can do this by reading them. Revelation was slower to be accepted, because after three chapters of very direct counsel, it taught little for that time. But the Apostle John was held in huge esteem, and it's value as prophecy was clearly seen. God was big enough to make sure the correct books were chosen. And Revelation is pivotal today.

You can tell how early Christianity began to go wrong by looking at one issue. Early Jewish Christians in Israel were tortured by Simon bar Kokhba when they refused to conscript during his rebellion (132-135CE). But by 180CE, Christians were joining the Roman army, despite Jesus's peaceful example, and teaching. Integral in army life was murder and idolatry. The legion's standard was worshipped. So from that early stage forward, the Church had lost God's favour.

You "speak for God Himself" with utter confidence in a discussion about very old or ancient books.

Here for your consideration...

Originally Posted by Dictionary Unsubstantiated (definition) adjective - unsupported by other evidence

IOW if all your conclusions and principles are based in a single source (solely proving the book by the book) the odds of correctness are small. Conversely the size of the sanctimonious rabbit hole is quite large. People who engage in such behaviour commonly can learn nothing new. They have become insular, and that is one of psychological draws and "calling cards" of such behaviour - a self convinced of absolute certainty, absolutely impervious to any adjustment, let alone new evidence that even might be construed as counter to the existing beliefs.

In the case of religious scripture the pitfall is massively increased because being able to insist that writing is literally by the Ultimate Authority, and accepting every word as literally true (but in only "the way I perceive/interpret it") lends that one the mantle of that Ultimate Authority leading to smug self-righteousness.

bible: any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable[1].

Of course you can "'accept' as 'reliable'" anything that you wish. But, I don't have to agree with you. I've got a bookshelf full of books that are considered "canonical" by one religion or another, and a very long bookmark-list of the now-online texts of many other books which at some point were considered "heretical." All of this is nothing new.

Mind you – when I say that I don't find a book to be, ipso facto, "reliable," it doesn't mean that I therefore find it to be "unreliable!" It simply means that I don't pass judgment either way. I don't engage in the argument.

If you "choose to believe" something, then this is going to color your judgment from that instant forward. You are going to "accept" whatever is consistent with your chosen position, and "reject" whatever does not. This is perfectly understandable. But it is not objective. It is intensely personal. And, "your free choice."

If you now tell me that "authorities agreed," however many thousand years ago, I'm simply going to answer with one word: "politics." Because, in those days, "this was the language of state power." Whether or not this fact influenced their mindset or decisions, it was the environment in which they daily worked, and the scope of the power that they then possessed.

I present no challenge to anyone's beliefs. You are free, as am I.

Some entire books in Christian scripture are almost entirely political in fact. One example is the Book of Joshua which is so obviously written by sycophants and chest-beaters. Not only is most of the Book of Joshua unlikely much of it is actually impossible and both History and Religious scholars know and admit it.

"The books are as they are." And there is nothing now to be done about it.

When you grind through most of the centerpiece of "the Old Testament," you run into one purely-political account after another after another, usually reduced to mere paragraphs. "So-and-so succeeded so-and-so, and he [did good in the sight of the LORD | did evil in the sight of the LORD] and so he [achieved military victories | got his ass kicked by the so-and-so's, who carted the Jewish people into captivity for so-many years]."

These accounts go on for many, many grueling and mostly-unreadable chapters. If you were unlucky, "your entire life and political career" might amount to roughly twenty sentences.

But: "here they are." The official accounts of an ancient but literate people – with various references to other accounts which are now lost. This is the point at which we are obliged to begin. We face the exact same situation with any "old text" from any "tradition."

Like it or not, we "know" very little indeed. But, some of us "crazy people" find this fascinating.

You guys are as entitled to disbelieve the Bible as I am to believe it. I am not assigning merit to your arguments. I'm not proving the book by the book either, I'm proving it by the concensus of knowledgable contemporaries.

Rejecting God and the Bible removes any obligation you may otherwise feel to serve him. As long as he doesn't mind that, you'll be ok, won't you? Luke 15:27-31
The whole parable is symbolic, based on what the Pharisees believed. Torment is confinement, not torture. It's the logic in verse 30-31 I'd direct your attention to. Because somebody was raised from the dead, and you're not believing that either.

EDIT: Dialogue with the dead isn't an option either - only the Pharisees who Jesus was speaking to believed that. The point in vss 30-31 was that humans were expected to make an effort.

Now one of you has decided God isn't there at all, and the other recent poster thinks he's full of <expletive deleted>.

Curious that whole "raised from the dead" thing. Less than 1/10th the time to biblical times, just a few hundred years ago, even doctors weren't certain what "dead" really meant. Breathing stops? Heartbeat stops? Both insufficient, Brain dead is known to be permanently dead.

There was a period when wired bells were placed in graves just in case. Just a few decades ago it was common for people to say someone had died on the operating table and was "brought back". A few still believe such things. I don't think 2000 years ago the general public knew more biology and medicine than we do now and it seems to me that the story was reported ONLY by followers long after the event when had it occurred I'm quite confidant the rich and powerful would have paid dearly to hear of such a monumental event. So why weren't there at the very least Roman Historian accounts of rising from the dead?

A few pages back I quoted some philosophical soul who had stated "Had the Bible said Jonah swallowed the whale, I'd still believe it". Why can't you recognize your devotion is just as absolute? It IS quite literally unsubstantiated proof of the book solely by that book, utterly common to fundamentalists who refuse to question even if scripture is poetic mythology formed over many hundreds of years. It is literally willful blindness, aka Blind Faith. The only difference between modern fundamentalists and traditional fundamentalists is traditionalists openly wore it as a badge of devotion.

Uncomfortably, the "belief systems" of many people seems to be that they will by their beliefs reap "eternal rewards," in a place where gold is so cheap and plentiful that it is used for paving stones and everyone gets a "mansion." And your daily job is to sing the praises of the greatest Narcissist. While those who do not believe as they do will reap eternal torture. (And "the elect" get a lakeside grandstand seat to watch, while endlessly praising God for His Justice.)

To my way of thinking, this is gruesome and quite sadistic. Which is why I reject "the Book of Revelation" in its entirety.

I can readily find examples of this in every religious text on my shelves. (Although "Revelation" is near the top of the charts for violence and sadism.) Since "Death" is the one appointment that none of us can be late for, considerable power can be reaped from proclaiming to know what happens next. Jesus' essential claim to power is that He "rose from the dead." Although Lazarus did the same thing and he simply walked around thereafter in plain sight, whereas Jesus "appeared and disappeared" in a curious manner that was never explained: clearly, "whatever He was, He was no longer mortal."

"So it goes." You're entitled to personally believe whatever you personally want to. But this isn't going to fundamentally change my perspective about a compilation of books.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs those who do not believe as they do will reap eternal torture.

Eternal torture is an unfortunate common misinterpretation. The second death is a final death. God is not a sadist. The burning only lasts as long as the fuel, as demonstrated by Sodom and Gomorrah. Hell is as much about the ultimate knowledge that it didn't have to be so, that the offer of eternal life declined was real, is real for those who haven't yet suffered the first death.