Let's discuss a parable 3)- The two debtors

[Symmetry]

I know you're well studied in 17th century literature Symmetry, but any books you recommend that disagree with Patches points on Catholicism would have to be Catholic propaganda, and a complete lie. During the Middle Ages it was a crime punishable by death to possess a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue. The Bible lays waste to Roman Catholic tradition in numerous passages - I Timothy 4:1&2 refers to forbidding to marry (as priests for instance) and abstinence from meats (as in "Good Friday") as "doctrines of devils". Because of this and other passages the Catholic church could not have its parishioners reading the Bible for themselves. The Syllabus of Errors, a canonized document which i'm sure you're familiar with, declared a person in possession of a copy of the Scriptures in the common tongue to be "anathema" (accursed of God).

The main purpose of the Roman Catholic Church was not to spread the gospel of Jesus but to maintain power over the people. It wasn't until Vatican II that Catholics were allowed to read the Bible for themselves. Even the sermon in the church was done in Latin until then. Keep the people in darkness and ignorance and maintain their dependence on the priesthood. According to Hebrews chapter 10 there was no longer need for priests after Jesus offered the one perfect sacrifice for sin. The purpose of the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament was to offer sacrifices for sins. Once the perfect sacrifice had been made there was no longer any need for priests. Check any book of the New Testament and you'll find no record of any priests in the early church - only elders. The priesthood was a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, which was created by Constantine when he amalgamated Paganism and Christianity and declared it the new national religion.

I married into a Catholic family in south Louisiana in 1972, my wife having converted from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity shortly before i met her. I wasn't familiar at all with Roman Catholicism and wanted to know if there really was a difference and so i studied the subject in depth for a good ten years - the more i studied the more horrified i was at the monstrosity of this pseudo-church. Robert Durant, one of the most respected historians of our time, said that Pope Innocent III (the man responsible for the Inquisitions) killed more Christians than all 10 Roman emporers who persecuted the church combined.

Believe me, Patches was rather subdued in his "anti-Catholic bits".

I'm pretty familiar with the arguments, but I don't quite see it as quite as black and white. Nor am I quite happy to write off around 1500 years worth of Christian thought as a homogeneous whole. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss historians who disagree with one narrative view as Catholic propagandists.

I'm generally more familiar with the reformation in England, and English 17th century literature, But Eamon Duffy's "The Stripping of the Altars" and Christopher Haigh's "English Reformations" (note the plural) present some great arguments.

[Nola_Lifer]

As always, the disclaimer that I'm an atheist. Previous threads in the series Here and Here.

The parable for this thread refers to Luke 7 36-50. regarding the parable of the two debtors (KJV):

Spoiler

36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.
37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Personally, this is one of the toughest parables for me to accept. I generally take it as suggesting that there's a greater virtue relating to the thing you're forgiving. There's also the other side, though, that repayment can be in small acts, but a little complicated by the kissing the feet bit. Thoughts?

Edit haha sorry tried to delete after I read further

[Symmetry]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

I don't mean to be offensive with my sincere question, but here goes:

could you be mistaking God for the actions of many writers? To me, the Bible is an artifact which is representative of the cultures of that time. The actions, the consequences, and the trail-and-error learning process of over (roughly) 300 years have been compiled into one book.*

In other words, it seems that you have mistaken the cause of an outcome. In my opinion, the credit is due to the writers which have recorded the knowledge of their cultures. To use a (weak) analogy, it's like looking at a car (or whatever your most favorite object is) and claiming, "God made this for it is so complex and wonderful."

My second question is: how do you know that you aren't committing this error?


*Notwithstanding the "lost in translation" issue and the centuries of subsequent editing.

EDIT: Damn you, Fitz for ninja-posting me!

As a bit of a counter question, would that make the studying of the message wrong? I find many strong moral messages in works that I know to be entirely fictional and written by humans, some of them in various translations after all. I don't think your likely to convince BK that his belief in the Bible is true or false- that's a personal issue for him, but even a non-believer can find truths in fictions, no?

[Symmetry]

As always, the disclaimer that I'm an atheist. Previous threads in the series Here and Here.

The parable for this thread refers to Luke 7 36-50. regarding the parable of the two debtors (KJV):

Spoiler

36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.
37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Personally, this is one of the toughest parables for me to accept. I generally take it as suggesting that there's a greater virtue relating to the thing you're forgiving. There's also the other side, though, that repayment can be in small acts, but a little complicated by the kissing the feet bit. Thoughts?

To be honest with you this isn't a parable. A parable is a story that conveys a meaning and the ones you mean are the ones told by Jesus. This is just a supposed account of what Jesus did, and not a parable at all.

Hmm, not sure I agree- the parable bit would be the story in the middle concerning the two debtors. I had some trouble with previous installments about not including context, so I included the surrounding account.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

I don't mean to be offensive with my sincere question, but here goes:

could you be mistaking God for the actions of many writers? To me, the Bible is an artifact which is representative of the cultures of that time. The actions, the consequences, and the trail-and-error learning process of over (roughly) 300 years have been compiled into one book.*

In other words, it seems that you have mistaken the cause of an outcome. In my opinion, the credit is due to the writers which have recorded the knowledge of their cultures. To use a (weak) analogy, it's like looking at a car (or whatever your most favorite object is) and claiming, "God made this for it is so complex and wonderful."

My second question is: how do you know that you aren't committing this error?


*Notwithstanding the "lost in translation" issue and the centuries of subsequent editing.

EDIT: Damn you, Fitz for ninja-posting me!

As a bit of a counter question, would that make the studying of the message wrong? I find many strong moral messages in works that I know to be entirely fictional and written by humans, some of them in various translations after all. I don't think your likely to convince BK that his belief in the Bible is true or false- that's a personal issue for him, but even a non-believer can find truths in fictions, no?

How would admitting that god didn't write the bible make the "studying of the message" wrong?

[Symmetry]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

I don't mean to be offensive with my sincere question, but here goes:

could you be mistaking God for the actions of many writers? To me, the Bible is an artifact which is representative of the cultures of that time. The actions, the consequences, and the trail-and-error learning process of over (roughly) 300 years have been compiled into one book.*

In other words, it seems that you have mistaken the cause of an outcome. In my opinion, the credit is due to the writers which have recorded the knowledge of their cultures. To use a (weak) analogy, it's like looking at a car (or whatever your most favorite object is) and claiming, "God made this for it is so complex and wonderful."

My second question is: how do you know that you aren't committing this error?


*Notwithstanding the "lost in translation" issue and the centuries of subsequent editing.

EDIT: Damn you, Fitz for ninja-posting me!

As a bit of a counter question, would that make the studying of the message wrong? I find many strong moral messages in works that I know to be entirely fictional and written by humans, some of them in various translations after all. I don't think your likely to convince BK that his belief in the Bible is true or false- that's a personal issue for him, but even a non-believer can find truths in fictions, no?

How would admitting that god didn't write the bible make the "studying of the message" wrong?

Apologies if I misunderstood, but it's often an argument used to dismiss the Bible as any kind of source for moral truths. Perhaps I'm projecting a bit here, but this seems to be an argument that comes up in these forums a lot, even when the discussion is about a specific parable.

[daddy1gringo]

Jesus is shaking up the Pharisee’s view of what God and our relationship to Him are all about. In his view, there are righteous people, like himself, and sinners, like the woman. What he thinks a man of God is supposed to do is condemn and avoid the sinners, and have theological discussions with the righteous ones. Jesus is communicating that we are all sinners, represented in the parable as debtors, and what God is looking for is a relationship of love and gratefulness for the forgiveness of those sins. He has regard for what the woman does for him as a result of that gratefulness and love, and not so much for whatever religious things the Pharisee does in his pride and self-righteousness. The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.(Luke 19:10)

The Pharisee did not do the things that God seeks, because he doesn’t have the gratefulness and love that the “sinner” woman has, since he considers that he has little or nothing to forgive. He who is forgiven little, loves little, as Jesus said. Actually, in God’s eyes, he is as least as much of a sinner, since he is guilty of pride, whereas she obviously is not. As in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector:

9 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away,was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

[safariguy5]

And therein lies the interpretive license that different denominations have. To me, you can follow the principles of morality and right and wrong laid out in the Bible without being Christian or Catholic or even going to church on Sundays. Even a work of fiction can lead to certain people following certain tenants. Just look at Ayn Rand.

[b.k. barunt]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

I don't mean to be offensive with my sincere question, but here goes:

could you be mistaking God for the actions of many writers? To me, the Bible is an artifact which is representative of the cultures of that time. The actions, the consequences, and the trail-and-error learning process of over (roughly) 300 years have been compiled into one book.*

In other words, it seems that you have mistaken the cause of an outcome. In my opinion, the credit is due to the writers which have recorded the knowledge of their cultures. To use a (weak) analogy, it's like looking at a car (or whatever your most favorite object is) and claiming, "God made this for it is so complex and wonderful."

My second question is: how do you know that you aren't committing this error?


*Notwithstanding the "lost in translation" issue and the centuries of subsequent editing.

EDIT: Damn you, Fitz for ninja-posting me!

Nothing offensive about your questions and i'll answer them as best i can. I've studied the Koran, Doctrines and Covenants (the main doctrinal book of Mormonism), read the Book of Mormon (no study needed there) and numerous religious texts from minor religions. I've found one absolute to hold true throughout my studies - have two authors write on the same religion and sooner or later they'll contradict one another. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are two good examples. The Bible was written by numerous authors from semiliterate shepherds and fishermen to princes and kings. Not only are there no contradictions, but each book adds to and builds on the whole in an intricate and fascinating way. Scholars who studied the Bible to disprove it have been converted by its power.

I've also seen this book work in my life, and having thrown off my faith and running from God for years, i've seen it from both sides. I've seen what's written applied to life and become even clearer through such application. To compare the Bible to a car, which has many flaws and a short life span is absurd. The Bible has no flaws, i.e. contradictions or mistakes (like the simple mistakes in the Koran) and it has no life span. Show me a medical or scientific that hasn't proved obsolete within 100 or even 50 years.

As to "lost in translation" and "subsequent editing", the Dead Sea Scrolls should have laid that argument to rest.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

I don't mean to be offensive with my sincere question, but here goes:

could you be mistaking God for the actions of many writers? To me, the Bible is an artifact which is representative of the cultures of that time. The actions, the consequences, and the trail-and-error learning process of over (roughly) 300 years have been compiled into one book.*

In other words, it seems that you have mistaken the cause of an outcome. In my opinion, the credit is due to the writers which have recorded the knowledge of their cultures. To use a (weak) analogy, it's like looking at a car (or whatever your most favorite object is) and claiming, "God made this for it is so complex and wonderful."

My second question is: how do you know that you aren't committing this error?


*Notwithstanding the "lost in translation" issue and the centuries of subsequent editing.

EDIT: Damn you, Fitz for ninja-posting me!

As a bit of a counter question, would that make the studying of the message wrong? I find many strong moral messages in works that I know to be entirely fictional and written by humans, some of them in various translations after all. I don't think your likely to convince BK that his belief in the Bible is true or false- that's a personal issue for him, but even a non-believer can find truths in fictions, no?

How would admitting that god didn't write the bible make the "studying of the message" wrong?

Apologies if I misunderstood, but it's often an argument used to dismiss the Bible as any kind of source for moral truths. Perhaps I'm projecting a bit here, but this seems to be an argument that comes up in these forums a lot, even when the discussion is about a specific parable.

I don't mean to take away your podium, but you're projecting here.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

I don't mean to be offensive with my sincere question, but here goes:

could you be mistaking God for the actions of many writers? To me, the Bible is an artifact which is representative of the cultures of that time. The actions, the consequences, and the trail-and-error learning process of over (roughly) 300 years have been compiled into one book.*

In other words, it seems that you have mistaken the cause of an outcome. In my opinion, the credit is due to the writers which have recorded the knowledge of their cultures. To use a (weak) analogy, it's like looking at a car (or whatever your most favorite object is) and claiming, "God made this for it is so complex and wonderful."

My second question is: how do you know that you aren't committing this error?


*Notwithstanding the "lost in translation" issue and the centuries of subsequent editing.

EDIT: Damn you, Fitz for ninja-posting me!

Nothing offensive about your questions and i'll answer them as best i can. I've studied the Koran, Doctrines and Covenants (the main doctrinal book of Mormonism), read the Book of Mormon (no study needed there) and numerous religious texts from minor religions. I've found one absolute to hold true throughout my studies - have two authors write on the same religion and sooner or later they'll contradict one another. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are two good examples. The Bible was written by numerous authors from semiliterate shepherds and fishermen to princes and kings. Not only are there no contradictions, but each book adds to and builds on the whole in an intricate and fascinating way. Scholars who studied the Bible to disprove it have been converted by its power.

I've also seen this book work in my life, and having thrown off my faith and running from God for years, i've seen it from both sides. I've seen what's written applied to life and become even clearer through such application. To compare the Bible to a car, which has many flaws and a short life span is absurd. The Bible has no flaws, i.e. contradictions or mistakes (like the simple mistakes in the Koran) and it has no life span. Show me a medical or scientific that hasn't proved obsolete within 100 or even 50 years.

As to "lost in translation" and "subsequent editing", the Dead Sea Scrolls should have laid that argument to rest.

Maybe if I get to be an old fart, I'll sit down and really study the Bible.


The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm everything within the "modern" edition of the Bible?

[AAFitz]

EDIT: Damn you, Fitz for ninja-posting me!

Don't blame me. The forum clickies add-on is available to everyone.

[AAFitz]

Thanks BBS. Fitz, i can understand your outlook on the seemingly bizarre points of the Law of Moses, but like i say the Bible needs to be studied to be understood - God made it that way on purpose. A cursory glance will get you nowhere. I've put thousands of hours of study into it and by and of itself it would be enough to convince me of the reality of God. No man could possibly have written a book like that.

I don't mean to be offensive with my sincere question, but here goes:

could you be mistaking God for the actions of many writers? To me, the Bible is an artifact which is representative of the cultures of that time. The actions, the consequences, and the trail-and-error learning process of over (roughly) 300 years have been compiled into one book.*

In other words, it seems that you have mistaken the cause of an outcome. In my opinion, the credit is due to the writers which have recorded the knowledge of their cultures. To use a (weak) analogy, it's like looking at a car (or whatever your most favorite object is) and claiming, "God made this for it is so complex and wonderful."

My second question is: how do you know that you aren't committing this error?


*Notwithstanding the "lost in translation" issue and the centuries of subsequent editing.

EDIT: Damn you, Fitz for ninja-posting me!

Nothing offensive about your questions and i'll answer them as best i can. I've studied the Koran, Doctrines and Covenants (the main doctrinal book of Mormonism), read the Book of Mormon (no study needed there) and numerous religious texts from minor religions. I've found one absolute to hold true throughout my studies - have two authors write on the same religion and sooner or later they'll contradict one another. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are two good examples. The Bible was written by numerous authors from semiliterate shepherds and fishermen to princes and kings. Not only are there no contradictions, but each book adds to and builds on the whole in an intricate and fascinating way. Scholars who studied the Bible to disprove it have been converted by its power.

I've also seen this book work in my life, and having thrown off my faith and running from God for years, i've seen it from both sides. I've seen what's written applied to life and become even clearer through such application. To compare the Bible to a car, which has many flaws and a short life span is absurd. The Bible has no flaws, i.e. contradictions or mistakes (like the simple mistakes in the Koran) and it has no life span. Show me a medical or scientific that hasn't proved obsolete within 100 or even 50 years.

As to "lost in translation" and "subsequent editing", the Dead Sea Scrolls should have laid that argument to rest.

You compare the bible to a medical or scientific, which change as we learn more and are a direct result of the times the book was written in the same thread you explain why the bible changes based on the time and society within which it is written.

I claim much, most, if not all of the bible is very much is obsolete. Further, many of the scientific findings from well over 50 or 100 years ago are far more relevant than many of those passages in the bible. As far as contradiction, you are choosing not to see contradiction. Choosing to see cohesion, and one can choose to see whatever one wishes in such a situation.

I have absolutely no doubt that your faith and the book have helped you in countless ways. People are helped by many beliefs, and many religions, including the ones you claim cant be real because of your perceived contradictions. I have absolute full respect for any believer, having been one for well more than half of my life. However, to suggest that your study of the bible, means that you must be right, and that no man could have written it, and that it must be the work of God, is simply a stretch of the imagination.

No man could possibly.......

Perhaps the most common false assumption in history.

In this case a man did not write it. Men did. And questioning what men might achieve is again, a proven fools bet.
And questioning what women could achieve....an even bigger one.

[b.k. barunt]

Maybe if I get to be an old fart, I'll sit down and really study the Bible.


The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm everything within the "modern" edition of the Bible?

Actually i studied the Bible much more as a young man. I was converted shortly after i got out of the service in 1971 at 19. At 25 i became a teacher in first a tiny church and then at 28 a rather large one where i was put in charge of the teaching. I worked over 50 hours a week at my job, but would put in an average of 3 hrs a night studying the scriptures. I read and meditate now and am working on a novel about the life of Samuel, Saul and David so i do a lot of research for that but the research is mostly history of the time period involved.

I didn't find God through studying the Bible, but by praying to Him and asking Him to show me the truth.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1940s and date from around 800 BC. Various portions of the Old Testament were found, and the entire book of Isaiah. The discovered manuscripts are the same as the KJV of the Old Testament that we have today. The focal point of the Hebrew culture was the Bible. Scribes would trash a copy of the Bible or any part they were working on if something as minor as a drop of ink ran on a page. There was absolutely no room for mistranslation - a scribe would be completely dishonored as such if he were to be discovered doing that whether on purpose or by accident.

[b.k. barunt]

As far as contradiction, you are choosing not to see contradiction. Choosing to see cohesion, and one can choose to see whatever one wishes in such a situation.

So give me an alleged contradiction to discuss - you should be able to find plenty with a simple google search. Believe me i've debated this with some very "educated" people, but as their life didn't depend on it their study was not as painstaking as mine. I read the book "Misquoting Jesus", which came out i think around 10 years ago and was a best seller. The author was an opportunistic, seminary educated (i have nothing but contempt for seminaries) ragpicker who simply rehashed a lot of old allegations about the "mistranslation" of the Bible. One of my former students read it and it shook his faith, so i read it and according to my former student i "tore it apart". Not all that hard to do actually - the author took a lot of verses out of context and played fast and loose with references to the Greek and Hebrew. He actually misquoted a few verses himself in order to prove his point.

You're right - i choose to see cohesion, but this choice is based on experience. I have seen a plethora of shoddy arguments against the cohesion of the scriptures and my choosing to see the cohesion of such is akin to skepticism i would feel when the honor of an honorable friend or family member is assaulted. Also this choice does not preclude my willingness to honestly review any evidence submitted that is contrary to my present beliefs. The Bible says "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good (I Thessalonians 5:21). My God does not encourage "blind faith".

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe if I get to be an old fart, I'll sit down and really study the Bible.


The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm everything within the "modern" edition of the Bible?

Actually i studied the Bible much more as a young man. I was converted shortly after i got out of the service in 1971 at 19. At 25 i became a teacher in first a tiny church and then at 28 a rather large one where i was put in charge of the teaching. I worked over 50 hours a week at my job, but would put in an average of 3 hrs a night studying the scriptures. I read and meditate now and am working on a novel about the life of Samuel, Saul and David so i do a lot of research for that but the research is mostly history of the time period involved.

I didn't find God through studying the Bible, but by praying to Him and asking Him to show me the truth.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1940s and date from around 800 BC. Various portions of the Old Testament were found, and the entire book of Isaiah. The discovered manuscripts are the same as the KJV of the Old Testament that we have today. The focal point of the Hebrew culture was the Bible. Scribes would trash a copy of the Bible or any part they were working on if something as minor as a drop of ink ran on a page. There was absolutely no room for mistranslation - a scribe would be completely dishonored as such if he were to be discovered doing that whether on purpose or by accident.

I still don't see how you are not mistaking the actual creator(s) of the Bible (old and new). Your explanation doesn't exclude the strong possibility that the Bible is simply a human representation of the successful laws and customs of past cultures.

How do you know that you are not mistaken? We can agree that the work of the Bible is wonderful and complex, but it doesn't follow that God did it, or that he had it "transcribed" by the writer(s).

[AAFitz]

As far as contradiction, you are choosing not to see contradiction. Choosing to see cohesion, and one can choose to see whatever one wishes in such a situation.

So give me an alleged contradiction to discuss - you should be able to find plenty with a simple google search. Believe me i've debated this with some very "educated" people, but as their life didn't depend on it their study was not as painstaking as mine. I read the book "Misquoting Jesus", which came out i think around 10 years ago and was a best seller. The author was an opportunistic, seminary educated (i have nothing but contempt for seminaries) ragpicker who simply rehashed a lot of old allegations about the "mistranslation" of the Bible. One of my former students read it and it shook his faith, so i read it and according to my former student i "tore it apart". Not all that hard to do actually - the author took a lot of verses out of context and played fast and loose with references to the Greek and Hebrew. He actually misquoted a few verses himself in order to prove his point.

You're right - i choose to see cohesion, but this choice is based on experience. I have seen a plethora of shoddy arguments against the cohesion of the scriptures and my choosing to see the cohesion of such is akin to skepticism i would feel when the honor of an honorable friend or family member is assaulted. Also this choice does not preclude my willingness to honestly review any evidence submitted that is contrary to my present beliefs. The Bible says "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good (I Thessalonians 5:21). My God does not encourage "blind faith".

Well, I find many of the central themes between the old testament and new to be contradictory. My study certainly is not as painstaking as yours, and never will be. I will simply say, if I have not already that I do absolutely respect your faith, and thank you for your more than honest thorough answers. I disagree with your conclusions in large part, and feel you have chosen to believe, and then set forth to defend that faith, but its also would be ridiculous on my part to suggest you did this without great consideration, time and thought.

For my part, I fully accept that you may even be correct. I however, have studied a great number of other areas of study too, and when combined with science, history, and human psychology, the idea of man creating this text is simply near definite when viewed from a pure logical stand point. Your claim it could not have been, certainly is not proven in an iota. In fact, I would suggest it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it has been proven man is quite capable of such fiction, and one only chooses to ignore such evidence in deciding otherwise.

As I said before, I have believed, I have believed to varying degrees, and now, I don't choose not to not believe. I have simply learned too much about the world to believe. I could easily choose to believe again, but right now, I simply choose to not abandon the rational and logical.

[2dimes]

You're right in a way saying this,

Well, I find many of the central themes between the old testament and new to be contradictory.

That is why it's called the "Old testament" and "New" while Jesus didn't come to replace the law but to compleate it. His sacrifice replaces the former ones.

I agree with this,

I've studied the Koran, Doctrines and Covenants (the main doctrinal book of Mormonism), read the Book of Mormon (no study needed there) and numerous religious texts from minor religions. I've found one absolute to hold true throughout my studies - have two authors write on the same religion and sooner or later they'll contradict one another. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are two good examples. The Bible was written by numerous authors from semiliterate shepherds and fishermen to princes and kings. Not only are there no contradictions, but each book adds to and builds on the whole in an intricate and fascinating way. Scholars who studied the Bible to disprove it have been converted by its power.

because it is much like my experience studying and comparing religions and their texts.

I have found it nearly impossible to read the Quoran personally and can only seem to be able to read small parts that make sense and are pretty clear on what they state. For some reason most people believe those statements to be open for interpretation. I have met a fair mix of lebonese muslim moderates, a couple are great guys that you instantly like unless you're the jerk. Some are tougher to get along with. Egyptians are wonderfull people regardless of religion. There's probably exceptions fourtunately I've never met them.

I don't want to negative about the book of Morman because I can't remember a single Morman I have met that wasn't a good guy but other than the re-hash of parts of the gospels, I couldn't follow the story which is odd because I like kids books if they're done well. "I wish I had Duck Feet." Excellent, "Moroni"? could use some better rhymes maybe.


It seems that many people have difficult time honestly studying religious texts without being emotional about it and trying to find something in them that they want. Wether that be, contradictions, support for their personal belief going in, peacefull beauty, a reason to kill or hate, or whatever. You can think that's how I approached the book of Morman but actually I was hoping it was better than it is. I really like the people and was drawn in by the public image of the organisation.

If you can detatch emotion and read what the authors actually wrote the difference between the bible and the other texts especially more modern ones become larger. Often contradictions in religious texts are by the same author. Every time I have had someone show me a contradiction in the bible, it's something that was the difference between two or more authors explaining the same thing.

I'll use as an example where they come to arrest Christ and one of the deciples panics and pulls out a sword then cuts off dude's ear. I'll cite text from the original King James translation.

It's told in 3 of the 4 gospels. So one misses it completely.
Only John 18 names the swordsman as Simon Peter and the guy losing an ear as Malchus.

9That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. 10Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Only Luke 22 tells of Jesus healing the ear.

49When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? 50And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

And in Mark 14 Jesus doesn't even seem to notice as instead it describes him asking the people arresting him, [dimes paraphrase.] "What? I've been hanging around teaching in the temple everyday and you didn't take me in. Now you bring swords and staves like I'm a criminal that's considered armed and dangerous?" then the diciples scatter.

46And they laid their hands on him, and took him. 47And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 48And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?

If you want to believe the stories contradict each other I don't think that would be too difficult to argue for.

If you want to believe as I do that one of the diciples, (likely Peter) cut an ear off a guy, (likely Machus) then Jesus healed it and most of the people there ignored it because they were in such a rage to take Jesus in, believing they were right. You may need a little faith.

However I notice patterns that support each other building the charicter of Jesus by studying and comparing many events recorded in the books and letters gathered up to make the new Testament. I've found them compelling and supportive of each other to a degree I've never found elsewhere.

[Symmetry]

I'm not greatly happy with the trend of this thread, so I'm adding a poll about the possible options for the next topic. Of course, Christian belief is kind of a key factor in this discussion, but I was kind of hoping it'd be more than just a debate about who wrote the Bible, again. I'll open this up to a poll and see if peeps have a preference or suggestions on where to go to next.

[daddy1gringo]

My choice wasn't on the survey. It's: Continue the parable threads and politely ask BBS and BK to transfer this line of discussion to the "Is there a God?" thread where it belongs.

[BigBallinStalin]

My choice wasn't on the survey. It's: Continue the parable threads and politely ask BBS and BK to transfer this line of discussion to the "Is there a God?" thread where it belongs.

[2dimes]

I know it went mildly off topic as we were supposed to be discussing one particular part but I believe the discussion was still focused on the Bible and not really "is there a God?" I didn't really want to get in on it, I'd much rather post fluff around here.

[Symmetry]

I know it went mildly off topic as we were supposed to be discussing one particular part but I believe the discussion was still focused on the Bible and not really "is there a God?" I didn't really want to get in on it, I'd much rather post fluff around here.

It's fine- I don't have a huge objection to it being posted, but if it's the same argument every time then there's little point in creating new threads on parables. It probably wasn't the best choice of parable anyway though. Just wanted to gauge the temperature on the subject and see if people were ok with it all. I'm happy to take suggestions for further parables though, if you have any in mind that might generate a more interesting discussion.

[2dimes]

Even though I was defending our thread drift. I have been enjoying the discussions of the parables themselves. Part of what I like about the bible is the stories and parables are so open for interpretation that I can read them over again and they sometimes seem like a different or new story I have not read before, even when I'm farmiliar with one.

In this one there's elements of, it is really generous to forgive the person that sinned more the same way he's forgiving the guy that as far as most are concerned was a rightious man. Yet for Simon there is that logical thought, "What's this guy doing? That woman is a dirty sinner. She shouldn't be allowed to touch him, he is a great teacher." it was starting to cause him to wonder if Jesus could be a prophet or not.

At the time they being Hebrews would have been bound by all of those really strict laws in the Torah that we can't even relate to anymore. There were all kind of things that a guy might do even accidently and he would need a ritualistic and physical bath then still still may not enter the temple, in some cases for a week. That might be part of why Simon would play it safe and not allow her to touch him. It may have been a factor in not offering Jesus a kiss, the tone I sense in reading the parable as posted is Jesus was quite upset about not getting greeted with a kiss and that Simon would understand and agree it was a big deal.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's get a new parable. Preferably, a vary ambiguous one. Maybe one about free markets too!