Is the Bible corrupt?

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Thomas, Jan 11, 2016.

  1. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,570
    Likes Received:
    1,552
    Scripture was written by members of the Christian community, that's what I mean. They didn't appear out of a vacuum.

    Exactly, the Church was there before Scripture was written. If we say Mark is the earliest, and the earliest date around 65AD, then what we have is the Church and an oral tradition from 33AD on.

    LOL. that's just your polemicism.

    Yes.
     
  2. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon everything is in pencil

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2016
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    10
    It was edited, redacted and added to significantly over the first 400 years, in particular to support the Church doctrines and dogmas of the Trinity, Virgin Birth, and the physical Resurrection.

    I have no doubt oral traditions existed ~33AD, but it is high end speculation that Mark was written ~60-65 AD.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2016
  3. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon everything is in pencil

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2016
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    10
    The concept of an incarnate physical God, and the Trinity is essentially a Hellenist/Roman belief, and not Jewish.


    There is no evidence it was composed before ~70AD though there may be a simpler Q that is early. By far most scholars believe the evidence supports a later date. I do not believe it makes much difference if the simpler shorter Mark was composed before ~70 AD. It is well documented that it is edited and added to over time.


    I do not assert beyond doubt, but the evidence is clear; Many references to support the Trinity, Virgin Birth and the Resurrection were added over time.

    They did not necessarily introduce anything new, but the syncrenistic influence of Hellenism and Platonism is very clear and specific. and rooted in Greek theology and philosophy and the origin of the concept of 'logos.'

    Claims of nuances just increases the unnecessary fog index. But the Greek influence is clear in Philo's concept of the 'logos' that contributes to the concept of the Trinity. The Greek link cannot be denied. Though, many Christians do deny the connection, but I will support that the influence of Philo's concept of 'logos' is undeniable,simply by the records of the known literature of Jewish Hellenism of Philo.

    Even though resisted by some it was incorporated in the concept of Jesus Christ being both God and human.

    Maybe inadequate, but nonetheless influential in the final Roman Christian concept of God.

    Your view of 'clear distinction' does not take into consideration the influence of Platonism from the very beginning. I am not concluding that Christianity entirely embraced Platonism in the later form, but the influence of Platonism cannot be denied, in part, because Greek Platonic and Hellenist vocabulary and concepts became an important part of the theology, doctrines and concepts of Judaism.

    It would be foolish and unrealistic to consider the various beliefs of the Virgin Birth and Reincarnation to be the same in the various diverse belief systems, but it is well documented in history that to attribute Divine authority to a messianic figure was to attribute Virgin birth and Resurrection to their biographies as they did with Christ, and has been documented in the progressive redactions, and additions to the gospels and letters, including letters Paul did not write, from Paul.

    Does not change anything, all belief systems use natural symbology in their scripture.
    I was raised in the Roman Church and prepared to study for the Priesthood in 1965-67, and I have continued to study ALL sources of ALL religions and philosophies.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2016
  4. Courage

    Courage Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    4
    It's more like the asking of whether a testimony is corrupted in a court case. That depends which court you are talking about and which standard is using. More or less, the Bible is more like a human account of witnessing for God to pass along His message of salvation to keep mostly today's humans informed of His final judgment to be carried out.

    It can't be made fully by God alone as in the end it's a human account of testimony. It can't be made fully by humans as they can't reliably pass a document across the border of 2000 years. The Bible could be the only human document of thousand pages which you can still reconcile its contents with scrolls as old as 2000 years.
     
  5. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,570
    Likes Received:
    1,552
    Good point. While many insist the Bible is corrupted, no-one is able to demonstrate the supposition.

    Scholars have long agreed that there is no substantial difference between versions of the Bible.

    Spotting 'mistakes', 'contradictions', 'corruptions' etc., is a cottage industry on the web.
     
  6. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    yup.... hasn't changed in 2000 years... that is corrupt in itself. Slavery, concubines, mistresses, stoning, smiting...
     
  7. Devils' Advocate

    Devils' Advocate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes Received:
    378
    Okay now Wil is really officially back. I don't have a clue what he just said! lol.
     
  8. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea An ordinary cup of tea

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    555
    I do and it's classic wil, I have to say that I think it's sort of...what do day say "pointing at the moon and talking about the finger" or something like that?
     
  9. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Ah, we are gonna make america great again... when exactly was it great?

    I want some of that old time bigoted mysognistic religion!

    hopefully that made it clear.
     
  10. Francis Earl

    Francis Earl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2016
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    10
    Certainly, the Bible is corrupt.

    We know exactly when it was corrupted: the Councils.

    Now, we are told that people 325 years after Jesus' death know what actually happened, what was actually taught...

    The Gnostics were actually experiencing the truth directly, but were killed off because what they experienced didn't coincide with the power-hungry priests who eventually won. Indeed, one of the basic reasons the Christians reject Muhammad is because of what he says happened on the cross, yet his version is stated in those Gnostic gospels which were at least as accepted by the community at large as the ones we have.

    I think that once direct experience stopped being emphasized by the Christians, the religion itself stopped being alive.

    Today, all we have is a dead corpse of ritual and belief.

    The Gnostics gradually moved towards Sufism and other traditions such as Hermeticism and Alchemy.

    The ancient philosophers are survived through their contributions to Buddhism (see Greco-Buddhism) and its contributions eventually towards Hinduism (Shankara is very much influenced by Madhyamaka, which is foundational to Mahayana) but largely they were killed off in the West.

    I think it is a real shame that Christianity won the battle for mind-share, I think our civilization would be in a far better place today if almost anything else would have triumphed... I think it is awesome that we're beginning to go back to our roots, and I do not think it is a coincidence that since Christianity has been questioned, we have seen our society grow technologically and intellectually.

    This might be offensive to some reading, but understand that Catholicism never even won the intellectual battle... unable to defeat the Cathers on the grounds of doctrine, they have began the inquisition.

    It has always been about power rather than truth.
     
  11. Francis Earl

    Francis Earl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2016
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    10
    Let us never overlook the fact that the first Pope was none other than Constantine himself.
     
  12. EdgyDolmen

    EdgyDolmen Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    79
    Re#51 - Roman Catholic Church seems to disagree. It is my understanding they consider St. Peter to be the first pope even though he was referred to as the Bishop to Rome. They base this on Jesus' instructions in book of Matthew.
     
  13. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,570
    Likes Received:
    1,552
    And not just Catholics. Scholarship — and the evidence — does as well.

    The rest is pure fantasy.

    By the way, the pope at the time of the first Council — Nicea — was Sylvester, the 33rd pope since Peter.
     
    StevePame likes this.
  14. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,270
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    If I've learned anything from life...and discussions on this site...

    That all religions have their 'saints' folks who use their beliefs to help those around them... and their 'devils' folks who use their scriptures to abuse...

    When I see anyone saying they have a corner on belief and everyone else is wrong... I know there are others in their camp... who are wishing they'd be quiet.
     
  15. EdgyDolmen

    EdgyDolmen Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    79
    Forgive me Thomas. I considered my response - 'cutting to the chase'. ;)
     
  16. Nasruddin

    Nasruddin Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    76
    Yep. Although we have to be careful about that old aphorism. Just discussing whether the Bible is corrupt really is just looking at the finger ,is it not?
     
  17. Namaste Jesus

    Namaste Jesus Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    3,238
    Likes Received:
    757
    See? That's the great thing about the Bible. Something for everyone.:D
    More like giving it the finger.
     
  18. Nasruddin

    Nasruddin Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    76
    Ha! Yeah, that happens too. See, for me, the Bible, like any text, is like a map, or a road sign. Not to reduce them in order to disparage, rather to show, in their ordinariness, the entire beauty of the universe. The Bible is very much a finger pointing to the moon, and should be honored for doing so. The Buddha himself said that it's silly to carry around the raft after you reach the other shore.
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,570
    Likes Received:
    1,552
    I can see that.

    To Traditionalists, the sacra doctrina of the Traditions is something more than a text. More than a sign. For Christians, Scripture is a living thing. You don't read the Bible, you enter into it. Like so many spiritual fruits, it has passed from the common consciousness. In the Tradition, the Scripture is a Body of Christ, it is a symbol, and Lectio Divina, the reading of, praying of, meditation on and contemplation of, Scripture is efficacious in that regard.

    Does one ever leave Scripture behind? Not really, one simply enters deeper into it. There are numerous texts in the Tradition that speak of the inexhaustible wellspring that is Scripture. Same, I would have thought, with the Psalms, the Sutras, the Upanishads, the Quran? Has anyone ever surpassed them in their personal excellence?
     
    Namaste Jesus likes this.
  20. Nasruddin

    Nasruddin Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    76
    Ah, my old friend, once again we cannot disagree. I cannot argue with your sentiment, nor your reasoning. As so often in the past, we have met on similar ground, only to find we really are talking about the same thing. This is the problem with our language, it constrains and shapes our thinking as well as our communication with others. You see, I don't know if what the sacred documents embody can be surpassed. In the Bodhisattva vow, we say that the dharmas are innumerable, I vow to master them all, and the way of the Buddha is unsurpassable, I vow to become it. So likewise I view all texts and dharmas.

    Yet, I think it wastes our time to argue about the veracity of any translation, or small point, because one begins to "pick nits" as it were. The physical copies of the texts, the words they use, the images they invoke are not as important as to what they point. It is thus I keep it all in perspective. If all the Bibles were burned tomorrow, I would not despair, if their words are written in my heart/mind. For me, and my own understanding, it is important to keep this perspective, lest I lose patience with someone, or take offense when someone seems to disparage what I love and revere.
     

Share This Page