Thread: Misquoting Jesus

That's exactly what I have been saying. The bible is no more relevant than if you quoted some crazy Robert Heinlein book. It's not as if giving a bible quote gives proof of anything.

brady ofcourse there is mistranslations. Ofcourse its not accurate. It requires your intelligence to interpret it.

But Just cause someone on tv said so about some quote though, doesn't make what they say true. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is not the source here. It is not a credible source of anything. But the true source it is promoting however is......

a guy who authored a book called "Misquoting Jesus". [/b]

Now he has done a bit of research? Well it may be something to look into. Please write about his research and sources if you wish. But to claim anything cause you saw it on tv is jumping ahead I think. I don't care if he has a book that went on the daily show for promotion purposes or whatever. But what I do care about is the facts that I can read about containing a full proper argument.

When you have the book and can quote the facts and make an argument. Then maybe this thread would become more useful. Until then thank you for promoting the book I'm sure he would apreciate it.

I seriosuly doubt that bradybaker quoting Jon Stewart quoting a book called "Misquoting Jesus" has as many discrepancies as thousands of years worth of bible translations and retranslations

you kinda missed brady's point there

I think you missed my point.

Yeah that the bible isn't anything like the bible from around 50 bc I think. There wasn't even a bible then. Blabla I bet leo allready posted this. The roman dude created a bible from a few stories he selected. Cencoring allready unrelaible sources to make a bible that fast for more then 1600 years <=/ well you have to give it to constantine, he's done a nice job.

Wel blah the bible is fake. K.

edn.

pie.

Even if you did say it's 100% fake. It's still the most popular fiction story in existence.
If your not totally blind it's definitely got some profound statements that have and will stand the test of time.

Not only this it's also got the symbolic description of our evolution in stages (7).
The revelations. Not many people are smart enough understand what it really means.

It's certainly not an entirely worthless book. People are just bitter about it because the false authority of the church has driven them away.

Originally posted by Boris
Even if you did say it's 100% fake. It's still the most popular fiction story in existence.
If your not totally blind it's definitely got some profound statements that have and will stand the test of time.

Not only this it's also got the symbolic description of our evolution in stages (7).
The revelations. Not many people are smart enough understand what it really means.

It's certainly not an entirely worthless book. People are just bitter about it because the false authority of the church has driven them away.

Hey. You kind of stopped being funny after 2 hours ago.

Originally posted by Boris
Even if you did say it's 100% fake. It's still the most popular fiction story in existence.
If your not totally blind it's definitely got some profound statements that have and will stand the test of time.

Not only this it's also got the symbolic description of our evolution in stages (7).
The revelations. Not many people are smart enough understand what it really means.

It's certainly not an entirely worthless book. People are just bitter about it because the false authority of the church has driven them away.

I'm not saying that the Bible is 100% fake, it's still a great story with a lot of great advice regarding how one should live their life. I've never denied that.

However, it is NOT the 'word of God'. It's a bunch of stories written and edited and rewritten and reedited by humans.

And Boris, you may be confused. It wasn't Jon Stewart saying all these things. It was the author himself during the interview.

This author isn't just some shmuck who went to the library and decided to write a book. His name is Bart D. Ehrman and he chairs the Department of Religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He's considered an authority on the history of the NT and the early church.

Check the book out here.

hmm.

of course, fundamentalists like my parents will likely say something to the effect of

"just because there are discrepancies throughout history doesn't mean the bible isn't the 100% inerrant word of God. we have simply lost the original, complete manuscripts from the years immediately following christ's physical resurrection..and if we crossreferenced those complete manuscripts with today's new international version, we would find not a solitary word out of place"

There is clear textual evidence the Bible has not been grossly mistranslated. The author of the book must be aware of the scholarly research done. The New Testament letters written by their authors were made and quickly distributed to share the gospel. Copies upon copies were made dispersed throughout the Mediterranean, even to this day over 5,300 greek manuscripts survive.

Indeed changes may get copied over like when a scribe copied verse 8, followed it with verse 10, and then added 9. This would only be known when there are other copies available. When comparing between manuscripts the textual differences are minimal.

In the most extreme case when additional verses were found, like that brief passage mentioned in the original post, those were identified as interpolations, not being in earlier multiple documents. Those few verses present nothing crucial to the theology of Christianity and don't compromise the rest of the scriptures. Most of the Bibles today include those texts separately and inform the reader of their absence from earlier copies.

That's why its important to have lots of manuscripts. If they all say the same thing, it is unlikely that someone had inserted or taken things out. If that were so, you'll have a variant that will contrast with the rest.

Ps. I'll have to read him though to see how he came to these conclusions.

Why should you automatically accept any words from any book as the word of god?
how do you determine what is the word of god?

I would not do it by looking outside myself to a book. I would first think for myself before I accepted any text as true.

I believe this thread was directed at people who quote the bible (awaken, for example) to prove their point.

Originally posted by Boris
Why should you automatically accept any words from any book as the word of god?
how do you determine what is the word of god?

I would not do it by looking outside myself to a book. I would first think for myself before I accepted any text as true.

Agreed, now let's join forces and get the rest of the world to figure this out.

Originally posted by Boris
I would not do it by looking outside myself to a book. I would first think for myself before I accepted any text as true.

very well put

Originally posted by Boris
Why should you automatically accept any words from any book as the word of god?
how do you determine what is the word of god?

You examine its contents knowing context is everything. Does it make truth claims? Does it relate to reality? Is it transcendental? Those are just a few questions to ask.

Well, nobody on the forum really quotes from the Bible anymore, anyway. I haven't heard from Evangel or Awaken in forever.

Dear Brady,

You know, the largest problem within Christianity involving Christian Doctrine and Beliefs is not with misquoting Christ or perhaps miscontruing a parable here and there... the Problem, really, is with doctrine that has no reference to Jesus at all. All of Protestant Doctrine and the worst part of Catholic Doctrine comes from Paul, who in the 14 books he wrote for the Bible DID NOT EVEN ONCE EVER QUOTE JESUS. Paul propagated a different and unique Teaching, a set of Doctrines that the True Apostles had the good sense to instantly oppose. The Letters of James, Jude and John all all published to refute the Doctrines of Paul. Even Peter states that the writings of Paul are likely to occassion serious misunderstandings of what should be True Doctrine.

Oh, and I have seen that TV show you speak of. The Hype that that show had been receiving gave me some high hopes for it, but it actually proved to be rather silly and low brow -- a show for the amusement of narrowly educated idiots who want to pretend for awhile that they understand what should be informed references to thoughtful topics. It rather comes across like monkeys throughing feces at the Cistine Chapel.

Well, brady does come off as that monkey sometimes, but he sometimes throws something better than feces too.

I understand the controversy about Paul and Jesus because Paul was never acknowledged to have ever met Jesus or seen him, and the "vision" that made him "blind," I suppose, was not really a vision at all. But followers take the Bible's word for it.

But other books were written to refute the letters of Paul, you say? This is very interesting.

The only thing that bothered me about Paul's tone in some of his letters was a slight sounding of arrogance in it. Christians would probably say that's the devil in me talking, but so be it if so.

Originally posted by AirRick101
Well, brady does come off as that monkey sometimes, but he sometimes throws something better than feces too.

I understand the controversy about Paul and Jesus because Paul was never acknowledged to have ever met Jesus or seen him, and the "vision" that made him "blind," I suppose, was not really a vision at all. *But followers take the Bible's word for it. *

But other books were written to refute the letters of Paul, you say? *This is very interesting. *

The only thing that bothered me about Paul's tone in some of his letters was a slight sounding of arrogance in it. *Christians would probably say that's the devil in me talking, but so be it if so.

Oh, yes, the letters of James, Jude, and John focus on the refutation of the Doctrine of Salvation and insist upon actual Righteousness and the teaching that Christ will be Judge, and NOT Savior. It would be more for Satan to Save us from the consequences of our Sin, don't you think?

Looking at Protestant Doctrine, Paul is favored. When Martin Luther claimed that the Catholics were not following the Bible, he actually meant that Paul had been de-emphasized, especially be the Religious Orders which measured their Spirituality by results and found only evil results in any application of Paul, and so learned to disregard and ignore Paul, while the Bishops refused to decanonize Paul altogether. Before the Printing Press, the Church thought that the damage that could be done with paulist doctrines could be controlled by simply not preaching paul. But with the advent of the printing press and the distribution of dirt-cheap Bibles written in vernacular languages, the most ignorant people could suddenly read all of the Bible and stupidly decide that Paul could reasonably be equated to Christ. Anyway, Luther had wanted to publish a new Protestant Bible which would eliminate the Letters of James, Jude and John, but his more intelligent companions re-assured him that the great majority of men were not smart enough to discern the contradictions unless they would be pointed out. If Protestantism would only be silent about James, Jude and John, then nobody would ever notice them.

But, yes, it is almost incomprehensible that the SAME Bible can contain the Letters of Paul side by side with Letters of True Apostles who deliberately argue against such Doctrines, and that both exist side by side. You would have thought that either the one or the other would have been accepted and the other rejected. Salvation by Forgiveness of Sin cannot co-exist with Judgment in Righteousness.

what this tells us is that at the Council of Nicea, there were various voting blocks. Nicea is close to the Greek Capital, and Paul was a hometown favorite of the Greeks. Also, the Council of Nicea was chaired by not the Pope, but by a Political Emperor, who saw the advantage in Paul's doctrine, in "Romans", for State Supremacy over the Church. So the New Testament was a political patchwork. Not only NOT the word of God, but likely to be as full of crap as anything coming from our Politicians.

Yes, it is significant that you noticed the tone of Paul. the beginnings and closings of his letters, likely written in frills by scribes, as conforming to the protocols of the times, are more in line to religious expectations, and are tirelessly put forward by Catholic Theologians as justifying the maintainance of paul as a Saint despite the evil intent of his doctrines, but they really need to consider that empty forms of protocol hardly express his true mind as did the content and substance of his arguments and propositions. And his tone is unmistakeable. We have arrogance most of the time, and where he argues with logic (now why would the Holy Spirit need to step along 'logically') he uses a proud insistence to cover for reasonable alternatives which he must deliberately exclude.

When I was a child, I would read a chapter of the Bible every evening, and repeat through the Bible often, not being such a long book. But, even as a trusting child I noticed that coming to the Books of Paul would be a terrible letdown, and the feeling of repulsion was tangible.

I honestly think that the Catholic Church's shortage of Priests and Seminary Students would be largely redressed if Paul could be eliminated from the curriculum. I have heard it said that Paul's Letters constitute the most difficult aspect of the Studies, and I am not surprised! Imagine the Theological Contortions that must be undergone in order to reconcile the Christ to the Antichrist. Certainly a great many Seminarians must discern the contradiction inherent there and simply refuse to continue. Then there are the Students who already know and would never consider going to seminary simply because they would never willingly condone Paul and paulist doctrine. Then, look at what we get with those who Graduate from such a course of Studies -- people who study for 7 years and don't have the mind and sense to see the difference between Christ and Antichrist -- who fall in behind the silly excuses and extenuations customarily used to justify paul despite the clear intent of the Teaching of Christ, ever contrary to the direction paul had taken. These virtual idiots must bearly know how to read, who don't see the anti-paulist arguments in James, John, and Jude. By requiring the Study of Paul, it fairly Institutionalized stupidity and dullness in the Priesthood and especially among the Bishops, who, being drawn only from Aristocratic Families, were never required to be smart in the first place.

The thing that bothers me much about Pauls' letters is that he often assumes a seemingly undeserved sense of authority. He makes many orders, some specific and sexist such as to the Corinthians "do not let the women in your churches speak, and they must wear a covering over their head, or it is shameful." Derogatory statements like those are likely to be taken the wrong and cause offense. It almost sounds like he uses the authority to give orders he thinks are best for the church.

If you read the Bible assuming it's all good, it probably won't bother u. But if you let your ego, your own personal opinion grind with it, it will be a little more repulsive.

Yes, I hate it when people trying to argue against religion/spirituality use the bible as evidence. The bible is whacked up, you cannot believe everything it says, I believe some of it could be true considering who Jesus was, but I do not believe half of it, tons of it can be false.What I believe to be true is what makes sense within my view of the universe.

But don't use bible to argue religion and spirituality, I don't believe the bible as a viable resource.