08-07-2005 17:31									#121
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

ok sorry for any typos and maybe a little bit of a mess in the order of what i am telling here...i just wrote what came up in me from what i learned from my 'historial writings and changes upon these writings' college i have had


first of all ofcourse christians believe the film is basically historically correct because they believe the bible is basically historically correct thus this is a void argument.

let us look at the bible we have to day. I think i wasnt translated into english from latin until around the 17 or 18 century. in which times a lot of different kind of bibles were in ciculation. the orginal texts as you know where not in latin but in hebrew? which in 40 A.D wasnt the same as when it was translated in lets say 800 A.D (just a year nothing accurt here) in which time a lot of the stories were already mutilated because of mouth to mouth telling and changes in scripts and languages. then in i think 1205 the RC church had a very famous meeting where they made the bible we know today. they chose what texts would be in the bible and what not.

now it is also know that jesus never said himself that he was the son of god if you believe the black sea scrolls and the evangelion of thomas (one of the several stories that didnt make it into the RC bible) which i both recently read. this was done by the R.C church for justification of there power.

even the fragments found from 90-200 AD are like you say fragments and have been subject to change. they are not the first stories of the apostels. they were copied or written down after hearing about the stories. i will not say those texts were heavily modified but those texts do not speak of jesus as the son of god yet.

they are also written in a time of great political turmoil and it is hard to believe that execpt these writers all the other historians in the world were biased and wrote stories to promote there side in policital turmoil times.

then if you look at the timespan you talk about from 30 A.D to maximum of 200 A.D...there is no book in the world that hasnt changed in 100 years to fit the readers of that time...

is it then hard to believe that with all these changes there could also be people that have changed the bible for policital reasons?

so if we think it has been translated serveral times and there were many different copies of the 'bible' and if we take into account your own statement that the RC church was pretty corrupt at times and controlled the bible I think it is fair to say that the bible does not form a basically historically correct base about the story of jesus christ.

	08-07-2005 17:40									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

oh one more thing...the bible we have today was it taking from the 90-200A.D piece and translated like 10 years ago...or do you mean it was translated back then and we have the end product of 1500 years of reprints and revisions right now today?

	08-07-2005 17:42									#123
	Get a bigger avatar today!

umm, you know that our current Bible is based upon the ones we have from 1st and 2nd AD, before there was a Catholic church, right?

and before there was a catholic church, most had agreed that the gospels, like the one of St Thomas were not legit

in fact, our Bible today is just like the one from 1st and 2nd century AD

showing that your point about "no book in the world that hasnt changed in 100 years to fit the readers of that time" is false (despite all the other, secular, examples)

now from latin (and greek) to english is a whole different issue

because there are issues of interpretation (of what is meant), as well as there are some slight differences

but these are all common issues with books being translated to different languages, and being very old

and generally the best way to handle them is to read many translations...

and if you want to study the Gospels that people felt at the time were not canonical, well that is also aviailable, and I think could be valuable (as well as a historical study of what was going on at the time)

Jon Miller

	08-07-2005 18:12									#124
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: umm, you know that our current Bible is based upon the ones we have from 1st and 2nd AD, before there was a Catholic church, right? and before there was a catholic church, most had agreed that the gospels, like the one of St Thomas were not legit in fact, our Bible today is just like the one from 1st and 2nd century AD

the bible you are talking about had around 5 evangelions more then our current bible. you know this because the catholic church changed the bible in 1205 (i think 1205) the bible we have right now is decended of the early text but it is changed over 1500 years. part were added and removed. parts were misinterpeted and words were changed...how hard you want to believe the bible is historial accuret the RC church had over 1000 years to inprent there idea of what happened on to the world. this means that even if you find the orginal text today that due to biased in the minds of the people translating it (from a language that has been dead or changed over 2000 years) it will be faulty...

for example...everybody agrees that jesus was nailed to the cross...because that is what we believe over 2000 years. now if they have the orginal text and they cannot read a word properly so that they have: and jesus was .... to the cross...everybody will agree that the word has to be 'nailed'...

this is not an argument to say the bible we have now is wrong but it is just to illistrate a bigger problem with your believe that the oldst text we have are:
1. correct
2. correctly translated
3. not biased

besides this i have given several other arguments i believe that you have yet to refute in my previous post

	08-07-2005 18:14									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

and let me set the record straight...i will not **** on anybodies religion. I think it is a worderfull think to have faith.

but i will **** on the idea that a book (any book) from over 500 years ago tells in anyway a correct dipiction of that time

	08-07-2005 18:19									#126
	Put an end to popups!

no

we have texts from the time periods I stated

and they are in agreement with what we have now

you didn't listen to what I said at all

a lot of protestants are extremely anticatholic, and would like to make a Bible without any catholic involvement at all

so there has been a lot of looking at ancient manuscripts

while it is correct that there are some differences about which books are canonical, most agree with the ones that were selected

basically I have looked all this up many many times, for discussions on apolyton and my own interest

and I have spent days reading stuff several times

and don't feel like doing it right now

we have texts (as in archeological) from 1st century AD, not translations of texts from 1st century AD (which is what our current Bible is)

now it is true that the 1st century stuff is fragments, but we have full Bibles from a little bit later (and the fragments agree with them)

also, if you are interested in what wasn't included, a lot of other people are also, and they are available from bookstores and on the net

basically I have spent a lot of time looking this stuff up in the past, and don't feel like doing so now

and we can read greek and latin correctly..

Jon Miler

	08-07-2005 18:24									#127
	Got spare money?

basically it seems to me that a lot of people who doubt the Bible

don't have a clue what they are talking about

sure, there is room for doubt

but a lot of what people claim, just isn't true

such as the claim that we don't have any manuscripts from near the time frame of the events described

or that the religious works that comprise the Bible changed massively with time (we know that the OT we have today is like what they had back in 1st century BC or whatever, from the Dead Sea Scrolls)

basically these books haven't changed much for thousands of years

and while people can claim that they changed a ton in the first ~100 years (in the NTs case), I think that the claim doesn't have any evidence

we also have many other works that are as old, but most people don't go arround claiming that they are modified so as to be not at all trustworthy...

JM

	08-07-2005 18:29									#128
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Impressive DBTS



JM

I don't think you understand that even looking at ancient manuscripts is only so effective. The meaning of those manuscripts is lost in time.

	08-07-2005 18:30									#129
	Got spare money?

quote: while it is correct that there are some differences about which books are canonical, most agree with the ones that were selected

and why is that...why are those 'correct' and other not?

quote: and we can read greek and latin correctly..

true but are the 'fragments' in greek or latin?

quote: also, if you are interested in what wasn't included, a lot of other people are also, and they are available from bookstores and on the net

i had to read the st thomas book with explanation with it for my college even if it isnt 'correct' and 'part of the story of jesus' acording to a 'lot of people' the book shows how, why and when translations and totally changes in texts happen...proving my point that even the earliest texts can not be trusted...especially because of the policital and social time it happened.


the debate about the bible is so much more then only finding and early version and saying well if we translate this we have the correct story...even if you find the first version you have to put it a) in to context of the time b) find out what is symbolic and what is not c) find out what the motivation of the writer/writers is/are

	08-07-2005 18:42									#130
	Got spare money?

you can look at the history of the time, and the discussions about the different 'heresies' and come to your own conclusions

in fact, I support you in doing that, it would be cool to make a thread on the subjext (I am sure others have some interest)

I personally haven't made the time to study too much, but I have looked some and can understand why several of the books are not excepted as canonical by most of Christianity

basically to judge whether something is correct, you look at discussions made by others, you look at how it fits in with the whole, you pray about, etc

now a number of the books which aren't included, are very very different then the ones that are

and difinitely don't agree theologically with Paul's letters and the like and also seem to be, historically, from nonchristian movements of the time

so it makes sense to come to the conclusion, that they aren't canonical (we are pretty sure about some of Pauls letters)

but this discussion, is what makes some that I know, claim that they disagree with Paul, and are in agreement with the 'noncanonical' gospels and the like

the point though, is that from a Christian view, it is easy to see why these other gospels are not canonical (Christianity is very much influenced by Paul, and he wrote a good chunk of the NT) (and the entire NT is our Bible (with the OT), not just the gospels)

Jon Miller

	08-07-2005 18:45									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Impressive DBTS JM I don't think you understand that even looking at ancient manuscripts is only so effective. The meaning of those manuscripts is lost in time.

how is he impressive?

he has looked up nothing

I have done so before, several times, and in threads similiar to this...

while I admit to not doing so this time, I don't see how you can claim that words without any basis in fact is impressive

and are you saying that we have lost the meaning of Plato and Aristotle?

I think that you don't understand what people understand and know.. (Also latin has been a dead language for a long long time..)

Jon Miller

	08-07-2005 18:47									#132
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: the point though, is that from a Christian view, it is easy to see why these other gospels are not canonical (Christianity is very much influenced by Paul, and he wrote a good chunk of the NT) (and the entire NT is our Bible (with the OT), not just the gospels)

complete agree...but that is were the problem lays like a said before...our views about what happened can never be objective anymore by 200 years of 'proganda' (for lack of a nicer term)

	08-07-2005 18:52									#133
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller how is he impressive? he has looked up nothing I have done so before, several times, and in threads similiar to this... while I admit to not doing so this time, I don't see how you can claim that words without any basis in fact is impressive and are you saying that we have lost the meaning of Plato and Aristotle? I think that you don't understand what people understand and know.. (Also latin has been a dead language for a long long time..) Jon Miller

i was going to let this discussion die out...but DONT try to presume what i have and have looked up...DONT presume that i do not know what christianity is... DONT presume that you know anything more about this subject and DONT presume you know what i know about translations errors, ancient texts, historial rape and misinterpetion of events in history in general...

that is not only very arrogent but also is disrepectfull towards me

	08-07-2005 18:52									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword he probably said already but i am to backward lazy today to look if it is true...but pekka says about the hitting and the portraining jews badly 'isnt this as it happens so why not show the truth'. you says is on assumption that what the bible says is true...and that it is a correct telling of what happened back then...but as we all most of the stories in the bible were written 10 years after jesus died...and rewritten for policital reasons thousands of times...having said that we do not know what happened back then or even if it happened...but if you see the POTC as a story instead of a religious historial accuret event then there is nothing wrong with it...but i think it is very arrogent to make a movie that depicts the suffering of jesus and in my eyes also is slanderous for jews and call it historial correct. what mel gibson did is take the stories about jesus suffering that he heard in his childhood...put some extra blood in it to get HIS point across and sold it as and correct dipiction of what happened...he sold it more as a reinactment then a movie...and that is what i believe is wrong about this movie

this is what you claimed

and I have argued that it is false (and I have seen facts that it is false, but don't feel like doing your googling for you, and so have just referenced them)

and now you argue something completely different, that there could be symbolism, or interpretation, or something

well that could be true about everything...

but your point that the Bible has been hacked to peices for 2k years is obviously false

and your statement that the death of Christ is something that only Mel (or a small group) that beleives similiarly is false

Christians think that is what happened, and we think that based upon our holy book, and we can trace it back (Archeologically, as well as historically) to a few decades after the events described within it

now it could be all false, written by His disciples or Paul, in order to start a new religion

but that is not what Christians believe

it is not just some story that no one believes is true, it is true, and important, for millions (over a billion?) Christians worldwide...

Jon Miller

	08-07-2005 18:53									#135
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller how is he impressive? he has looked up nothing I have done so before, several times, and in threads similiar to this... while I admit to not doing so this time, I don't see how you can claim that words without any basis in fact is impressive

Don't take it wrong. You aren't doing badly. I just agree with him and he's being articulate

quote: and are you saying that we have lost the meaning of Plato and Aristotle?

Yeah, some of it anyway. We can't be sure what part.

quote: I think that you don't understand what people understand and know.. (Also latin has been a dead language for a long long time..)

No one knows for sure what someone was thinking thousands of years ago.

	08-07-2005 18:56									#136
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DeathByTheSword i was going to let this discussion die out...but DONT try to presume what i have and have looked up...DONT presume that i do not know what christianity is... DONT presume that you know anything more about this subject and DONT presume you know what i know about translations errors, ancient texts, historial rape and misinterpetion of events in history in general... that is not only very arrogent but also is disrepectfull towards me

you have shown you don't by what you have posted here...

so I dont' have to presume

you show yourself by your words..

you were flat out wrong in your statement that we just have translations and retranslations of works from 1000s of years ago, and a lot of your other statements are similiarly unknowledgeable

now I dont' disrespect you for not knowing.. most don't, including most Christians

I just encourage you to learn about it, and also to not go arround presenting your figurings as fact

you might cynically say that everything changed in the first ~100 years.. and then basically stayed the same after that...

but understand that some won't agree....

Jon Miller

	08-07-2005 19:00									#137
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious No one knows for sure what someone was thinking thousands of years ago.

true

all we have is their words..

and as far as that goes.. all we have are the words of people who knew people who knew Jesus (very few claim nowadays that the gospels were written by people who knew Him, since there is no evidence for this, and there is some against it)

and we don't have His actual words (except maybe as a source that the writers used.. which many theologians claim is the source for Mathew/Mark/Luke)

so yes

but you can say the same about 100 years ago, or often about 10...

and actually I am often not sure what I was thinking 1 year ago...

in all these cases all you have are words.. (and in some recent cases video..), so that is what you have to work with

Jon Miller

	08-07-2005 19:01									#138
	Tired of ads?

quote: but your point that the Bible has been hacked to peices for 2k years is obviously false

this is something that can still be debated but as you said needs referneces

quote: and your statement that the death of Christ is something that only Mel (or a small group) that beleives similiarly is false

here you miss understood me...i ment to say like i explained better later on that people uses more the stories the hear about what happened to christ that even the bible...stories which are highly influental to human emotions and convictions...this is the same for the bible it is written down not from a first hand account but from stories people heard...even first hand accounts are not objective...thus if the writers had some personel problem with jews he could have said that jews wanted jesus dead instead of certain people that just happened to be jew...

	08-07-2005 19:03									#139
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

IMO, anybody who argues for/against a movie/song/whatever that they haven't even experienced is less than a fool.

Why even bother discussing this with Berzerker, people? He hasn't even bothered to see the film and is allowing other peoples words to form his attitudes w/o the necessary personal experience of actually watching the film that would make his arguments meaningful.

	08-07-2005 19:04									#140
	Increase Your PM Length

have you read Mathew?

it was written by a jew, for jews.. (it seems to me, and most theologians)..

as I said, I am not going to do your googling for you

I have done it a number of times here on apolyton, and I looked for 20 minutes or so this time...

but previous times I have always ended up spending most of day looking stuff up (partly because it is so interesting), and I don't want to do that today

I have physics to do

Jon Miller

	08-07-2005 19:06									#141
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller in all these cases all you have are words.. (and in some recent cases video..), so that is what you have to work with Jon Miller

I'm sure you know that the historical meaning of words is sometimes lost.

	08-07-2005 19:26									#142
	Increase the size of your Attachments

matthew

Writing a decade or so after the second temple was destroyed in the failed jewish uprising....matthew was determined to explain to the jewish world just who jesus was and to show judaism that there was an alternative to the rabby tradition that was developing at that time (i.e that salvation through jesus was possible)


matthaw uses most of marks stories which also already flawed because he has his infromation fromt he stories of paul...interesting is that jesus was a carpeter in pauls orginal stories but mark changed this in to the son of a carpenter...showing that jesus did have a lowly job but rose about his expectations...also interesting to know that the ressurection isnt yet in marks original story but in later version is it somehow.

	08-07-2005 19:44									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

generally you were what your father was in that time

so Jesus was a carpenter, as His father was

or do you assume that Jesus just didn't do anything until he was 30 (33?) and started teaching

and most theolgians think that Mark, Luke, and Mathew all share a similiar source, which they call Q

and while the ressurection is not in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, it is in the other gospels.. and is crucial to Paul's theology (which is the founding theology of the Christian church, the plurality of books of the NT are written (or claimed to be written, some theologians don't think a few were written by Paul...) by Paul who lived in the time of Christ, but wasn't active until after His death)

Jon Miller

	08-07-2005 20:07									#144
	Increase Your PM Length

oh btw i made a mistake mark wasnt a follower of paul but of peter... matew and like you are saying luke used marks stories for there own...mathew changed it for the jews and luke changed it for the gentiles...if we are talking about luke...if is funny to see that he uses a local soldier (atleast not roman one) to scourge jesus and mark (before him and for a different audience) used a roman one...this is because during the time luke wrote his piece the romans were beating up christians and luke also wrote for a roman audience...this is also the moment that jesus kingdom is first depicted as not of this world to not enraged the romans more

	08-07-2005 20:11									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

* GeoModder prods DBTS with a cross discussion stick.

	08-07-2005 20:13									#146
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

off topic of the offtopic topic
@ geomodder i think pollution and health in civ4 go perfectly together

	08-07-2005 20:28									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian And the fury about the supposedly anti-semite slant of 'Passion' differs in what way???

I'm not sure I follow you (perhaps since the word "slant" is unknown to me...)...

I pointed out the intolerance of religious groups by drawing a parallell to the release of The Last Temptation of Christ... Mainly because I don't understand what's so controversial about it...

What's your point?

Carolus

	08-07-2005 20:45									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

In the way he used it, slant=bias.

It also means "to lean at a non-perpendicular angle, to lean diagonally", as in "The ladder was against the wall when it started slanting to the left, which caused my brother to fall."

	08-07-2005 22:05									#149
	Put an end to popups!

Oh, wow, this thread took off!

quote: and most protestant denominations don't focus much on Christs physical suffering (in fact, I think that they focus more on the ressurection then do catholics)

Yes, the way of the cross is uniquely Catholic. I loved it when I was first introduced to it, and it's one of the things I really like about the Catholic church. One of the beefs about Gibson's movie, is not where it starts, but where it ends, before the resurrection.

	08-07-2005 22:14									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: umm, you know that our current Bible is based upon the ones we have from 1st and 2nd AD, before there was a Catholic church, right?

Well, my question for you is when does the Catholic church begin? I find that a curious statement, given that the Catholic church traces their history all the way back to the apostles.

quote: and before there was a catholic church, most had agreed that the gospels, like the one of St Thomas were not legit

Who agreed? Was it one of the ecumenical councils of the Catholic church? You can't avoid the question of canonicity and decline to accept the authority that established the canon of the church.

quote: in fact, our Bible today is just like the one from 1st and 2nd century AD

Who's bible? Until they met to decide the canon of the church, the bible in the form that we have it now, did not exist. Yes, the individual books of the New Testament did exist, but they were not put together, at least not in the form to which we have become accustomed.

quote: and generally the best way to handle them is to read many translations...

Or to translate, as they do now, from a source as close to the original as possible, rather than a translation of a translation. Rather than translation from the Septuagint to the Vulgate and then to English, you bypass the Vulgate altogether.

quote: and if you want to study the Gospels that people felt at the time were not canonical, well that is also aviailable, and I think could be valuable (as well as a historical study of what was going on at the time)

It is a very good question, and very interesting too, to look at things like the Didache which were considered by the council, yet not accepted as canon by the church.