Sit back and enjoy Bart Ehrman’s research regarding what we know about the origin of the Bible. Ehrman is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill . I’ve previously posted about Ehrman’s 2007 book, Misquoting Jesus.
Ehrman starts by telling the audience about a question that he asked his students recently: If the Bible is really the inerrant word of God, why aren’t all believers actually reading it? Many of Ehrman’s own students truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but large numbers of them haven’t yet read the entire Bible. Ehrman asks: “If God wrote a book, wouldn’t you want to see what He said?”
Most of this lecture concerns the origin of the modern version of the Bible. Ehrman presents a fascinating history of a book based upon thousands of incomplete and conflicting earlier versions. These versions are riddled with mistakes. The oldest copy that we have of any book of the new testament is a tiny scrap from the Gospel by “John” called “P52). It is about the size of a credit card and it only contains a couple sentences. It is dated at “the first half of the second century” (minute 15 of the video). Our earliest surviving complete copy of the Gospel of “John” was created about the year 200 A.D.
Most of our manuscripts of the Bible are not anywhere near this old. Most of our manuscripts were created around the beginning of the third century (around the year 200). The earliest manuscripts of most of the books of the Bible date from the 7th or 8th century. By the time that a man named John Mill actually tracked the conflicts among the 100 manuscripts he reviewed (about 300 years ago), he noted about 30,000 differences. We now have about 7,000 manuscripts, and nobody has been able to add up all the differences among these copies (21:30). “There are more differences in our existing Greek manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” So, then how can we really know what any of the writers really said? Ehrman characterizes this as “a problem.” Most of these differences are “completely insignificant . . . mistakes.”
I especially enjoyed Ehrman’s description of one scribe’s mistaken version of the alleged genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam and Eve (27:00). Many other more significant translation problems have been detected by modern scholars (32:00).
Unfortunately, this video has a glitch and it ended at the 34-minute mark. This is as far as I got tonight. I now see that there are other versions of Ehrman’s lectures available in ten-minute chunks, starting here. I’m planning on viewing the remainder of Ehrman’s lecture, and I’ll report on it in the comments.
I would add a few questions to the one Ehrman asked at the top of his lecture: If the Bible really is the inspired word of God, why aren’t more believers taking the time to understand the genesis of the Bible itself? Why aren’t they more interested in learning about the things that Ehrman has researched throughout his career. Why don’t they care more about the inaccuracies and contradictions? As Ehrman asked, don’t you need to be confident that you know the accurate version of the Bible before telling others how “important” it is? I raise these questions because, in my experience of having discussed the Bible with hundreds of Christian believers, almost none of them know about these critically important issues raised by Ehrman, and it’s a rare American Christian believer who exhibits any curiosity regarding these issues. How strange, unless, as Daniel Dennett suggested, that most believers believe in belief, rather than in the religious stories that they claim to be true.
Ehrman has also published, Jesus, Interrupted, in which he argues that “the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many fundamental stories and doctrines don’t actually exist within its pages–they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts.” At his website, Ehrman further states:
Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they’re attributed. Others are likely forgeries.
The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.
The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.
The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.
Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.
The commonly told story of Jesus — his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of four vastly different gospel narratives.
If you want to learn anything about the Bible, you must cast off your European-paganistic traditions, translations, and see the Passion play out thru a "HEBREW LENSE". That means to know the non-vowel characters or alphabet, this include Paleo-Hebrew and Babylonian Hebrew. It is the only way to understand why Jews do the things they did, from a Torah perspective! Including Yeshua (Jesus).
Dan asks about one verse that may have had a bleed through during one of the scribes transcriptions.
I can accept that this verse might have originally been – Jesus "was of" God, but this would not change numerous other passages.
True, this is the only verse with the simplest plain meaning "Jesus is God."
However, what will be done with the many other references like Jesus’ words himself in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” When first encountered, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, when we look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, “For a good work we stone thee not; replied the Jews, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:33). The Jewish leaders took this to be an actual claim of equality with God. The Jews understood Jesus’ statement to be a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus never corrects the Jews by saying, “I did not claim to be God.” That indicates Jesus was truly saying He was God by declaring, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).
Or take the references in Philippians Chapter 2
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7But made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Appreciations to Rabel for chiming in about the difficulties in determining times and dates when there is a confusion of traditions at work.
But just for the record, before this becomes more tangled with what is clearly a discussion on "correct translation/interpretation" and how it relates to the veracity of the Bible, for me it wouldn't much matter.
I don't accept the basic premise.
If you produced tomorrow the actual ORIGINAL manuscripts upon which this two millennia-old issue is based, I would likely have the same opinion, which is that this is no different in kind from any other "holy book" you can name, none of which do I take as evidence for the existence of any Unseen Power that either made the universe or meddles in our affairs.
This is like arguing over the color of the siding on an empty house.
These people wrote out of their view of what powered their lives. Just as every other people with a different book did. Why do we claim all those other books are fiction and not this one? They all have about the same claim to legitimacy. It is the central idea that I find cracked and untenable, so precise interpretations, while interesting in a sort of historico-anthropological way, moves me not at all.
I have been through the true believer phase and come out the other side wondering how I could have been so gullible.
Look: I write fiction. I recently wrote a historical novel, set in the 1780s. In order to tell a convincing story it was vital for me to get what historically-accurate data I could to make sure the dates I used were "correct" within the framework of the period in which I set the story. I took pains to make sure I described the kinds of lives these people lived. I strove to make it as real as possible. If I've done my job well, people can check what facts there are in my book for accuracy.
But the story is still FICTION.
People who invest belief, faith, in things like this have a need to do so. Trying to assert that need trumps reality for the rest of us is in some sense pathological. It is certainly occasionally insulting.
So before this goes down an infinite rabbit hole of ever more refined interpretations as if that will prove something one way or the other, I repeat—to me, it's just a story. It's a story that got passed around a lot. But like a long game of telephone, it probably bears only token resemblance to anything that might actually have happened.
Than you Rabel for your wonderful post. Erich, I can't answer "I agree" to all of them.
A: Inerrant is not an issue because Christians refer to the Bible as the Inspired Word.
B. For the most part, yes the gospels are anonymous. But, the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, the tax collector was the author of the 1st gospel. John Mark, a companion of Peter was the author of the gospel we call Mark and that Luke was Pauls's "beloved physician" wrote both Luke and Acts. John is the only one in question, meaning was it the apostle John or a different John.
C. The books that were put into the bible had to fit three criteria: apostolicity, catholicity and orthodox. These contained the earliest material. Some of the others were too far out and did not meet this criteria. You say politically motivated, I say this was sacred material to the scribes.
E. Jesus never made a claim as to exactly when he was coming back, just that we have to "discern the signs of the time". Which I feel is getting very close. All of the players are lining up in the middle east.
F: The passage of the trinity made it into the Bible in 1522, but the Council of Chalcedon affirmed it explicity in AD 451. In other words, it was already estblished long before it made it into the Bible.
G. The best way to study the Bible is to know to whom it is addressing. Basically the four Gospels address the Jews and the epistles address the Gentiles. But all doctrine is good for learning.
To everyone, I am not arguing to prove that I am right. Without producing Jesus himself, I am not sure that can be done. I just think Bart Ehrman is out to make a buck and scandal sells. I am going to go way out on a limb and say that I am actually fighting for your souls, not to win an argument. Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. I honestly don't know about the other Gods people believe in. I do know that when Saul was converted on the road to Damascus he heard a voice saying "Saul, why persecutest thou me? He was killing people in the name of his God, but it was not the god of the Bible. He thought he was doing right, but it wasn't.
Thanks, Samantha, but I'll take that as "No deal" from you.
Rabel,
I never took issue with Pilates part in the crucifixion or his statements. I know Pilate didn't want to crucify Jesus.
My first point was simply trying to explain how an ambiguity could arise over when Jesus was placed on the cross and when he actually died. Both were part of the crucifixion process and many hours could have separted the start of the process from the end.
My second point was that what ever the actual day the Passover was it could have also been a Day of Preparation for some other festival day or sabbaoth be it an ordinary or a high sabbaoth. The Last Supper was definitely during the Feast of Unleaven bread and the Chief Priests didn't want to see Jesus hanging on a cross during any religious festival out of fear of a riot from the people, but whether they wanted it or not that is what appears to have happened.
Passover is also a "seasonal" time frame composed of several festivals/holy days as I understand it.
The point is John, one of the original twelve disciples was an eyewitness and he does not contradict Mark.
Sorry I'm not grounded in Jewish interpretations of the lengths of hours, watches and the like. I'll check into whether any of that may affect what I have stated.
Samantha
Sorry, WTF? I'll get back to this and your later comments, sequentially. But you have played the comment game falsely from the beginning. You are not an honest player. You do not live up to your promises. You introduce irrelevancies, and conflate otherwise unrelated topics, all to confuse and cloud the discussion – no attempt at clarification of conciliation
Do you even pretend to support the thread of your statements on this blog?
For everyone else – I apologize – this is definitely TL;DR; material.
You began, back on August 12,with some proselytization,
and after another quick comment on the 12th, announced with your third comment on the 13th, that
You didn't, though – you kept going. On the 17th you posted a rude diatribe against Mark
Nice!
Your next two comments (on the 18th) continue your denigration of Mark, his 'amateur' status as a historian, and his occupation as a 'Science Fiction Writer'. LOL! ROFL! (not!) Again, so nice to see Christian attitudes displayed on our rough, rowdy, secular blog.
On the 19th, you posted a comment beginning
But Plato is not considered Holy Writ!
You then continued with a weaselly non-apology to Mark
. yes – (1) you never compared Mark to anyone, merely took delight in lampooning his amateur status. (2) David Barton, renowned revisionist! Seriously?
On the 20th, you responded to a question from Brynn
followed by a fairly lengthy response, including this about eyewitnesses, women, and 'dying for Jesus'
This prompted a bunch of responses from myself, Mark, and Brynn. You then followed up later that day with a coment that closed with a weak version of Pascal's wager (which I reference in my later comment)
Lots of unverifiable assertions and assumptions there… but we'll move on – or try to.
You husband joins us on the 21st with a major 'witnessing' event. over 3,000 words (according to Word). Much of it copy/pasted from the Bible, but still – impressive for the volume, if not the content.
After a couple of follow-up comments (from myself and Erich) you then ask (Aug 22nd)
Erich pointed you to a couple of links. On the 23rd, Mark provided a long, detailed response to your question. Mostly covered by this In a word, politics.
You respond the same day with
Are we actually making headway?
Maybe not. You ask on Aug 24th
You get mostly positive responses from Mark, Brynn, Erich and myself (Erich notes he has 'dipped in' not cover to cover). Mark shares some of his background influences.
On the 25th, you share the following
which flatly contradicts your comment of the 20th (I am no by no means a Bible scholar)
You noted that the "video was excellent", but that the discrepancies noted were "nothing new", and that you were still "checking things out": and would get back after you "check all references"
Other than the initial discrepancy, this is fine. No issue. We're going to debate like grown ups.
On the 26th, you ask about the missing comments. 'nuf said, since they've been re-instated (after server oops), you also take a moment to praise one of Mark's comments.
On the 27th, your husband, takes umbrage at the missing comments, and immediately sees a liberal conspiracy, referencing Genesis (Eden and the snake).
Brynn responds to that and explains that in the Genesis story, the snake never lies, and God does?
Your husband responds with a comment, beginning Brynn, you appear in my opinion, to be extremely bright. But your interpretation of Genesis Chapter 3 is incorrect. . I'm sorry, but that always sounds to me like Roald Dahl's Miss Trunchbull "I'm big, you're small, I'm right, you're wrong" – i other words the argument from authority – which only works if we agree regarding the veracity of the authority.
On Aug 28th, your husband offers a heartfelt apology for his earlier accusations of dishonesty. THANKS!
On August 29th, you comment again, beginning
You go on to discuss a number of topics, including divinity, following the law, the trinity. You close with a promise
This is when I originally asked you for citations…
Can you point to more compelling and cohesive evidence that your interpretation is right (i.e. evidence that does not require a priori acceptance of the bible as truth)?
If you can, please provide citations – I am certain that everyone would love to see such evidence.
You then respond (Aug 30th)
There follows a multi-comment exchange about claims and evidence. Despite the fact that you are the one claiming the bible is true (with so far, no discernible evidence other than your say so) I relent, and provide you two 'skeptical' sources, one 'Christian' source, and a generic resource (Google).
You state in a follow up comment
Which simply proved you did not read my comment for comprehension, since I provided a Christian resource (not skeptical at all), a general resource (unless you think google is biased), and two already annotated sources (which are a 'ready reference, and avoid reinventing the wheel).
It also demonstrates that you still don't understand the basis of 'claims', so I responded (still 30th) with more detail.
Later that day (still 30th) you post the following (abridged)
Wow – a lot of noise, but still. no. citations. No links. not even a single 'decent' site where we can go look and rummage. Just an admonishment (have you looked at any of those?)
Mark follows with a long post, touching on the missing comments, and on "the meaning of truth" and the use of evidence. You seem not to have read that post either…
I also responded with a comment that touched on the "Gish Gallop" of topics in your comment.
Brynn responded as well.
So far – we seem to be doing your work for you.
Your husband comments (still 30th) with a long comment, but with this one choice quote.
Mark responds "That's not proof" and explains why.
He provides another comment to further clarify exactly why "personal revelation" is not "proof".
you then comment again, with a great deal of hubris:
But you didn't go, did you?
Erich responded eloquently, explaining many 'positions' open for debate and highlighted by Ehrman, and challenges you to respond.
Brynn comments (on Aug 31) with some 'equivalent' testimony – but from Muslim converts. So who is right? The Muslim religion is 'wrong', isn't it? Or is yours wrong? Or …?
You reply with a new comment, and now bring in 'deathbed conversion' as a tool.
A lot of non sequiturs to deal with – again with the Gish Gallop. (do they teach that in bible school?)
I provide a long, detailed response to your short comment. Erich provides a shorter response focused on your dismissal of Ehrman (or rather your presumption of our response to his book)
You then (again) post a completely dismissive comment (I almost said rant. but that would be un-christian)
So how many times did we discuss evidence and claims – back around the 28th when I asked for citations, then on the 29th & 30th. How quickly they forget!
You continue:
nice.
Still no citations, I note.
Mik Pulcinella, and Dan Klarman contribute (regarding your last little diatribe), and Erich expands upon Mike's comment with some additional 'evidence'
I got fed up with the whine, and went to see this truly wonderful site you mentioned…
Firstly, it was at the domain I provided you earlier.
Secondly, it was typical PoMo apologetics masquerading as research and scholarship.
Thirdly – it's still not a citation!
At least you thank me for reading it (Sept 1). However, you still can't help but include personal attacks/disparagement in your thanks…
You then go on about 'inerrancy' versus 'inspired', and humility (lots of that shown in your comments, so far!)
So I responded with much more detail (and civility). but tl;dr; (undoubtedly)
Mark also responded, with a comment about "inerrant v inspired" and how we can be excused since Christians seem to choose one or the other to suit. He also talks about humility, your other "GG" topic.
Erich expands upon Mark's "God is an emergent property" (to good thoughtful effect) as do I (it is a resonating topic, for sure)
Karl (yay, Karl) then turns up to support Samantha in an attack on Ehrman – with a major copy/paste from the 'earth-shaking review". (but seems to forget which thread he's posting in, at the end)
Erich asks Karl his intent – is it a quote from ignorance, or from a studied position. (a reasonable question, when you get a drop-in info-dump that is all copy/paste)
I respond to the 'cross posting' comment from Karl
Then you, Samantha, respond (on Sept 2) to Erich's latest comment. Again, being very disparaging
Can you be more disparaging? We're obviously just poor, little lost souls waiting for the strong hand of a devout Christian to show us the right way…
You follow, shortly, with an addendum
Then we have this (from this morning)
Samantha – you have given us NOTHING. The only people here providing any additional elements to the conversation are Mark, Erich, Brynn, and myself. You provided one link to a review, on a site that I gave to you!
Rabel now joins the thread with a distinctly different perspective, seeing everything through an almost rabbinical eye – and he is certainly of the opiniuon that the TORAH rules, and the NT is, at best, window dressing. I'm not sure you really want to agree with him, Samantha.
But you respond to Erich's challenge (somewhat).
Again with your own personal interpretation.
A) – your claim that Christians refer to the Bible as the Inspired Word. is patently untrue, unless you discount those fundamentalist Christians who claim the word is inerrant (something Mark commented upon earlier) – or are they not "Tru Christians™"
B) for the most part, yes the gospels are anonymous. But, the uniform testimony of the early church was that… They were anonymous,. Thanks. We don;t really care that the early church agreed to name the anonymous authors as these four individuals. irrelevant, and impossible to make any truth claim about.
C) The books that were put into the bible had to fit three criteria: apostolicity, catholicity and orthodox. according to whom? Again, it was a political game.
D) seems to be missing. Don't like 'D'? Sesame street won't be the same.
E) While you say Jesus never made a claim as to exactly when he was coming back, just that we have to “discern the signs of the time”. many, many scholars would disagree with you, and have done so throughout the ages. It's amazing how confident these predictions are before the 'event', and how 'full of quibbles' they become when the event fails to transpire.
F) The passage of the trinity made it into the Bible in 1522, but the Council of Chalcedon affirmed it explicity in AD 451. In other words, it was already estblished long before it made it into the Bible. but it doesn;t appear in any sources? Does it? It's made up out of whole cloth!
G) The best way to study the Bible is to know to whom it is addressing. Basically the four Gospels address the Jews and the epistles address the Gentiles. But all doctrine is good for learning. ORLY? Thanks for your erudition. I would never have known. Sheesh.
Tony, I really don't get your point or the angry tone either. Other than maybe, things got a little stirred up and you don't like it. Thank you for the site you gave me, because it revealed that the 1% variance is insignificant, you can take credit for that.
Samantha
The point is that the posters at this site (Erich, Mark, Brynn, and me) have bent over backwards to accommodate your viewpoint, to educate ourselves to your perspective, and have done our best to communicate to you why we think you are misguided, or at least, why we simply do not believe that your book is anything more that a book.
You, on the other hand, have obfuscated, conflated, failed to live up to the promises you make, and have continually pushed a single- and closed-minded perspective – The book is inspired, Jesus is real, and everyone here is a sinner, but you are saved.
My little diatribe, if you cared to read it, was to give you some idea what it is like to be on the receiving end of a Christian 'conversation'. Trying to debate a Christian is an exercise in futility.
Why then do we do it?
Because we care. We care that people are blinded by religion, often without realizing it. Since it is what they grew up with – it seems as natural and as obvious as breathing. We care that they succumb to religious authority in a way that (often) robs them of any ability to think critically, and blinds them to the true majesty of reality.
I do it, because I give a shit.
I do it, because I want people to be free to choose, not to simply follow a path chosen for them by their lineal antecedents and defined by bronze age authoritarians.
If you, thinking freely, choose religion – I might wonder at your sanity, but I would never restrict your freedom to do so. Unfortunately, the obverse is not the case – otherwise apostacy would be a phrase we'd need the unabridged OED or Webster's collegiate to understand.
Your inability to model my mind, my perspective, (or indeed Mark's, Erich's, Brynn's, or anyone not of your 'tribe') is obvious.
I truly feel sorry for you. You are living a life blindfolded and gagged, and you don't even realize it.
Tony:
I have reviewed your detailed summary. It comports with the way I've perceived and understood the unfolding events.
It seems, though, that we are at the following stalemate. The Samantha Team insists that the burden of proof is on the Tony Team to disprove extraordinary claims (I just nominated you for team leadership because I enjoy alliteration). The Tony Team (and I'll be presumptuous in speaking for the Tony Team) finds it to be more reasonable to follow Carl Sagan's advice that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; in short, with regard to extraordinary claims, Tony Team members believe that the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim. Thus, we might never resolve the issues being discussed by the Samantha Team and the Tony Team because we would essentially be arguing over who has the burden of proof, which is an issue of fairness. Unfortunately (for those who would like to resolve this dispute), fairness is a gut-feeling based upon… well… fairness. It is an internal regress of what is the fairest way to decide what is fair.
But there's even more to our stalemate. The Samantha Team members insist that they have direct reliable personal knowledge such that they needn't bother with any evidence, and that their subjective experiences are completely determinative of objective truth. They believe that their private thoughts needn't be tested on any evidentiary workbench.
All of this back and forth leaves me wondering what Samantha would think of the following hypothetical. There is a new history teacher at the neighborhood school, and she is teaching the story of Babe the Blue Ox as historical fact. In fact, just today she asserted that Babe the blue ox was actually so big that people used to hang their laundry on a clothes line extending between his two horns. He was so big that "42 axe handles plus a plug of tobacco could fit between his eyes." http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/2010/07/babe… When confronted by one of the parents, the new history teacher explained that she was certain that these things were absolutely true, and that it was the parent who had the burden of proof to disprove these claims about Babe the Blue Ox. Further, the history teacher explained that she had direct internal knowledge that the stories about Babe were absolutely, inerrantly, true. In fact, she held up a old pamphlet that she claimed proved that Babe was hundreds of times bigger and heavier than any animal that had ever walked the face of the earth. It was an anonymous pamphlet that contained numerous contradications and ambiguities, but it did seem to suggest that the stories about Babe were true.
Regarding my hypothetical, one might wonder whether the teacher was fired. If this situation had arisen in the country of Erichstan, she would have been fired as incompetent. In the country of Karlstan, however, where teachers all over the country were teaching similar claims about Babe, and where there was a long tradition of indoctrinating one's children with this same story about Babe, the history teacher was given a big raise and she was voted teacher of the year.
Epilogue: Shortly after the history teacher received her raise and award, the school board of that same school hired another new history teacher, a man who started teaching his class that Ronald Reagan was not actually born in the United States. In Karlstan, no one had before heard of this claim that Ronald Reagan was not actually born in the United States. This time, many parents got anxious, the same parents who loved the story about Babe the Blue Ox, and they demanded to know the factual basis for his claim. The teacher stated he had direct knowledge straight from God, and that it was up to the parents to disprove this claim– he did not bear the burden of proof. He was fired on the spot, and then burned on the front lawn of the school.
I don't have much else to offer, other than the thought that perhaps Samantha is correct that "time will tell." Maybe there will be a day when I sit in judgment and I will see for myself whether a "loving" God who allegedly rules over heaven will order that I be lacerated and burned for eternity for making extensive use of my (God-given) skepticism, even though I also tried to live a kind and decent life here on earth . Hopefully, none of those people who make it to heaven will think too much about the fact that some of their friends and family members are being tortured for eternity downstairs, because if they did, they might blurt out something like this: "God, why do we even have such a huge torture chamber? Did any of those people really do anything that bad?
Why not? If you find yourself in heaven and you criticize God for his creation of the eternal torture chamber of hell, you'll be in big trouble because God has a long biblical history of annihilating entire cities for lesser sins. Even after you make it through those pearly gates, and you think you have earned heaven, beware. If you're sitting up there on a nice cloud and you inadvertently have any sort of thought that is critical of the actions of God (such as "He must be some sort of sadist for inventing hell), he'll fling you straight to hell, where you'll be required to discuss burden of proof issues with Tony and me for eternity. I know this story might sound like speculation, but I simply know it to be true–I feel it in my heart. I have also read this story myself (right here) on these sacred (!) pages of this website. The burden of proof is now on members of the Samantha team to disprove my assertion that you'll be re-judged every day, even after you've been up there in heaven for thousands of years, and God can toss you out at a moment's notice. The Bible doesn't exactly say this, but I know how to read between the lines of scriptures, and I'm certain that I'm correct. Sorry to break the bad news.
Erich: but you forgot about the Book of Bunyan. Without that, your Book of Babe is not only incomplete, but blasphemous! Why, without Bunyan we would never have been saved! Believers in Babe without the grace of Bunyan are no better than common unbelievers, and in many cases worse, because such apostates actively seek to undermine the obvious and sacred truths of Bunyanity, with their Babelicious and Bunyan-free perniciousness!
All Hail Bunyan, with Babe by his side.
Tony. All kidding aside. Really. You don't want to anger Babe. After you die, you could be sent to the gore pit where you will be repeatedly gored for eternity. I'm certain of it.
ps. Really
pps. Truly.
Erich
One final observation regarding our Christian friends, TeamSamantha, and their counterparts in American life.
One can't help but notice the ever-present theme of agency. Something happens, not through chance, but because some agency caused it to happen.
The accident with the missing comments, was immediately ascribed to malicious agency – no thought was given to the possibility of a system glitch. No. Someone deleted the comments
We see it whenever a major disaster strikes (God was punishing X for their behavior Y that is frowned upon in Podunk). We see it whenever a Christian is challenged in a debate. We see it in the Christian-sponsored "Intelligent Design" (or should I say cDesign Proponentism) and we see it whenever the evangelicals push to move the Overton Window in our national debates.
Maybe Christians so readily fall back on GodDidIt because they simply cannot fathom an event that simply is, as a result of blind chance and the workings of the universe. No – there must have been an agent, and that agent was…
Tony: Regarding the agency issue, check out Michael Shermer's comments on "patternicity" and "agenticity." http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/06/14/micha…
Also, your comment brings to mind Daniel Dennett's discussion (e.g., in Dawin's Dangerous Idea) that many people just can't can't fathom how little simple things can beget bigger more complex things. He terms it the battle between those who insist on "skyhooks" whereas "cranes" can get the job done. "Dennett used the term "skyhook" to describe a source of design complexity that did not build on lower, simpler layers—in simple terms, a miracle." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous…
Perhaps a bit off topic, but this is why I read the New Testament.
This is my paraphrase of what I consider the main message of Christianity as contained in the Bible which you so wish to denigrate.
Ultimately the only things anyone is judged for in eternity whether heaven is what we think it is or not is this. What is our heart attitude towards God, ourselves and others? This will determine if you love the Lord your God or not by whether or not you would show the same deference to others that you would like shown to yourself as well.
If you feel as though you have earned a place in heaven – that doesn't let God (and perhaps other people) do the judging – forget about it. You can join the group that doesn't want anything to do with second place or even an equal place – you want it all or nothing. Sorry, but it will be nothing but second best – whatever that is in your beliefs.
Maybe your consciousness will just ceases to exist, or maybe you will complain for eternity about how unfair God is, or maybe you try to lead rebellion after rebellion to change the outcome, whatever it may be – there could have been a better outcome.
If you do happen to consider yourself unworthy of heaven, will you accept the gift of a loving creator who would like to consider your righteousness fulfilled based upon the completed work shown in the example of Jesus. Of course, if you would knowingly lay down your life in the defense of those who would despise you then you do understand what Jesus meant to show us. That would mean you've taken on the right frame of mind and attitude of heart.
For those who consider themselves better than others, (often including being better than God or just simply being better than a good portion of the rest of humanity) would there be joy or remorse over finding those you considered yourself better than now being of equal status as Jesus – God forbid – accepted by God when you were not. If your heart would be joyous over others having been declared righteous because of Jesus' sacrificial death as much as you have been declared righteous because of Jesus' sacrificial death then you have the other half of the picture.
Why was Jesus "God" incarnate and not just a cool dude with a huge impact upon history?
He loved people and willingly let them despitefully abuse, mock and kill him so that they would have no excuse at saying they had no way of knowing what God was really like. If Jesus "God incarnate" hadn't done this, even Satan could have accused God of being above the very creatures he was offering his sonship to.
Karl: For any believer whose belief system includes any form of hell, to love God is to love an abusive parent. I don't personally believe in any form of an afterlife, but that is how I understand the dynamic. Unless God were to remove the threat of hell (which shows up only in the cool dude Jesus New Testament), there is no way of knowing the extent to which "worship" of God is driven somewhat or entirely by terror.
I was going to comment, but you said it already, Erich.
(for what it's worth, I'd hesitate to follow the OT God, too – petulant, spiteful, and full of wrath [but strangely vulnerable to 'iron chariots'])
I always thought that hell was a particularly strange authoritarian concept – kinda like time-out, only forever.
The fact that 'afterlife' has about as much basis in reality as 'banana cream pie trees' and 'unicorns', I don't think I have much to fear.
[hmmm. I seem to have not commented a whole comments worth of words]
I have to defend myself. Tony has said that I have given nothing. If you go back into earlier posts on the Larry Bates site you see will many. Here is a list:
August 13th-quotes from founding fathers taken from the book "God Bless America"(prayers and reflections for our country)-dismissed
Prophecy Of Daniel-dismissed, Psalm 22-dismissed, Ezekial 37:21-reuniting of Israel as a nation which happened in 1948-dismissed. The Jews themselves existing as a nation despite being surrounded by enemies (Jeremiah 31:35-36. dismissed.
5,686 Greek manuscripts-older than any ancient manuscript-dismissed.
Dead Sea scroll found in 1947 dated around 100 BC-dismissed.
archaeological findings-small fragment from the Gospel of John-dismissed.
secular historian writings from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger-
dismissed.
Christians persecuted for their belief-dismissed.
Testimony from my husband-dismissed.
30,000 total manuscripts, 139,000 words per manuscript plus over 1 million quotes from early church father of NT, only 400,00 and only 1% being meaningful & viable-dismissed. It's deceiving when you say that I have given nothing. Surely I have given something, it's just nothing of value to you, but it may be of value to someone else. Having said that, you will be happy to know that I am really getting off this web site this time. We will just have to wait and see what happens. P.S. I was disparaging at times, I hope you all forgive me. God Bless.
Samantha
You say 'dismissed" as if we have dismissed your statements out of hand. The sheer volume of posts, and number of words we've devoted to this dialog indicates otherwise.
What we've done is not "dismissed", we've simply stated that your evidence is insufficient, it's not strong, it does not convince, it is either of dubious provenance, or requires faith (or both). It generally needs a friendly interpretation to mean what you want it to mean.
Despite a whole raft of discussion (on our side, not yours) about evidence – you seem to willfully not get it. I'm sure it's not a lack of intelligence or ability. These are fairly simple concepts, after all. I think you must be simply blinded by your faith and honestly cannot see contrary evidence, even when it stares you in the face. (Our evidence is like the 800lb gorilla walking across the basketball court while you are busy counting passes – a famous perceptual experiment – google it).
I'll take you at your word that you are being honest. In that case, you simply don't see our evidence.
In that case, I don't know what we can do. How do you describe 'gurple' to someone who is color blind?
All I can ask is that you try to retain an open sense of inquiry – do not assume that everything that critiques your religion does so for evil purposes – that way lies madness.
A rich, rewarding life of the mind awaits those who open their minds. I'm sorry that yours is so closed.
Karl writes:—"What is our heart attitude towards God, ourselves and others? This will determine if you love the Lord your God or not by whether or not you would show the same deference to others that you would like shown to yourself as well."
How we treat others and ourselves is the basis of whatever moral or ethical system we embrace. Empathy is the beginning of maturity and the foundation of morality.
But you don't need a god to have that.
The lesson I took from the Bible is that we must perforce treat each other better than god treats us, with the exception here and there of those who choose not to believe as we do.
Jesus' message was to treat everyone according to a benevolent empathic recognition of others as the same as yourself.
Whether god is in the equation or not, to live a good, moral life you have to do that. That people don't doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not they have god in their lives—since many of them do and still treat others like shit, and many who believe in no god treat others according to the way Jesus seemed to intend.
I actually believe there was someone by that name who preached a self-actualized, very advanced moral philosophy that was radical enough that it threatened to self-satisfied and comfortable and they killed him for it. All the divinity stuff was added later by people who can't seem to muster the wherewithal to follow a good idea, they have to have an icon attached to it.
The exclusivity of the way christianity—or Islam or Judaism or any of the others you care name—live is completely contrary to Jesus' message but perfectly consistent with the practice of special message religions.
I purposely didn't mention the term "hell" to see if anyone would bring it up. "Hell" to most of the posting compatriots here is just as I stated but which you didn't catch at first – its second best. It's the same a seeking approval from those that you already know agree with you. Anything that would make your agreements of souls with these select others must take a second seat which is why you'll have nothing to do with at all, you would rather not even exist if this is the case for all of eternity.
God would be unfair to any or all of the posting gang here unless he was the actual collective embodyment of the good old boy mindset and consciousness kindled here that you all find so agreeable to each other.
Erich, Tony and Dan and need I mention Grumpy would be glad to have God just leave them alone for all of time and especially non-eternity. They like the idea of separation from God so well that God can do nothing better than to oblidge them. God so permits free will in all people that He will give them what they want – although what happens once apart from God's presence God can not promise anything. Maybe they will spend eternity apart from God, God leaves his hands off of that side of things, because he is not welcome to invite anyone over to His place.
I would like to believe that the Bible is wrong when it says in Hebrews, it is appointed unto man once to die and then comes the judgement. Wishing it to be so does not make it so, even when your buddies agree with you.
Jesus and others in the Old Testament, as well as the Koran and most other significant Holy writings don't like the Karma of having one's consciousness or soul detached from this world without somekind of preparation for the afterworld.
You may claim that to serve a God with the fate of anyone's soul in the balance is to serve an abusive father that threatens to send people to a fate not worth even considering.
I can not change your ideas nor change any of the examples that you have looked to that helped form this mindset as a reality in your life.
It is clear you have a bias set against most authority because of your acceptance of and reliance upon the higher learning manifest in what you call scientific rational skepticism.
From the writings and musings of seveal of the posters her on DI I can tell you are looking for a way to define who or what "God" is in terms of your mental constructs. God is more than a mental construct that has values and emotions associated with life's experiences. God is discovered first and foremost in heart relationships with other people.
Its when people must learn to forgive and show genuine care for those they don't always agree with that they come to terms with whether or not they have grasped was God was trying to tell them about the attitudes of their heart.
I simply want you to know that if you ever do find yourself faced with the position of needing to prepare your heart for the inevitable that you will consider that Jesus didn't die anymore for anyone over another and He doesn't desire anyone to perish without hope.
Go ahead and call it an emotional trap and trick of the religious to control people's free will. That is your prerogative.
Erich,
BTW most other religions, many of which preceeded the time of Jesus held to various ideas about Hell – you can't play the blame game this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Buddhism
Karl: The progression is simple within the Bible used by most Christians. Old Testament? No hell. New Testament? Hell. There was little or no talk about people being kept alive after death to be tortured in the Old Testament. Jesus didn't do away with the barbarism of the Old Testament. He dragged it into the afterlife. http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/06/14/what-…
But I also agree with Mark (the DI writer, who I assume is not also the Gospel writer) that some of the purported teachings of Jesus are extraordinary kind, decent and revolutionary. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/08/22/if-bi… And see here: http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/04/27/some-…
Karl: Wishing it to be so does not make it so, even when your buddies agree with you.
Never was a truer word spoken. If this were all you wrote, I would agree fully.
You wish the bible to be true. It isn't. Wishing it were so…?
Karl
Sorry, What?
Second-best? An eternity of hellfire and damnation is merely second best?
So, to you, it may not be the main prize, but, hey, it's a consolation!
Karl, I thought your perspectives were a little loopy, given your previous posts, but this is a super-sized froot-loop of an idea. Utterly and totally demented.
Also
No. Not even close. I have a bias against unearned and unworthy authority. Authority by fiat. Authority by means so insidious and so fearful, the Stazi look like rank amateurs in comparison.
(I presume the other posters here, by their comments, have a similar perspective). By the same token, most of the founding fathers could be painted in a very similar light (or have you forgotten their rationale for why independence was declared, and why they felt it only right and proper that they should determine their own fate instead of by the hand of a prince in a land far away).
Lastly, you share this nugget
So your religion is a pastiche of other, older legends, then?
By the by – Hell is mentioned many times (as part of afterlife, or the supernatural world distinct from 'heaven', where souls 'uncircumcised' lie waiting for a final judgement) in Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isiah, Ezekiel, and Revelations – among others.
It's interesting that it took The Loving Jesus™ to turn hell from a 'waiting place' (c/f the RC concept of purgatory, or [from various religions] Limbo) into the final place for the eternally damned.
Karl,
That was an elegant post. Thank you.
We part company over one assumption—that there is an afterlife.
Humans may be the only critters on the planet with a profound sense of their own demise and a frightful rejection of its permanence.
Aside from that, all that you say regarding how people treat each other I agree with—you want to find what god ought to be like, it's there in the embrace of human love.
It is in the "works" department where I have the most trouble with christianity—and, frankly, with all religion, but christianity is the majority faith with which I live in this country.
I wonder why it is necessary for people of a certain mindset to condemn behaviors they simply don't like.
I wonder why they find it necessary to try to pull certain books off library shelves.
I wonder why they find it necessary to place public claims of faith above actual ability and competence when voting for public servants.
I wonder why they find it necessary to insist on a narrow, mythic view of the world when the science you claim to understand yet continually attempt to make insignificant shows us a vaster, more wonderful world.
I wonder why they find it necessary to tell me how fallen I am all the time.
I wonder why so many insist women should be second-class citizens and gays should be treated as broken people.
I wonder why they find it necessary to violate historical accuracy in the name of a cause which seems only proscriptive and not liberating.
I wonder why the generosity of spirit and purse some of their leaders promote is only valid if funneled through their organizations, or why they don't promote the generosity of the intellect as well.
I wonder why they can't seem to separate their superstition from their politics.
I wonder why it is necessary to explain, time after time, why a community of laws must be based on that which can be seen and examined and judged by its peers and that laws based on holy writ thousands of years out of date and founded on an authority that cannot be questioned is inevitably despotic.
I wonder all these things and many more when I engage in debates with people intent on convincing me my soul is in peril or my mind is twisted simply because I don't accept what amounts to folklore as somehow superior to the evidence of my own inquiries. I wonder why so many insist that all this will vanish in a moment of cosmic transformation that will place us all in a grand docket for judgment of decisions we made that, many of which, we've forgotten—or just simply on the basis of not accepting an idea that seems silly.
I wonder why so many of them are so insistent that this life we have here and now is tawdry, corrupt, basically shitty, especially when I can get up everyday and find that life can be wonderful, that the company of my friends and family, the touch of my lover, the amazement I find in the book I'm reading, the taste of the food, the feel of the air on my skin, the absolute joy that happens when I hear music, the childlike glee I find in the contemplation of the cosmos or a joke and anticipation that tomorrow will have more of the same is all evidence to the contrary, that life, while we can make it miserable, is not necessarily crap, and their ghost stories and apocalyptic prognostications are bitter evidence that, basically, they're afraid of life.
I wonder all this.
Now, I know many people of faith who aren't like this. But frankly, I feel they have to make an effort to reinterpret the corpus of their faith in order to embrace a secular, a humanist view that is not actually born out in the holy books upon which their faiths are supposedly based. They greet life with joy and openness in spite of the Ecclesiastes of their religions. But that's just a guess on my part.
But they do not represent the christianity I reject here in discussions like these. And the bent and twisted christianity of the Jerry Falwells, the Pat Roberstons, the Fred Phelpses is, whether we like it or not, the most highly visible and politically active in this country, and they are not proposing anything I want to live in. If the only way to fight them is to take away the basis of their assumed authority then that's why I'm involved. I don't see (maybe they're out there, but they don't make much impression) so-called mainstream groups confronting them and telling them that, no, they aren't actually christians—because they can't. They share a mythology and if because drawing the venom from its misapplication generally entails telling these jerks that they are wrong about how they see the Bible or whatever, it becomes an awkward debate since the mainstream groups don't reject these texts, either.
I think you have a rather novel and essentially wrong perception of science because you filter it through a mythology you want to be true, but you, Karl, are not the one I oppose. You offer your perspective in an arena of ideas and engage, I think, honestly. In your own way I think you love the play of ideas as much as any of us.
But you don't take the Bible, drop it into the middle of 20th Century science, and claim "because of this, all your ideas are wrong and, worse, evil." The people I oppose do. And they will destroy civilization if they have their way. I do not wish to live in their vision of the world.
So I take their authority from them at every opportunity and tell them they're wrong and they can't make an argument based on what they wish to believe. I don't want them in charge.
Sarah Palin is heading up a new (or maybe not so new) movement of so-called Prayer Warriors, whose stated purpose is to take over the country with prayer. This is an odious enterprise and I will not cede them one line of authority to do so.
Human beings can love each other if taught to. They can also be taught to hate and see more of that coming out of the religious movements to which I refer than love. I don't think a god is necessary for either.
Tony,
I have just stated there are things in the Bible I wish were not true. That does not make them not true.
It would be great to just wish away an event like the Flood of Noah because it really shows that people needed to be held accountable for some major failures in morality.
Mainly – forcing themselves and their view of life onto on those who couldn't or wouldn't defend themselves. Which is exactly what you do in strong arm fashion to those who have in your opinion no self will or determination – "just a bunch a weak minded and deluded saps."
Back to the story line – Back then, "Brutes" (sons of men – who had no wish to acknowledge God) were forcing any women they chose (especially those who considered a need to acknowledge God) into sexual relationships and calling it "marriage."
All of the offspring then just eventually were forced to leave the concept of God in the fable and book of myths because it was the strong self-determined way to do things.
I would hope this would even be vile in your estimation.
The Bible says this was basically the direction society was going in with no chance of seing these practices end.
Would you sign yourself out of the human race or would you go along to get along or would you really see it as a smart way to improve the human race overall?
Maybe God to many others is too closely associated with just a keen sense of right versus wrong for them to grasp that any event that put an end to such a situation would be viewed by many as a judgement upon society. Noah somehow managed to keep in his heart a keen sense of right and wrong and having done so was called a friend of God and was assisted by God to keep human life from being wiped off of the planet.
I would think it sounds like a Babe the Blue Ox story only there were madmen Bunyans using their genitalia to shape society into their image of what they believed it should be.
Sorry it isn't this clear in the Bible but read it when you get a chanve and maybe it will make a little more sense to you.
Who in the world wants to tell their young children what really happened to force the near totsl annihilation of the human race.
I wish it wasn't true. But, I know it was true because I know there are people alive today who would do the same thing if they had enough strength and collective agreement with others.
Say it wasn't so – say there aren't people around today who would do the same thing.
Say what you will. There are things in the Bible I wish were not there, but I can't ignore the fact that they are there.
I will not be like Thomas Jefferson and snip everything that offends my sense of scientific skepticism.
Thanks Karl,
I appreciate and respect your views…however,
In your response, "The Last Supper was definitely during the Feast of Unleaven bread and the Chief Priests didn’t want to see Jesus hanging on a cross during any religious festival out of fear of a riot from the people, but whether they wanted it or not that is what appears to have happened".
The early scribes under Moses authority have never changed the order of the Feasts, the Torah, and have sealed the blood lineage of Yeshua HaMessiah(jesus).
"Feast of Unleavened Bread" happens for Seven Days(there's that number again)after Passover, and one is to at least one unleavened meal everyday.
Karl
It also does not make them true.
That you believe the bible to be true does not make it so.
I understand the world through what I can observe, and through what I can learn from what others have observed and reported. As Newton reportedly said – I stand on the shoulders of giants.
You say that we label ourselves as scientific rational skeptics. That may well be so. It certainly beats being unscientific nonrational
skepticsfollowersScience has enriched our lives, and allowed an acceleration of understanding that is unsurpassed in our history. But, in itself, it is meaningless without
rationality which helps us to strip away obfuscation and irrelevancy to get to the root of issues, and foster true understanding – but assuming all players are rational players is obviously, observably false – so we must also be
skeptics and question everything and everyone. Positions are never unyieldingly firm, Opinions are mutable, based on evidence, and authority is earned not granted.
I'm happy to have that label assigned to me. I would be shocked if it were ever shown to be untrue, but if it were – I would do my utmost to earn it back and make it applicable again.
Jesus spoke of hell because it was a common term used by the people of Israel by the time of the New Testament. The evils of paganism had so distorted people's view of God that they were confused over how one could be sent there.
The concept of hell was not decribed in the Old Testament because it was not a place reserved for judgement during the Old Testament era. People who died in the Old Testament went to the grave and awaited the work of Jesus on the cross. Their souls however didn't just cease to exist.
Abraham rejoiced to see the Day of Atonement completed because all of the Old Testament Saints were no longer simply anticipating in hope their redemption, it was now assured.
Jesus was constantly dealing with the issue of who was responsible for events in the here and now but also in the afterlife, Satan or God, and "who is your Daddy" type questions.
Hell, was established from the beginning as a reserved place for Satan and his demons and minions.
Jesus goal was to show the people God's love – not God's hand in writing them off for eternity.
God will not send anyone there – that's up to Satan to decide who gets to experience what ever they do once they are out of God's presence in the spirotual world.
Read carefylly the clearest statement of Jesus about our need to fear Satan.
Luke 12:5 (New International Version)
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.