Thread: The New Testament is fictional

Read the bible and you would know more about Jesus, and TGS, this thread will piss people off and I think you already know that............

I'm not christian, but in its defense, I see it as an ispirational work that is not to be taken literally.

However, you are right. Religious scholars continue to increase the number of authors or writers that had input in the New Testament. Last running figure may have been close to forty.


What is interesting is that not many people realize it was the singular gigantic effort of one man, St. Jerome, a linguistic genius who translated the bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin and all the "vulgar" languages (French, German, Spanish, Italian) in the 4th century. So unless you can read Hebrew or Greek, we are depending on the accuracy of one man in his interpretation of the bible. The catholic church took care of that by making him into a Saint, thus a godlike figure, rather than a human that is capable of errors. As someone whose first language is not english, I can tell you , there is alot than can be lost in translation even as of today. (You can see why the Jews insist on learning Hebrew knowing that so much can be lost in the translation. )

What is also interesting is the Book of Macabees never made it into the New Testament. I read it from cover to cover and it is truly inspirational. A Jesuit priest once told me he believed it never made it into the New Testament because it would have proved the Jews did not hold the trial that convicted Jesus. (Remember, in the Book of Macabees, 80,000 Jews were slaughtered in one day by the Syrian King Antiochus IV before they would defile the Sabbath by bearing arms.) Jesus was tried on the Jewish Sabbath over hundred years earlier....why they would defile Sabbath by trying a renegade Jew but let their women and children be skewered in front of them without resistance by a hord of vengeful Syrians...makes no sense.

Originally posted by bandaidwoman
I see it as an ispirational work that is not to be taken literally.

exactly.

I LOVE JESUS!

Take the Bible for whatever you chose... but to me it's more than inspiration!

I'm off to church!

The New Testatement is not fiction, it is the word of God.

TGS, you continue to sink to lower and lower levels.

Sorry, I vowed to stay out of threads like this. But this one is a little frustrating. What does "not to be taken literally" mean anyway? Not to be believed?

Originally posted by Pepper
What does "not to be taken literally" mean anyway? Not to be believed?

It means that the stories in the bible are metaphorical.

Kind of like that story of the "Little Boy that Cried Wolf", a great little story with a moral behind it. There was never a little boy that cried wolf and was eaten, it's a story that was made up to explain to little kids why you should not lie.

If christians could understand this they would be much better off.

Prince, are you serious? I hope I misunderstood, because the only thing metaphorical in the Bible are the parables Jesus told... as if you know what would make Christians better off?

May I ask who are you and what gives you the right to make a statement like that?

I find that very offensive...

This is getting good...

For those non believers, "actually" read the Bible and every question posed here so far will be answered.

Cast pearls before swine

Meaning:
Offer or show something valuable, good, or beautiful to someone who does not understand its value

If you are casting pearls before swine, you are wasting your time showing or offering something very helpful or valuable to someone who does not understand or appreciate it.


Example:
Don't bother explaining Shakespeare to Bob. It would be like casting pearls before swine.

Yeah, these threads do nothing but get my blood pressure up.

Prince, I think alot of you, but that is really not cool.

Now, I remember why I stay out of these threads.

I would just like to explain my reaction a bit more, as I'm realising non Christians may not really understand it...

Saying the Bible is only to be taken metaphorically and Christians would be better off realising that is insulting because EVERYTHING about being a Christian comes from the Bible... so it's like someone saying EVERYTHING you've ever known or believed in is false... The Bible to a Christian is the Word of God, not just a book of cute stories to make you think about whether or not you should cheat on your wife...

I accept that some people do not recognize the Bible for what a Christian might, but please don't tell us we'd be better off to change our whole faith just because you think so...

I understood what you meant and agree with you.

Thanks Pepper, I do think Prince is a very cool guy and I respect what he has to say... I just wanted him to know why that statement kind of irks me...

Yes I am serious, that is what I believe. I am entitled to my opinion and it should not offend anyone. If you have a problem with other people's beliefs and opinions when they differ from your own, you're gonna have a difficult life.

The stories in the bible were never meant to be taken literally IN MY OPINION.

I have always found it entertaining how christians get all bent out of shape when someone does not believe in their religeon, and they seem to be the only faith that reacts this way...wonder why that is.

A Budhist would not give a rat's ass if you believed in Budhism or if you told them that their belief was false, they would probably just nod and smile at you.

This swine has read the bible, both old and new.

I will address the issue of literally regarding the New Testament. The old testament is obvious, ie: If translated literally the earth is only a few hundred thousand years old or that Noah's ark (which harbored overed a few million species of animals was no bigger than a small skating rink,) or that every man must literally have one less rib than a woman etc.

If one reads the four different versions of the happenings at the sepulchre in which Christ was presumedly entombed, not buried, and if one wishes to consider the Lost Gospel According to Peter, then there are five different versions of what happened at the sepulchre, then where is the credibility of the New Testament?( if one wants to really examine it by "literallY" examining it.) Thus, the New Testament is more credible if not taken literally.


If there are five different versions in the New Testament of what happened at the sepulchre, at least four of those versions are not true, because none of them are in agreement concerning who was at the sepulchre and who rolled back the stone. They all related an four entire different and conflicting scenarios of what happened. This means that only one can be right, or all five versions can be wrong. When you then have entirely different versions or accounts of the same episode elsewhere, time and again, then it compounds the amount of tarnished evidence.

Then if you add the theological errors in the New Testament, there is even more cause for concern that we may not be reading what is really the truth, and instead, we may be reading fiction mixed with truth. I

In other words, once again, to back up Prince, if we read the bible literally, then by the above, Christians have invalidated the New Testament's own authority. I think most Christians understand that.

Heck, if five witnesses gave a different account of a scene at a court of law, the jury would be hung and no consensus or decision could be arrived at.....oh wait, perhaps that's why there is so much dissent even among Christians.

I don't care if you don't believe it, I get bothered by going out of your way to insult Christians.

You have consistently posted remarks that are belittling to Christians. Essentially calling them stupid. There is no need for that. IMO.

Nope, I never called anyone stupid, did not even imply it.

and again, opinions can be offensive. I have never understood why you say that.

Bandaid, most Christians have the earth's age at +/- 40,000 years. I have trouble with this for other reasons, not because I don't believe the Bible is true (an interpretation issue in Genesis.) I don't see how this makes the OT fiction. The Earth could very well be much younger than science has us believe. Evolution is the most unsupported scientific theory in history. But that is another old arguement.

Anyway, just learned Seattle is in the playoffs, so nuttin' gonna bring me down now!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Prince

A Budhist would not give a rat's ass if you believed in Budhism or if you told them that their belief was false, they would probably just nod and smile at you.

Prince, I don't really care what you meant... but lets just look at what you TYPED...

"If Christians could understand this, they would be better off"

I can understand that... I can understand what you're saying, I just don't agree/believe it... am I better off?

See how that statement didn't make alot of sense?

Originally posted by Pepper
and again, opinions can be offensive. I have never understood why you say that.

Opinions are not offensive, you are choosing to be offended by some elses opinion.

I hear people say things like bodybuilding is stupid and a waste of time, why would anyone want to do that.

As you know bodybuilding is my life, I do not get offended by their opinion of bodybuilding, if anything it helps to fuel my next work-out.

Well I am just as happy as a pig in slop being a Christian. God gave us all a choice to believe or not. I don't belittle anyone who does not. We as Christains are called to witness to those who don't , set an example and pray for them.
I will continue to do just that. I don't want to stand before God and have him say "why were you short with this person?" "If you had done as you were asked, they would be here today"

Have a blessed day all.

I think the thing to remember is that accuracy does not take away from the moral authority of the bible. Even the Catholic church, the bastion of conservatism, recognizes this.

I find a good analogy in science. Newtonian physics is highly accurate when dealing with the large visible world but completely crumbles and is rendered worthless in the quantum world of small subatomic particles and completely fails to explain stability of gravitational orbits.

Quantum mechanics came along , followed by General Relativity (the latter's space time curvature took care of sustained orbital patterns.) and took care of all that. Does that negate the brilliance and authoratativeness of Newton? No, we still use Newtonian physics to calculate the amount of force needed to launch our space shuttle, not quantum mechanics or general relativity.

By the way, evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive...some enlightened christians considers evolution the blueprint by which he has shown us his master plan.

Flaws in evolution like Newtonian physics , or General relativity, Gravitational theory etc. does not render it wrong. They are the best working models we have. All have their discrepancies (which is why the continued search for the Unified theory persists) but it does not render invalid the laws or rules governing that field of science. (I just demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of Newtonian physics.) Punctated equilibrium is to evolution what gravitational orbital fields was to Newtonian Physics, but it does not render it wrong.

One last note, the age of the earth is not based on the science of Evolution but the science of geology, radioacitive isotope dating techniques etc. etc. These fields of science are pretty stable and well established.

Originally posted by HoldDaMayo
"If Christians could understand this, they would be better off"

Yes, what I meant by this is a christian could then understand what the bible means, instead they miss the whole point of the story because they get caught up in trying to live by the words of the story rather than the more important underlying meaning of the story (as I explained in my previous post).

Again, it's my opinion.

A Christian can understand what the Bible means.

Prince and TGS, you might like the readings of a Bishop named J. Shelby Spong. (He was never excommunicated) but essentially addresses some of the concerns you both have. I read his first book "Christianity must change or it will die", in it, he affirms his Christian and Catholic faith but challenges the dogmas that are ripping apart the fabric of Christian cohesiveness today.


Here is a link to one of his essays http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html

Like a true Christian, he does not want to see his religion die (Rember, christians are still outnumbered by Muslims, Buddists and Hindis) and continues to shrink as the other world religions grow in number.


As for Buddists, let's remember that not one act of war or battles were fought in the name of Buddism. Probably the most peaceful of the world religions although I contend it is more a philosophy than a religion.

RELIGION IS FICTIONAL


the bible as a reliable text has lost its true meaning, crediblity and context a long long time ago.