Additions To The Bible?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-12-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(02-12-2014 10:11 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 06:03 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You presume too much, the leaders of the Catholic church arbitrarily decided that certain books were canon and then declared it closed.
Also, Christianity is to Judaism as Mormons are to Christianity, each one views the other as an upstart cult - and they're both right, though I'll toss Judaism into the heap of cults along with the rest.




I don't believe I presume to much at all. The leaders of the church didn't choose the books at random.

Also it does not matter how the Jews saw Jesus since the Gospel writers saw Jesus as the Messiah and Matthew, who almost certainly was a jew, emphasized Jesus' continuity with the old testament.

Yeah, the leaders of the church at that time chose, by their own arbitrary standards, to include certain books and to exclude others by a vote of the council.
Not seeing any "god inspiration" there.

I think it's very relevant, the Jews know their book better than most Christians and they know full well how the New Testament writers distorted their scriptures to create an ad-hoc cult around misconstrued prophecies.
What the Jewish scholars point out is that Jesus simply does not fit within any prophetic framework of their prophesied messiah, their messiah would conquer their enemies on Earth and establish his kingdom during his lifetime. The doctrine of the virgin birth literally breaks the bloodline of Davidic lineage, there is no way Jesus can be considered a messiah using OT scripture and adherents of the Jewish faith have very good reasons, devastating reasons, to reject the false messiah of the Christians.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
02-12-2014, 07:19 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(02-12-2014 12:19 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(02-12-2014 10:11 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I don't believe I presume to much at all. The leaders of the church didn't choose the books at random.

Also it does not matter how the Jews saw Jesus since the Gospel writers saw Jesus as the Messiah and Matthew, who almost certainly was a jew, emphasized Jesus' continuity with the old testament.

Yeah, the leaders of the church at that time chose, by their own arbitrary standards, to include certain books and to exclude others by a vote of the council.
Not seeing any "god inspiration" there.

I think it's very relevant, the Jews know their book better than most Christians and they know full well how the New Testament writers distorted their scriptures to create an ad-hoc cult around misconstrued prophecies.
What the Jewish scholars point out is that Jesus simply does not fit within any prophetic framework of their prophesied messiah, their messiah would conquer their enemies on Earth and establish his kingdom during his lifetime. The doctrine of the virgin birth literally breaks the bloodline of Davidic lineage, there is no way Jesus can be considered a messiah using OT scripture and adherents of the Jewish faith have very good reasons, devastating reasons, to reject the false messiah of the Christians.

Even though the books were debated at various synods the earliest being in 393. The Vulgate however, which became the standard version of the church, dates to about 385. Most of the books had nearly universal approval. The ones that didn't became known as the deuterocanonical. Even if you were to remove these you would still have a complete narrative.

I still don't see how Jewish messianic concepts have anything to do with whether or not we can still see the bible as a historical work based on the fact that there have been no new additions.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 09:41 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
Fascinatingly enough, the Bible as we see it today doesn't actually consist of all the gospels. The gospels there that we see there were actually decided by a committee (how surprising), so the gospels that don't agree with their beliefs, such as Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc., were abandoned from the "final edition."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bear100's post
02-12-2014, 09:50 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(02-12-2014 07:19 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I still don't see how Jewish messianic concepts have anything to do with whether or not we can still see the bible as a historical work based on the fact that there have been no new additions.

Really? So if the Jews have their facts straight, and they do, then the whole story of Jesus becomes a made-up myth. There is no resurrection, there is no sacrificed son of god, Jesus was just a Jewish rabble-rouser summarily executed as a common criminal by the Romans whose body was buried. Paul was just a propagandist for his cult and that's the historic work of the bible and all of the assertions made in the New Testament become a fairy tale.

Yeah, no biggie. Laugh out load

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
02-12-2014, 11:27 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(02-12-2014 09:50 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(02-12-2014 07:19 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I still don't see how Jewish messianic concepts have anything to do with whether or not we can still see the bible as a historical work based on the fact that there have been no new additions.

Really? So if the Jews have their facts straight, and they do, then the whole story of Jesus becomes a made-up myth. There is no resurrection, there is no sacrificed son of god, Jesus was just a Jewish rabble-rouser summarily executed as a common criminal by the Romans whose body was buried. Paul was just a propagandist for his cult and that's the historic work of the bible and all of the assertions made in the New Testament become a fairy tale.

Yeah, no biggie. Laugh out load

If we were discussing whether or not Jesus was the messiah or whether or not the new testament has continuity with the Jewish faith then what you are saying would be relevant. But that is not the question posited by the op.
The dilemma is : if the bible is a work of history then it should have additions. Since it does not have additions then it is not a work of history.
As such we presume that all other factors state that the bible is a work of history except for the fact that it does not have additions.
My response was to say that this is a false dilemma and that it is not necessary for a historical work to have additions. In fact it is not necessary for us to use the bible. Any work which is considered history will do.

Sorry to be anal about this but when it comes to apologetics I prefer to be very precise so as to achieve a clear answer.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 11:31 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(02-12-2014 09:41 PM)Bear100 Wrote:  Fascinatingly enough, the Bible as we see it today doesn't actually consist of all the gospels. The gospels there that we see there were actually decided by a committee (how surprising), so the gospels that don't agree with their beliefs, such as Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc., were abandoned from the "final edition."

As I mentioned above, although the canon was decided by a synod, the Vulgate, which is the official bible of the Catholic Church was assembled and translated about seven years prior to the council. So yes there were other Gospels but most of the canon was decided well before hand. The four gospels date to the mid 2nd century when St Ireneus said there could only be 4 Gospels.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2014, 12:09 AM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
That any gospel was omitted should be a HUGE red flag to anyone with a functioning brain.

God divinely inspired Thomas to write it, and because he's a prick, divinely inspired some other dudes to leave it out a few hundred years later.

Come on people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
03-12-2014, 03:15 AM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
Add all you want to it.
Why would adding more bullshit to a book full of bullshit be a big deal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2014, 03:22 AM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
^I believe the technical term is "gish galloping."

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
03-12-2014, 03:27 AM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(03-12-2014 03:22 AM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  ^I believe the technical term is "gish galloping."

I'm not really current on the latest technical terminology. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: