What good is the Bible?

[Princhester]

Likewise.

[dougie_monty]

@Shagnasty

That is a long topic that never ends well but the existence of contradictions means that at least parts of it have to be wrong. Seriously, have you ever read the whole Bible? I don’t mean selected quotes and passages that other people told you to read out of context. I mean each book as a whole. Relatively few people have because it is a real slog but it is a worthwhile exercise if you really want to put things in context.

One of the most startling things is what isn’t in it. Many of the central parts of most modern day Christianity either don’t appear in the Bible at all, they are described differently than they are treated in church doctrine or the are just given as an off-hand reference.

For example, just going by the Bible alone, what can you tell us about any of the following:

1. Angels
2. The concept of hell
3. Who or what is Satan and when does he first appear?
4. Was Mary a virgin until she died? Did Jesus have any brothers or sisters?
5. What was Jesus’s life like between his birth and age 30?

That is just for starters.

The answers to all of those are quite different than modern Christian doctrine suggests if only use the Bible as your source material. Most of modern Christianity was developed in Europe during the Middle Ages and was particularly influenced by the artwork of the time. It doesn’t exist in the Bible in the same form if it exists at all.

That isn’t a knock on the Bible itself. I don’t think any of us have dismissed it as an unimportant collection of works. It does mean that most Christian denominations don’t take it as literally as they claim because the doctrine and mythology would not resemble what it is today if they did.

You are correct that much of mainstream Christendom church doctrine lacks for support from the Bible. FYI, I have read the entire Bible five times–and I have compared translations while so reading (even in Esperanto). To answer your specific questions:

1. The Bible mentions angels, but they are not disembodied humans; there were at least 200,000,000 of them, long before the human population was anywhere near that large.
2. The Biblical concept of hell is different from that in mainstream churches (whose own doctrine is similar to that in so-called “eastern” religions); I refer again to Job, 14:13, and the fact that Jesus himself was there (and Satan never was): Psalm 16:10, Acts 23:27, 31.
3. Satan first appears in early chapters of Job, talking to God.
4. No, Mary was not “ever virgin”; the Catholic Church did not settle on this dogma uintil the nineteenth century. She certainly was virgin before Jesus was born.
5. Whatever Jesus’ life was between birth and age 30–except for a brief incident when he stayed at the temple–was not important and thus not in Scripture; remember, the Bible is a condensed account, and just as well. (It took me over a month to read it.)

[Shagnasty]

@dougie_monty

You are correct that much of mainstream Christendom church doctrine lacks for support from the Bible. FYI, I have read the entire Bible five times–and I have compared translations while so reading (even in Esperanto). To answer your specific questions:

1. The Bible mentions angels, but they are not disembodied humans; there were at least 200,000,000 of them, long before the human population was anywhere near that large.
2. The Biblical concept of hell is different from that in mainstream churches (whose own doctrine is similar to that in so-called “eastern” religions); I refer again to Job, 14:13, and the fact that Jesus himself was there (and Satan never was): Psalm 16:10, Acts 23:27, 31.
3. Satan first appears in early chapters of Job, talking to God.
4. No, Mary was not “ever virgin”; the Catholic Church did not settle on this dogma uintil the nineteenth century. She certainly was virgin before Jesus was born.
5. Whatever Jesus’ life was between birth and age 30–except for a brief incident when he stayed at the temple–was not important and thus not in Scripture; remember, the Bible is a condensed account, and just as well. (It took me over a month to read it.)

Ok, those are all good answers. It sounds like you are well versed on biblical knowledge. Other people are attacking you based on other grounds that have no real relevance to the questions at hand on either side. I will not do that because I am a Christian in some sense too and you seem to both well-intended and very literate in biblical knowledge.

However, I think I see the problem here. You don’t like atheists attacking Christianity or the Bible at all even though you know yourself that there are some issues with it. That is completely understandable. Lots of people don’t but they still may have some valid points that you could concede based on your own interpretation. Am I correct?

[dougie_monty]

@Shagnasty

Ok, those are all good answers. It sounds like you are well versed on biblical knowledge. Other people are attacking you based on other grounds that have no real relevance to the questions at hand on either side. I will not do that because I am a Christian in some sense too and you seem to both well-intended and very literate in biblical knowledge.

However, I think I see the problem here. You don’t like atheists attacking Christianity or the Bible at all even though you know yourself that there are some issues with it. That is completely understandable. Lots of people don’t but they still may have some valid points that you could concede based on your own interpretation. Am I correct?

Well, from what I’ve seen, if they express said points they ensconce them in a shroud of fluff that I find irritating to wade through. Shakespeare pointed out that brevity is the soul of wit (an ironic quote considering the character in Hamlet who said it).

[Czarcasm]

@dougie_monty

Well, from what I’ve seen, if they express said points they ensconce them in a shroud of fluff that I find irritating to wade through. Shakespeare pointed out that brevity is the soul of wit (an ironic quote considering the character in Hamlet who said it).

Jesus did not come from the House of David, which was a requirement for the messiah.
That short enough for you?

[monavis]

@Guinastasia

Except not everyone feels the same way about the Bible you do. That being said, you have also been dismissive of the fact that Jews don’t regard the NT as part of the Bible. That’s not disrespect on their part.

Besides, I wasn’t attacking the Bible. It’s an important book – I don’t know if I’d say it’s divine or anything, but it does have significance.

And finally, I’ve noticed this in a LOT of threads you post in, not just ones about religion.

I think Jesus would agree with you, he is quoted as saying;" The scripture are good for teaching, but referred to it as" Your Law" in John 10 no mention of God’.s

[dougie_monty]

@Czarcasm

Jesus did not come from the House of David[…]
That short enough for you?

See Matthew 1:1, Luke 3:23-31.

Is that enough for you?

[Knowed_Out]

I see the Bible more as a collection of journals. Such works are definitely subject to the author’s limitations, and back then there were no editors to fact-check.

A biblical author’s viewpoint can leave out vital information, possibly because he assumed some events are part of everyday life and need no explanation. Context is lost, leaving future readers confused about motivation and intent. Plus, the advice and counsel given by religious leaders at that time applied to societies and customs practiced thousands of years ago and have little relevance for today. Following such decrees would be like deciding to switch to riding horses when your car breaks down.

I just regard the Bible as any other document from the distant past. It’s a chronicle of life in those times and details how people used faith to deal with their problems. It also verifies patterns in history where differing faiths and ideals led to bigger problems and conflict.

[Czarcasm]

@dougie_monty

See Matthew 1:1, Luke 3:23-31.

Is that enough for you?

The two accounts don’t even mesh up with each other, let alone the supposed fact that Joseph wasn’t even the father of Jesus in the first place. Double contradiction.

[kopek]

@dougie_monty

5. Whatever Jesus’ life was between birth and age 30–except for a brief incident when he stayed at the temple–was not important and thus not in Scripture; remember, the Bible is a condensed account, and just as well. (It took me over a month to read it.)

I dabble a toe when I ain’t got a dog but -------- don’t confuse the Bible with Scripture. The Juvenile Gospels, for example, do give some very relevant insight into the “tween years” even if they didn’t make the final cut. And since the Canons were decided by men/people with a certain amount of fallibility (original sin) attached, we really shouldn’t look to that source alone for Scripture.

[dougie_monty]

@kopek

[…] [D]on’t confuse the Bible with Scripture. […] Canons were decided by men/people with a certain amount of fallibility (original sin) attached, we really shouldn’t look to that source alone for Scripture.

And suppose I do so anyway? What are you going to do about it–send someone out here to hit me?

Originally posted by Knowed Out
A biblical author’s viewpoint can leave out vital information, possibly because he assumed some events are part of everyday life and need no explanation. Context is lost, leaving future readers confused about motivation and intent. Plus, the advice and counsel given by religious leaders at that time applied to societies and customs practiced thousands of years ago and have little relevance for today. Following such decrees would be like deciding to switch to riding horses when your car breaks down.

I just regard the Bible as any other document from the distant past. It’s a chronicle of life in those times and details how people used faith to deal with their problems. It also verifies patterns in history where differing faiths and ideals led to bigger problems and conflict.

And, of course, they didn’t have as swollen an ego as you do.:rolleyes:

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Czarcasm

The two accounts don’t even mesh up with each other, let alone the supposed fact that Joseph wasn’t even the father of Jesus in the first place. Double contradiction.

But God created mankind and Mary was a mankind and so it follows.

Stay strong brother dougie_monty. Don’t let these athiests get you down.
Always remember Matthew 5:11.

[Czarcasm]

@Drunky_Smurf

But God created mankind and Mary was a mankind and so it follows.

Sorry, but that’s not the way Jewish linage works. But that’s not the only reason Jesus doesn’t fit the bill, and why declaring him to be “The Messiah” contradicts other parts of the Bible.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@dougie_monty

And, of course, they didn’t have as swollen an ego as you do.:rolleyes:

Let’s dial the outrage back a bit, you’re coming a bit close to being insulting.

[dougie_monty]

@Idle_Thoughts

Let’s dial the outrage back a bit, you’re coming a bit close to being insulting.

Dear Pot: Yes, I am black. (signed) Kettle.

[Voyager]

@dougie_monty

See Matthew 1:1, Luke 3:23-31.

Is that enough for you?

Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies - from a certain point of view.
When Newgate Callendar was reviewing mysteries for the Times, he’d write of “our forgetful authors” - who would say something in the beginning of the book and forget that they said it ans say something contradictory later on. I guess God qualifies.

[Trinopus]

@Czarcasm

The two accounts don’t even mesh up with each other, let alone the supposed fact that Joseph wasn’t even the father of Jesus in the first place. Double contradiction.

I remember Robert Graves dicking with this in “King Jesus.” He argued that it was Mary’s Davidic descent that mattered.

There really are people out there who believe that the Bible has “no contradictions.” They can all be resolved through correct interpretation (so they say.)

My favorite:

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain

[Malthus]

@Voyager

Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies - from a certain point of view.
When Newgate Callendar was reviewing mysteries for the Times, he’d write of “our forgetful authors” - who would say something in the beginning of the book and forget that they said it ans say something contradictory later on. I guess God qualifies.

Hey, according to the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 45:1-3), the Messiah is: Cyrus the Great of Persia.

[dougie_monty]

@Voyager

Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies - from a certain point of view.
When Newgate Callendar was reviewing mysteries for the Times, he’d write of “our forgetful authors” - who would say something in the beginning of the book and forget that they said it ans say something contradictory later on. I guess God qualifies.

You guess or you know?

[Drunky_Smurf]

I’d say that yes God qualifies for this definition.