Leaving religion behind...

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Seraphim said:
...Gotta stop now. Time for church...

Lol, this made me chuckle. Sounds like you have read a lot about the Bible and stuff. I realize some of it is history, but aren't some of the stories (some important ones too)just remakes of even older Egyptian/Sumerian tales? And knowing that some of the Bible stories were plagiarized from older tales(myths?), does this reflect at all on the "gospel truth" of the Bible? Curious as to your opinion on this is. Also, a bit envious of how much information you retained from reading/studying this topic. I have forgotten so much of what I have read/learnt on this topic(memory got fried somehow...lol).
 
I have to say that I am impressed with the forums ability to hold this conversation without losing it. I use to enjoy having very in depth discussions about religions and their differences or similarities. These were always calm discussions that took hours and left us exhausted but with a better understanding of the why things are done beyond the good book says so.

My hats off to you all.
 
Cry said:
Lol, this made me chuckle. Sounds like you have read a lot about the Bible and stuff. I realize some of it is history, but aren't some of the stories (some important ones too)just remakes of even older Egyptian/Sumerian tales? And knowing that some of the Bible stories were plagiarized from older tales(myths?), does this reflect at all on the "gospel truth" of the Bible? Curious as to your opinion on this is. Also, a bit envious of how much information you retained from reading/studying this topic. I have forgotten so much of what I have read/learnt on this topic(memory got fried somehow...lol).

It's really impossible to determine whether some stories are based on older ones or not.  Just because there are similarities doesn mean one is based on another.  New religions moving into an area often incorporate ceremonies and ideas to make the new religion palatable to the masses.  Certain times of the year are natural for celebrations. It's safe to assume Jesus was not born on December 25, for example, but the date was the time for a particular celebration.    Keep the celebration, but add something different to celebrate, and a hundred years later, who remembers the original? So, personally, I don't worry about the origins of stories, since we'll really never know. They are theories.

I often wonder myself, about the nephelim passage, ..."these were the heroes of old."  Is that a head nod reference to the old Greek stories, such as Hercules:  children half God half mortal?  We'll never know ... Just a personal thought.
 
Lee

There are many books, and most probably bear a basis of historical accuracy. Each disciple created a following in different regions, to whom the religion maintained a degree of loyalty. Gospels based each were written based on their teachings, which may not have completely agreed. Acts for each apostle, recording their accounts, were written.

The current church is mostly based around the church of Peter, but it was the theology of Paul which often prevailed, as he was a prolific traveler, and an educated and prolific writer. It was Paul who shouted down the pillar of the church (Peter) and his opinion prevailed. With the destruction of the other four Sees, the destruction of writings, so much was lost, and only one set of doctrine prevailed - except in the churches established in The region of India, which were established by Thomas and lost contact with the other Sees. I forget the time frame, but the church sent missionaries to spread the good news to that area, only to find churches already existed; and the churches traced their origins back to Thomas - who was pretty much forgotten in the canonical book of Acts. But there is an interesting read in the recently rediscovered Acts of Thomas. The oldest known gospel, as pretty much accepted by most scholars, is actually the Gospel of Thomas. But it is a sayings gospel only, indicative of the era, and offers no context. Fortunately, Iraneous and his ilk did not destroy all the books he personally considered heretical. Many he did, such as the Gospel of Mary. Only a portion of the book still exists.
 
Some were destroyed completely, and only known in reference.

To piece together the true teachings has been a long time quest of mine.
 
And, of course, in each gospel their own disciple received a little more knowledge from Jesus than did the 'other' disciples. Even Mary, whose true position in the group has often been discussed and theorized upon.
 
Seraphim said:
It's really impossible to determine whether some stories are based on older ones or not...

It's safe to assume Jesus was not born on December 25, for example, but the date was the time for a particular celebration.    Keep the celebration, but add something different to celebrate, and a hundred years later, who remembers the original?...

They are theories...

While technically it may be "impossible" to prove that one story is taken from another, if we just go with the preponderance of evidence, we can assume that there is enough proof that some stories in the Bible were taken from older stories/myths. If the preponderance of evidence is good enough to sentence a man to death, it's good enough for me to say that this or that is "fact".

The Flood story in Genesis is just one such story. It's similarities to the Gilgamesh Flood tale are more than remarkable. Also when it comes to the Flood story, almost every culture on the planet has one and all are pretty similar. The evidence with the Sumerian tablets suggests that the Gilgamesh story is quite a bit older than when the Bible was actually written. Taking the physical evidence there is, combining that with the scientific evidence that at one time there was a massive flood covering a lot of the planet, and keeping in mind that most cultures have a Flood story, one can reasonably assume that there is a "real" Flood story. Just not the one presented in the Bible with Noah and company. While it may be just a "theory" of plagiarism, so is the " theory" of gravity. There is gravity fact and gravity theory, we know gravity exists, but the specifics of it, not so much. They both exist in there own sense. More to this than what is written here, but trying to keep it brief and hopefully coherent.

As to celebrating Jesus birthday on a date that is known not to be the day he was born(or really even close), and knowing that the celebration it was incorporated with was and still is, a pagan holiday, who would knowingly celebrate Jesus birth on a pagan holiday? That sounds strange to me. As to who remembers the origins of Christmas, apparently many do(was easy enough for me to find out) but many others either ignore the facts or just haven't had reason to question it.

Just seems a bit strange to me until I remind myself that humans were involved and agendas are what humans do best...(lol no idea if we do agendas best, just like how it sounds dramatic...) Anyways, hope this made some sort of sense!
 
A preponderance of evidence is NOT enough to sentence a man to death: it is only sufficient to decide a civil case. It is not enough to even make an arrest.
 
The problem with your 'assumption' is the fact there too many other possibilities. What you offer is one possibility. There may have been one flood event, and many different stories created by different people. These stories would have been passed down original in individual verbal stories, and later recorded in writing separately. That's another possibility. Many different theories, none provable since the earliest histories were not written down.

And all in all, how does it matter?
 
Seraphim said:
A preponderance of evidence is NOT enough to sentence a man to death: it is only sufficient to decide a civil case. It is not enough to even make an arrest.

Good catch, I got carried away and misspoke. What I meant to infer was the following, "Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party." Thanks for the correction.

Barring the poor wording I used, any thoughts on the "gist" of what was mentioned?
 
Still incorrect.

A conviction for a criminal offense requires evidence and belief 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for an average reasonable person. In percentage terms, that's about 99% sure. For an arrest, probable cause is needed - about 75%. In a civil case, a judge or jury merely needs to believe one side more than the other - a preponderance of the evidence- just over 50%

But that's not science, nor history.

I think I answered the 'gist' in the next post.
 
IMO, none of the various possibilities reach the 'preponderance of the evidence' stage.

Therefore, I cannot choose one as being 'right', nor would I until evidence convince me 'beyond a reasonable' lol
 
I should have worded that retraction different, so here it is again.

Instead of saying...
"If the preponderance of evidence is good enough to sentence a man to death, it's good enough for me to say that this or that is "fact"."

I should have stated...
"If the preponderance of evidence is good enough to win a civil case, it's good enough for me to say that this or that is "fact"."

As to how does it matter, other than I think it's related to the thread topic, it prob doesn't matter in the long run.
 
Sameer said:
The meaning of "If you look at me I will look at you."...

I am an outsider who is interested in Sufism, as I am all the mystical sects, like Christian gnosticism and Jewish kabbalah. Particularly, perhaps my favorite book of all time, among all literature, is Idries Shah's The Book of the Book, and I very much enjoy the travails of the Mullah Nasrudin.

However, this quote you posted reminds me of the Chinese curse: may you live in exciting times. A corollary I propose is: may Fate smile upon you. 

As an apathetic agnostic, I am just fine with the gods ignoring me. I very much hope they continue to do so. The minute one takes interest in me is, I fear, the moment my life enters a time of suffering I'd rather not endure. 

The quote you posted is not a comfort to me, rather, a threat. Not because of the particular deity or faith involved -- I'd no sooner want any deity paying me particular attention. But rather a sense that attracting the attention of super-human entities is generally detrimental to what we humans call a life. 

All due respect, brother. 
 
Seraphim said:
Gospel of Mary. I'll post some links later.

Apocrypha, left out of The Bible when it was canonized by The (official) Church. 

Personally, I like the teen Jesus who killed birds in trees and turned a bully into stone. But that didn't make the official cut...
 
There are LOTS of apocryphal writings. The link above contains most, as well as letters from various church leaders, etc. each has a good introduction going over the church's tradition on the writing, scholarly comments, and sometimes various translations.

I personally like the Acts of Thomas, which deals with one of the views towards sexual relations being taught at the time - the polluted Union (marriage), which conflicts with Paul's thoughts on the matter.

It is the Acts of Peter - I think - which introduces a strong female personage who was extremely popular in some regions. I can't recall her name offhand (my mind tends to work that way), and the text makes Peter look a little like a jerk, by modern standards. Not by those of the time.

The Gospel of Thomas has around 104 sayings attributed to Jesus. About two thirds of them are repeated in the canonical gospels in one form or another. The others aren't. Sayings to think about, though. Again, no context to help in the understanding of them.

Just a few thoughts.
 
The New Testament was written approximately 100 to 300 years after the death of Jesus and edited approximately 300 years later during the Council of Nicaea. Many of the books were removed but can be found and read. Other interesting reading are the library's of the Nag Hammadi Scrolls. We are learning more and more as time goes on.
 
The site I linked to offers more accurate estimations of NT writings. It also includes the Nag Hammadi scrolls. I'm also not aware of any of the Nicean synods altering NT texts, nor any of the other synods altering NT texts. I'm not aware of any estimations of NT texts being older than 90 years after Jesus' death (about 120 AD). Please provide documentation.
 
Letters accurately attributed to Paul could not have been written 100 years after Christ's death. He didn't live that long.
 

Latest posts

Top