Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[warpus]

But the child may think that it is morally wrong (inasmuch as he understands morality) for his parents to give him so many restrictions. That is my point; God has a much better idea than us of what is truly moral or not. And (remember that it wasn't His intention that Isaac actually be sacrificed) the whole point is that, like wise, God has a better idea than us of what is moral and what isn't. That is what I mean; not that God doesn't have a higher moral standard, but that he does and therefore what may seem immoral by our limited perspective (like causing someone to die) is actually the moral thing to do. Our understanding of morality is not perfect because we do not truly understand the consequences of everything like He does.

Something every good parent knows is to teach by example, especially when your kids are young and confused. If we are indeed 'young and confused' as compared to God, you'd expect him to be a good role model, wouldn't you? I would.

If he really is our 'father' and cares about us then he would lead by example, instead of confusing us with moral decisions we couldn't possibly understand.

Hold on now, that's a gross misrepresentation. The actual word used for "youths" or "children" could mean people up to 20 years of age. (It's the same word used for Joseph when he was 17, and the men of Abram's army) These weren't a bunch of small children having fun; they were the ancient equivalent of a modern day gang, surrounding and making fun of a prophet of God. Just as importantly, wht they called him, "bald head", wasn't as simple as a simple name: It was basically an accusation that he was senile, and wasn't really a prophet. So, of course, God showed them that he really was.

That's what I'm talking about. If God did something like this then it must be moral.. and I know that it isn't. Of course you'll just say "God is all-powerful and there's no way to understand his actions. They are beyond us." But wouldn't you say that this sends a confusing message to God's 'children'?

If God is always moral then killing isn't as bad as we make it out to be.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Something every good parent knows is to teach by example, especially when your kids are young and confused. If we are indeed 'young and confused' as compared to God, you'd expect him to be a good role model, wouldn't you? I would.

Indeed, but at the same time every parent does things that are morally correct for them but not their children. The same with God. And as far as examples, that was one of the most important parts of Christ's mission - his example is the one we should follow.

If God is always moral then killing isn't as bad as we make it out to be.

Killing is different for God and for us. Since He set up the whole system that allows us to live in the first place, and since He (unlike us) is absolutely certain that killing does not end a person's existence, it is different, morally speaking, for God to end someone's life.

By the way, my personal opinion is that the story with Elijah and the bears is either an exaggeration or a complete legend, used to show the Israelites that if ancient (by their standards) prophets had faults, then they shouldn't use the faults of modern (by their standards) prophets as an excuse not to listen to them. I also tend to think that the slaughter of Joshua and Judges is a gross exaggeration. But then, as God made us all mortal in the first place, every death can be traced to Him. But then, from His view, death is just the act separating one very brief phase of our existence from a much longer (ultimately eternal) one.

 

[Elrohir]

That's what I'm talking about. If God did something like this then it must be moral.. and I know that it isn't. Of course you'll just say "God is all-powerful and there's no way to understand his actions. They are beyond us." But wouldn't you say that this sends a confusing message to God's 'children'?

First, I think you need to accept that God, as the Creator, can do things that we cannot. To put this in perspective, imagine God as a Painter, and the universe, and everything in it as a big collection of paintings. If someone comes along and slashes up one of the Painter's paintings, that's wrong - it wasn't their painting to destroy. But if He does it - well, it's his painting, and even if we think it was fine how it was, it was still His right.

The universe is God's, including human beings. He created us, and has complete dominion over our lives, whether we like it or not. And as sinful creatures, I wouldn't say our position should be one of reprimanding God for his actions - it should be thanking Him for not killing all of us, as we deserve.

If it's confusing, that's why you ask someone knowledgeable who can explain it - like me.

If God is always moral then killing isn't as bad as we make it out to be.

Killing is not a good act. But that does not change that sometimes it is a right or necessary action. I would argue that killing for personal gain is wrong - If I want your money so I can buy a big screen TV, and I kill you for it, that's immoral - while killing for self-defense, or the defense of others is not. Would you agree with that? Killing is, tragic though it may be, at times may be the moral act - I would be very careful deciding when it is, though, because if you're wrong you may yourself lose your life to the government.

By the way, my personal opinion is that the story with Elijah and the bears is either an exaggeration or a complete legend, used to show the Israelites that if ancient (by their standards) prophets had faults, then they shouldn't use the faults of modern (by their standards) prophets as an excuse not to listen to them. I also tend to think that the slaughter of Joshua and Judges is a gross exaggeration. But then, as God made us all mortal in the first place, every death can be traced to Him. But then, from His view, death is just the act separating one very brief phase of our existence from a much longer (ultimately eternal) one.

Well, technically speaking, it doesn't say they all died - just that 42 of them were "mauled", or in the KJ version "tore". And if there were 42 that were attacked, how many got away? I mean come on, if two bears can get to 42 of them while they're all running away, how many were there to begin with?

The picture of Elisha having bears maul children is grossly innacurate; a much more accurate picture would be of a Prophet of God accosted by a gang of several hundred young thugs who surrounded him and were making fun of him and questioning his authority. (And if his authority as a prophet were allowed to go questioned, then many in the towns nearby might not have believed him, and not turned from their ways to follow God)

 

[Sidhe]

My mistake. Anyway, the Essenen "Gospels" were not, and are not considered reliable, so I'm not sure why you're bringing them up. They're interesting texts, to be sure - but so is the Iliad. Just because it's interesting doesn't mean it's accurate. They disagree with the canonical New Testament.

From the point of view of Thomas I know they differ but only in one key part do they differ in the message, I am cynical that without this difference there is enough there to discredit it, thus I say that it is the key difference that they sought to claim as warranting discrimination, hardly surprising, claiming that you can find God not in a temple but in any place on Earth. Sacreligous to a church trying to bring people to a common message through priests. It's not that it isn't a true gospel, it's merely that it's message could be divisive to a newly formed church. The essene scrolls all conform to the message, except one text where Jesus denounces scripture as not as important as the life and the continuation of life and more indicative of Gods message, not exactly something you could disagree with, but it wont make people take the bible as seriously as you might like, or keep the message dogmatically sound, again it's not that they aren't legitimate it's just that they might confound the formation of an organised religion


Not all the quotes. For example, here are a couple weird ones from the Gospel of Thomas:

(7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

(114) Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said,"I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

The first Quote is explained here:-

F. F. Bruce writes: "The point of this seems to be that a lion, if eaten by a man, is ennobled by rising in the scale of being, whereas a man, if eaten by a lion, is degraded to a lower status than was originally his and may even risk missing the goal of immortality. It is not that we become what we eat but that what we eat becomes part of us (as in Walter de la Mare's poem 'Little Miss T-'). Whether, in addition, there is any special symbolism in the lion, as in 1 Peter 5.8 ('Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour'), is exceedingly difficult to determine." (Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, p. 115)

The second is simply a denouncement of the inequality of womens roles of the times, I find it easy to inteprit.



Etc...Some of the quotes sound authentic, or as slight versions of authentic quotes, but a good portion are as wacky as those two.


You're not being honest here, I suggest if you believe Elrohirs claim that it's whacky and wierd you read it for yourself, as I showed before many of the quotes are repititions of the Gospels, in fact about 75% of them are.

Don't forget the Gospel of the Holy twelve is much older than the new testament and verifiably so, since it contains many of the same messages as the gospels, since it predates them, then it is reasonable to assume it is genuine

Bold by me

Fact is if you read them all, there is only very minor disgareement, but this disagreement would easily be enough to grant them a state apart from the NT, why would you include something that seeks to distance itself from scripture and temples? I think it's logical to presume there lack of inclusion is political, not because of doubts to their authenticity, but hey make up your own mind,one exception the Gospel of the Twelve which I believe was not discovered or rediscovered until after the Bible was written and has the honour of being the oldest Aramaic text(written around the time of Jesus) And perhaps even therefore the most accurate.

The source or Q text of the Gospels has been found in parts, because of it's similarity to all gospels it's thought it may have been the original Aramaic text that is incorporated most whole heartedly into the NT.

It's quite clear that many people believe the NT was written first in Greek, this is true of the Gospels, but it's hard to believe they were written solely from memory and not translated from originals. Unless you think it's all dimly remembered, past on by word of mouth and more myth than actual reliable scripture.

 

[ironduck]

What on earth do you mean by that? What I meant by that statement is that it is difficult to imagine the moral implications of an afterlife, and of having the kind of power God has, and it is even harder if one does not believe in such things.

You said I'm used to thinking in terms of no god and no afterlife. That's an assumption on your part.

 

[ironduck]

Elrohir, you're not going to explain why you don't consider apocryphic scripture reliable but you do consider the authorized scripture included in the bible reliable?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You said I'm used to thinking in terms of no god and no afterlife. That's an assumption on your part.

Perhaps it is an assumption but it seems to fit what you are saying. If we live forever then death is not the greatest evil that we can receive, not by a long shot. It is merely the means by which we transition from the short mortal life to the infinitely long next life.

 

[ironduck]

Perhaps it is an assumption but it seems to fit what you are saying. If we live forever then death is not the greatest evil that we can receive, not by a long shot. It is merely the means by which we transition from the short mortal life to the infinitely long next life.

Who has said death was the greatest evil? That obviously depends on the circumstances.

 

[Veritass]

Mark 10:18
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

Well, then, it's good we were created in His image, so we can be good.

 

[El_Machinae]

Who has said death was the greatest evil? That obviously depends on the circumstances.

Suicidal people think of life as a greater evil than death, to be sure.

 

[shadow2k]

Killing is different for God and for us. Since He set up the whole system that allows us to live in the first place, and since He (unlike us) is absolutely certain that killing does not end a person's existence, it is different, morally speaking, for God to end someone's life.

Parents who are 100% certain there is an afterlife would still be immoral for ending the lives of the children they brought into this world.

 

[shadow2k]

First, I think you need to accept that God, as the Creator, can do things that we cannot. To put this in perspective, imagine God as a Painter, and the universe, and everything in it as a big collection of paintings. If someone comes along and slashes up one of the Painter's paintings, that's wrong - it wasn't their painting to destroy. But if He does it - well, it's his painting, and even if we think it was fine how it was, it was still His right.

The universe is God's, including human beings. He created us, and has complete dominion over our lives, whether we like it or not. And as sinful creatures, I wouldn't say our position should be one of reprimanding God for his actions - it should be thanking Him for not killing all of us, as we deserve.

Paintings hardly equate to a human life. Your analogy is way too simplified. Either way, just like I stated above...parents aren't allowed to kill their children simply because they created them.

That bolded part always makes me cringe. Why would you worship a being, regardless of how powerful he is...that acts the way that God does? I don't know what exactly your sect of Christianity believes, but a common belief is that Satan is ruling the earth while we await Christ's return.

If your father (your creator) abandoned you, and came back years later...would you love and praise him? Of course, God hasn't simply abandoned this world, he left it in the hands of Satan. Yes, the wonderful God that he is...

 

[Elrohir]

Bold by me

Fact is if you read them all, there is only very minor disgareement, but this disagreement would easily be enough to grant them a state apart from the NT, why would you include something that seeks to distance itself from scripture and temples? I think it's logical to presume there lack of inclusion is political, not because of doubts to their authenticity, but hey make up your own mind,one exception the Gospel of the Twelve which I believe was not discovered or rediscovered until after the Bible was written and has the honour of being the oldest Aramaic text(written around the time of Jesus) And perha
ps even therefore the most accurate.

I'd appreciate it if you would write outside of the quote boxes. Even bolding your words, as you did, it's easier, and much clearer if you just type them out the way everyone else does.

The Gospel of Twelve is what's called a fragment. There is no complete, or even partially complete actual version of it - it's just referenced, so they assume it existed, and so on. Honestly, I don't see any point at all in arguing whether something should be included in the New Testament canon - if we don't have a complete copy of it anyway. Is there a different Gospel you would like to discuss?

I found your explanation for those two quotes from the Gospel of Thomas to be unsatisfactory. The first one just didn't make sense. (Jesus said that what is on the inside of the body - the soul - is what makes someone good or bad, righteous or unrighteous. Why would what eats you matter? Honestly.) For the second one, Jesus really wasn't a big fan of discrimination; He talked to women who He wasn't related to, in public (A Samaritan woman!) even when that was very unusual. I don't see why He would include such discrimination in His teachings, especially when it doesn't jibe at all with the rest of the Bible.

And sorry, but I'm not going to throw out the rest of the Biblical Canon to keep the Gospel of Thomas.

Elrohir, you're not going to explain why you don't consider apocryphic scripture reliable but you do consider the authorized scripture included in the bible reliable?

Did I go over this? Ok, once more:

First, because I believe the Bible was inspired by God, and in it's current collection, was put together in the way God wished it to be. Thus, adding to it is, in my mind, not a good idea. You can use other things (Like books by Christians authors) to expand your understanding of the Bible, or help in areas the Bible doesn't specifically address - but those things are not the Bible, and should not be treated as such.

Second, they are quite often dramatically contradictory to one another, and to the rest of the canon. If we include the Gospel of Thomas, why not the Gospel of the Cross? (Which features a talking cross) Where do we draw the line, what is acceptable, and what is not? I believe the Bible is God's Holy Word, and it's not something we should just add to at a mere whim.

Finally, I just don't believe they are God-breathed or inspired. I'm not quite sure how to express this in a logical argument, or in a way that would be meaningful to anyone else, so I'll leave it at that.

Paintings hardly equate to a human life. Your analogy is way too simplified. Either way, just like I stated above...parents aren't allowed to kill their children simply because they created them.

It was an analogy - it wasn't meant to be exact. Of course I value humans above paintings. My point was only this: In the same way that an artist creates paintings, God creates us - we're His creations, why shouldn't He be able to do with us as He wishes?

Parents are the ones responsible for the physical act of creation - but the creation of the soul is God's department, and even the physical one is still a branch of His. You see, He directly created the first humans, and from them everyone else has come. So, in the same way, you could say that the man who put together the car-making machines in a GM factory was partially the creator of the cars those machines make. Same concept.

That bolded part always makes me cringe. Why would you worship a being, regardless of how powerful he is...that acts the way that God does? I don't know what exactly your sect of Christianity believes, but a common belief is that Satan is ruling the earth while we await Christ's return.

Why does it make you cringe? I'm not saying God wants to kill us, merely that He could, and has every right to if He so wished. I find what I just wrote to be the opposite that you did; it's a sign of God's love for us that He hasn't punished us for our sin.

I'm not part of any "sect", by the way. I could best be described as a totally non-denominational Protestant, which makes me a little hard to classify theologically.

The sinful, fallen world is under Satan's dominion, yes, but that doesn't mean God doesn't interfere where His plans call for it. Satan's power is most definitely not absolute.

 

[shadow2k]

It was an analogy - it wasn't meant to be exact. Of course I value humans above paintings. My point was only this: In the same way that an artist creates paintings, God creates us - we're His creations, why shouldn't He be able to do with us as He wishes?

Parents are the ones responsible for the physical act of creation - but the creation of the soul is God's department, and even the physical one is still a branch of His. You see, He directly created the first humans, and from them everyone else has come. So, in the same way, you could say that the man who put together the car-making machines in a GM factory was partially the creator of the cars those machines make. Same concept.

So If I kill my son, it's ok. I've merely taken the physical form that I created. His soul will return to God.

Sorry, but God killing innocents will never sit well with me. You can say we're all sinners, but I don't buy that either. Even if you say it's because of the original sin, it's still nothing more than that wonderful phrase that so many in here have attributed to Israel lately, "collective punishment". People like to condemn them for it, but since it's God, it's ok?

Why does it make you cringe? I'm not saying God wants to kill us, merely that He could, and has every right to if He so wished. I find what I just wrote to be the opposite that you did; it's a sign of God's love for us that He hasn't punished us for our sin.

I'm not part of any "sect", by the way. I could best be described as a totally non-denominational Protestant, which makes me a little hard to classify theologically.

The sinful, fallen world is under Satan's dominion, yes, but that doesn't mean God doesn't interfere where His plans call for it. Satan's power is most definitely not absolute.

I cringe because of the "we're all sinners and not worthy of life" mindset. Can't be good for your self-esteem. Has nothing to do with fear of God, because I don't believe any God has ever existed.

Your denomination really isn't important, it's just that each one has varying beliefs about Heaven/Hell, Satan, Trinity, etc...

Let me ask you this. What type of God leaves his loved ones to suffer in the grasp of Satan for the sin of one man? How many must suffer, and for how long, before he gets off his butt and decides to do something about it?

If my son was sitting across the room suffering, and I sat idly by watching...what kind of father would I be? Am I merely watching because I'm punishing him for...Adam's sin? Because I'm busy screwing around on the net? Because I just don't care? Maybe I just enjoy watching him suffer?

Like I said, according to the Bible and the Christian beliefs...it certainly looks to me that God doesn't really care enough to do anything.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Parents who are 100% certain there is an afterlife would still be immoral for ending the lives of the children they brought into this world.

Yes, they would. But that is not what God is doing. Like I said, He didn't just bring us into the world, He set up the whole system that makes a world in the first place. And He isn't just 100% certain, He actually knows. And like I said, He knows that death is just a transition that sends us from one phase to another. It is as essential a part of life as birth. So He is justified in allowing us to die and even in causing deaths directly if a greater good will come out of it.

 

[ironduck]

First, because I believe the Bible was inspired by God, and in it's current collection, was put together in the way God wished it to be. Thus, adding to it is, in my mind, not a good idea. You can use other things (Like books by Christians authors) to expand your understanding of the Bible, or help in areas the Bible doesn't specifically address - but those things are not the Bible, and should not be treated as such.

Second, they are quite often dramatically contradictory to one another, and to the rest of the canon. If we include the Gospel of Thomas, why not the Gospel of the Cross? (Which features a talking cross) Where do we draw the line, what is acceptable, and what is not? I believe the Bible is God's Holy Word, and it's not something we should just add to at a mere whim.

Finally, I just don't believe they are God-breathed or inspired. I'm not quite sure how to express this in a logical argument, or in a way that would be meaningful to anyone else, so I'll leave it at that.

You're right, none of the above makes any sense to me. You say that 'it is so because it is so'. I might as well say 'it is not so, because it is not so'.

The bible is a collection of texts that date a long time span. The texts were collected through several councils, notably the first one at Nicea. Different denominations include different parts, so even disregarding the various translations there is no universal bible.

If 'the bible' was inspired by god, does that mean that god directed the councils? And which denomination's bible has been put together by god, all of them? If a denomination include the gospel of Judas does that mean it has also been directed by god?

Did god tell you that your specific collection of texts it the authorized one that he edited, or do you just trust your church to be in connection with god and he tells your church that it's the authorized one, or how does it work?

As for contradictions - the bible is already stock-full of them (I know you won't admit that, but for an outsider adding more of the apocryphic texts would not make it more contradictory to any signifcant degree).

 

[Homie]

You make it sound like there are plenty of denominations with varying books included in the Bible, this is not so. There are only the general Bible that the protestants hold, and the Catholic Bible which is the same books as the protestant but with the addition of some of the apocyphra (sp?). And even these were added by the Catholic Church not as Holy Scripture, but books suggested as a supplement to the Holy Bible, but if you keep them in the same literal book as the Holy Scripture, then over time people will not consider the line, and the text will be considered scripture.

And I believe scholars also claim that the Catholic Church put these books in so as to twart Martin Luther, because Luther said these books were not scripture.

 

[Sidhe]

I'd appreciate it if you would write outside of the quote boxes. Even bolding your words, as you did, it's easier, and much clearer if you just type them out the way everyone else does.

Apologise lazy day, less typing.

The Gospel of Twelve is what's called a fragment. There is no complete, or even partially complete actual version of it - it's just referenced, so they assume it existed, and so on. Honestly, I don't see any point at all in arguing whether something should be included in the New Testament canon - if we don't have a complete copy of it anyway. Is there a different Gospel you would like to discuss?

The Gospel of the twelve: It's not a fragment actually it's fairly complete, some of it is yet to be translated but it will be, the Essene scrolls are totally complete, kept in perpetuity by the Catholic church. That aside these texts are included, they are original texts, it's just you don't realise that the greek scripture had drawn from the original scripts, it's so obvious that these scripts are so simillar they are the bridge between Chirsts death and the 300 or so years before the greek scripts were written.

And sorry, but I'm not going to throw out the rest of the Biblical Canon to keep the Gospel of Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas never contradicts canonical scripture except in a very small quote, look at that website, it agrees in almost totality with the gospels, thus my argument.

I found your explanation for those two quotes from the Gospel of Thomas to be unsatisfactory. The first one just didn't make sense. (Jesus said that what is on the inside of the body - the soul - is what makes someone good or bad, righteous or unrighteous. Why would what eats you matter? Honestly.) For the second one, Jesus really wasn't a big fan of discrimination; He talked to women who He wasn't related to, in public (A Samaritan woman!) even when that was very unusual. I don't see why He would include such discrimination in His teachings, especially when it doesn't jibe at all with the rest of the Bible.

I found the first unsatisfactory too, just as many biblical quotes are deeply symbolic this one is too, I think it's meant to represent something about the the spirirt of a lion and the spirit of man, think on this carefully it's not meant to be taken literally.

The second quote, sorry if I didn't make this clear, is distinctly a means to bring women to equality, that's what I meant.

 

[Homie]

Jesus Never mentions his childhood in the Gospel of St Thomas, this is a lie, but just to be sure I reread the Gospel, which isn't that long. Read it yourself if you have any doubt. It is available in several other places if you doubt this version.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/The Gospel of Thomas.htm


This has comentary on the meaning of all the passages.

http://www.gospelthomas.com/

EDIT: The Gospel of St Thomas was witten in Greek not Aramaic.

I guess I remember incorrectly then. It must have been one of the other "gospels" that didn't make the Bible, because I certainly remember one of them had this crazy story in them.

 

[ironduck]

You make it sound like there are plenty of denominations with varying books included in the Bible, this is not so. There are only the general Bible that the protestants hold, and the Catholic Bible which is the same books as the protestant but with the addition of some of the apocyphra (sp?). And even these were added by the Catholic Church not as Holy Scripture, but books suggested as a supplement to the Holy Bible, but if you keep them in the same literal book as the Holy Scripture, then over time people will not consider the line, and the text will be considered scripture.

You are forgetting the eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox. If I remember correctly there are also smaller denominations that have further variations. What you call the apocrypha in the catholic and eastern orthodox bibles are not considered apocrypha by them. Rather, they are deuterocanonical. There's more than just the old testament causing various authorized bible editions, though. Consider Revelation which is the only book of the NT which is not part of the divine liturgy in the eastern orthodox church.

The point I'm trying to make, and which I don't think has been addressed by people who consider 'the bible' to be 'inspired by god' is that it consists of a bunch of texts that have been put together in different ways and authorized to different degrees by the various denominations. So my question is - do you believe that your particular church has been given divine guidance that makes your specific and entire bible 'inspired by god'? Or has god told you that it is? Or are you not sure which parts, if any, are inspired by god?