Quotes about the Bible

This is a partial list of quotes and information I have gathered about the Bible. Some of the quotes have the sources listed and some don't. I was remiss when I first started to gather information on the Bible to list all my sources.

The Bible is a book of theology in Jewish worldview first and foremost.

We don't actually have the original writings of the (old or) new testaments. We have copies of these writings, made years later... none of these copies is completely accurate... scribes... inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in place.

This (is) a human book from beginning to end. It was written by different human authors at different times and in different places to address different needs. ...they had their own perspectives, their own beliefs, their own views, their own needs, their own desires, their own understandings, their own theologies; and these... informed everything they said. Misquoting Jesus

The bible was written by at least 150 different people in dozens of different places at different times, many centuries apart, for many different reasons.

The Bible is the interpretation of historical events by ancient nomads.

All context is left in the background or left outside the narrative. This compels the reader to add their own interpretation to the text.

As language develops, the meanings of words change or the meaning is lost all together.

To dissect the bible in search of accurate, verifiable history is to demand of it something that it is not. The bible is narrative expression of shared community life. It emerged in the late 7th century BCE as the response of a small kingdom to the unique pressures it faced, and was later refined as the response of the even smaller Temple community in Jerusalem to the challenges of the post-Exilic period. It demands to be read, not as history in the modern sense, but as the literary and spiritual creation of its own age.

Since the bible developed over a period of many centuries, it makes assumptions that were shared by people at the time a particular passage was written, but not necessarily at an earlier time or later time - Great People of the Bible and How They Lived

The bible is an accumulation of material, much of it repetitive, that was molded over many centuries - from both oral and written traditions - by many generations of storytellers who revised the stories endlessly in the telling, and by religious leaders who periodically brought the accounts up to date according to the biases of their times. - The Israelites
Over time gods took on human qualities such as love and hate, jealous and generosity, anger and pleasure, grief and joy, gratitude and vengeance, and annoyance. - The Israelites

The bible is the record of a people's spiritual progress rather than an infallible document of divine origin - A History of the Jews

It is the greatest human document, with all the loves and hates, the feelings sublime and sordid, that animate human beings. - A History of the Jews

The bible can serve as a very useful historical document if it is kept in mind that its editors have recast tribal traditions and reinterpreted them from a national standpoint, that the story is the idealized product of prophetic and priestly imagination, written down many centuries after the events supposedly occurred. - A History of the Jews

All religious systems, beliefs, creeds, doctrines, gods, and sacred texts, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc., are human creations by which people in different times and different places seek to journey into that which is ultimately holy and wholly other. Until that simple lesson is heard, human beings will continue to destroy each other in the name of the 'one true god.' - John Shelby Spong

Religion for most people is not a search for truth but a search for security. People want security more than truth - John Shelby Spong

The truths in the bible are not historical truths but social, political, ethical, and existential truth

The writers were concerned with showing what they believed to be the finger of god in the events and experiences of the Israelite people.

The past is refracted through a theological lens.

The bible is an attempt to describe the indescribable.

1200 BCE - Hebrew culture unique enough to appear in the archaeological record. - The Jews can rank neither as a nation nor even an ethnic unit, but rather as a socio-religious group carrying large Mediterranean, Armenoid, and other elements, and varying greatly in physical characteristics." - Hurley and Haddon

The ceaseless - often violent - interaction between those who have crossed or are forced to dwell in the yellow lands and those who possess the green land is the recurring theme of the history of the Holy Land. - Silent Cities, Sacred Stone

Repetition is a feature of bible literature - words that repeat 7 to 10 times in a story become a theme - ex. Gen. 1 repeats "It was good" 7 times.

A biblical archaeologist's job is not to prove that the bible is true, but to identify those specific elements in it whose historical relevance can be established: not whether Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did exist, but whether they could have existed within the cultural, geographical, and historical framework of Genesis. - Silent Cities, Sacred Stone

The Bible is a library of books from diverse times and places rather than a single, unified book; biblical narratives contain complex themes and realistic characters and are not "pious parables" about saintly persons; the Bible is a sophisticated narrative not for children; the Bible is an account of the odyssey of a people rather than a book of theology; and finally, the Bible was written by many human contributors with diverse perspectives and viewpoints.

The Torah is 5 centuries of religious and literary activity .

The biblical authors were what we would call collectors, compilers, revisers, editors, and interpreters of ancient tradition. Ancient texts were generally the product of many hands over the stretch of many long centuries, and during that time modifications and reconceptualization occurred
.
The stories were written inside a world view that was open ended, filled with magic and miracles – Spong

The Bible is not a book but a library - is an anthology, written and edited over an extended period of time for different situations - political, historical, philosophical, religious, moral -with many different genres - narratives, law, cultic and ritual, messages of prophets, poetry, proverbs, psalms of thanksgiving and lament

Bible gaps - bible is meant to teach lessons not as a history - only those events that teach are included in the bible

A stories' truth is of less value than its cautionary tale
.
The myths in the bible were not intended to be taken literally, but were metaphorical attempts by ancient people to describe a reality that was too complex and elusive to express in any other way.

Religion starts with a perception that something is wrong

Religion is politics made sacred.

The first 5 - 7 books (or more) of the bible are compilations - these sources therefore do not tell us about the times or situations they purport to describe, so much as they tell us about the beliefs and practices of Israelites in the period in which they were composed - Yale Open Course

Biblical Literalism and Biblical Interpretations

I have been reading and following the debate the last several weeks in my local newspaper about biblical literalism and if the Bible is the absolute word of God. I was going to quote some Bible verses to refute some of what other writers have written but after some thought I decided to try this. I agree with my friend Mr. Panko's statement that "the Bible is the word of God as conceived by the scripture writers of the first century, who, being like us, had their own egos, prejudices, personalities, and values projected upon their concept of God, something man has done from the beginning of time and is still doing." Here is why I believe this statement:
The parts of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew several thousand years ago in a social and political context far different from the one we have now. It was written when the Hebrews were wandering around in the desert for 40 years. Then the Hebrews arrived in the land of Israel, and a new social and political context was created. Instead of wandering, the Hebrews were now fighting to conquer the land and settle it. Then after many years, the Hebrews were conquered and sent off to Babylon as slaves. A new social and political realty again. The editors and authors then perhaps were using Hebrew, perhaps Babylonian to do their writings. If the editors and authors were using a language different from Hebrew, than they were re-interpreting the word of God. After that, the Hebrews went back to Israel, many years passed and Jesus was born. Now Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, yet another different language for the word of God. Israel at this time was also under the influence of Rome, a new social and political context. The editors and authors when interpreting the word of God used Aramaic or Latin and put the word of God into their current social and political context. Jesus' dies and the apostles go out and proselytize. Some go to Anatolia and Greece. Some go to Egypt. Peter and Paul go to Rome. Each of these areas is a new social and political context. The authors of the New Testament and the editors of the Old Testament now have to re-interpret the word of God into Greek, Latin, or Coptic. Times passes and there is a Pope in Rome who interprets the Bible for his social and political context. In Germany, Martin Luther does not share this interpretation and the Reformation begins. Soon after the printing press is invented and Bibles begin to be mass-produced. Bibles are interpreted into many different languages in many different social and political contexts. Even amongst these different languages, there are different interpretations of the Bible. I have had a Good News Bible: Today's English Version since I was 8. One writer in a letter to the editor cites examples of God's word from the New International Version. Yet another from the King James Version. I looked up Bibles and found at least 11 different versions of the Bible in English. Another word for version is interpretation. Now, which of these Bibles is the absolute word of God. God first spoke to man in what I assume is Hebrew. Should we all learn Hebrew so we know absolutely what the word of God is? But some of the Old and New Testament was received from God in Aramaic. Should we also learn Aramaic so we know absolutely what the word of God is? But then, some of the New Testament was written in Greek and Latin. I'm beginning to think that it is impossible to know the absolute word of God when there are so many different interpretations of His word out there. It is impossible to know the absolute word of God if you don't speak or read the language the message was originally delivered in, because any other language is just an interpretation of the original. Interpretations are, by their very nature, open to interpretation.
How I view and understand the Bible and God is different from how another person views and understands the Bible and God. How I view and understand God is between God and myself and no one is going to change that.
The Bible is a living and breathing book that needs to change with and be interpreted by the social and political context of the day. The Bible has gone through many interpretations and revisions from the time it was first written. As times change, social contexts change, and political contexts change, the interpretation of the Bible has also changed. And, it will continue to change. If the Bible remains static and the interpretation remains the same, it runs the risk of becoming irrelevant. History is littered with many gods and religions that became irrelevant because they couldn't or wouldn't change to fit new social and political realties.
Unfortunately, the Bible is being co-opted by the president and others, and is being used as an excused to try to write discrimination into the constitution. More people of good conscience, like Mr. Panko, need to stand up and say this is wrong. In our society we need to protect the rights of minorities from the abuses of those in power. Jesus stood up for and was friends with many minorities. He was a friend to women, children, the weak, the lame, lepers, prostitutes, and tax collectors. All of who were outside the established order of the time. He taught that the meek shall inherit the earth. He went against the political and social establishment and powers and helped to form a new religious ideal. I believe that ideal has been lost on many people in this country who take the narrow view that homosexuality and gay marriage is something to be banned. This is not what I interpret Jesus to stand for. Jesus stands for love, hope, equality, and compassion. That is my interpretation of the Bible and Jesus.
When judgment day comes and I am standing before the throne of God and He is reviewing my life and how I lived it, I believe fair treatment and compassion for my fellow man will count for more than a rigid and unbending interpretation of the Bible. I believe what I believe and I will interpret and apply things from the Bible that I believe are best for my family and myself. The things I believe and have learned from the Bible are love, hope, equality, and compassion.

Quotes Pertaining to Religion

The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to believe as they see fit, not the right of organized religion to compel them to believe as it sees fit.

If a person believes only because he fears being called a fool if he does not, then he already is one.

A faith that requires frequent revival is obviously unhealthy.

As long as there are fundamentalists to expose the silly side of religion, atheists will never need to recruit.

How can anyone know a universal God if his feeble comprehension of the universe extends no further than the prejudices of his own little tribe?

Losing religion might seem the end of one's world; but indeed, it may well be the beginning.

The power of faith is the friend of stupidity.

One night I prayed to know the truth. The next morning I found I was an atheist.

If atheists believed that there was something to pray to, they would pray for the deliverance of fundamentalists of all persuasions from the frightful and demeaning confusion born of prideful ignorance of the world about them.

Religion's role is to teach traditional morality; it is no more equipped to teach science, history, or ethics than it is to teach physics or calculus.

Had the telescope and microscope been invented first, religion would not have prospered.

The theologian's greatest difficulty in ascertaining the nature of the universe is his insistence upon viewing it through a stained-glass window.

If atheism can endure without government endorsement, shouldn't any religion worth believing be expected to do likewise?

Any self-respecting God would consider political support for its religion an insult.

You Are a Fundamentalist Christian If-----

You Are a Fundamentalist Christian If...

1. You deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

2. You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

3. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

4. Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees.

5. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

6. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

7. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

8. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

9. You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

10. You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Analysis and Interpretation of the Sayings of Jesus in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas

Another editorial by my friend Herb.

Analysis and Interpretation of the Sayings of Jesus in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas

Most adherents of traditional Christianity do not realize that their present-day Bible is the culmination of several hundred years of intensive political wrangling over what the beliefs and creeds of the followers of Jesus should be. Christianity in its present form did not automatically happen with the birth and life of Jesus. It did not coalesce into some semblance of unity of creed and belief recognizable today until 325 C.E. at the Council of Nicaea, which was called by Emperor Constantine, who had grown tired of the constant bickering among the different so-called "Christian" factions. But even at Nicaea many doctrinal issues were not completely settled among the different sects. The Arian and Gnostic Christians still could not fully accept the creedal statements of what we now call Christian orthodoxy. The average believer does not realize that there were a multitude of books considered for the final Biblical canon or Bible as it is today. The books that were chosen at Nicaea for the final canon were more a matter of personal subjectivity, politics, power, and ego than anything else. The analysis here is on the Gnostic Book of Thomas and the sayings of Jesus, which were rejected by the bishops for inclusion in the Bible for reasons which will be discussed later. The Gnostic Christians bitterly opposed many of the beliefs that we now recognize in our present-day traditional Christian churches. Many scholars think that what is called "Gnosticism" probably pre-dated present-day orthodox Christian beliefs.

1. "I am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did all come forth and to me the all extends. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

This saying of Jesus seems to support either a pantheistic or panentheistic definition of God. Pantheism says that God is the universe. Panentheism says God is the universe but is also greater than the universe. The Gnostic "God" concept of the author of Thomas and/or Jesus appears to be somewhere in this pantheistic/panentheistic continuum. This concept is in conflict with the orthodox Christian view at the time of the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century, which held to supernatural theism---that God is totally outside of and separate from the universe. Supernatural theism is the predominant belief in present-day traditional Christianity.

2. "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."

This saying appears to empower humanity. Since, according to panentheism and pantheism, "God" is in all, it naturally follows that "God" is in us and that therefore we contain the capability or have the power to express or experience this divine essence or mystical nature. The Gnostics believed that all humans contain that "divine spark." That is likely why Jesus says, "what you bring forth will save you." We have the power within us to reach a spiritual transcendence. This is an uplifting and hopeful message for humanity. Compare this with the supernatural theism of orthodox Christianity, which says that there is no hope for man without the substitutional sacrificial atonement of this otherworldly "God." Such a theology diminishes our humanity and puts us at the mercy of an absolutist, self-serving deity.

3. "If those who lead you say to you, 'Lord, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father."

This passage appears to encourage our search for spiritual self-discovery. It contrasts with the orthodox view that the tenets and creeds of belief are already laid out for us. This absolutist religious stance of Christian orthodoxy demanded of its adherents impedes and discourages one's search for personal, spiritual enlightenment. This orthodox creedal rigidity requires that we unquestioningly accept the beliefs of the church or lose any hope for salvation.

4. "What you look forward to (the new world, the heavenly kingdom) has already come, but you do not recognize it."

Rather than living for and expecting some future celestial heaven at the end of our lives, we have the power to experience this spiritual bliss, this sacred transcendence, here and now.

5. "I am not your Master, for you have drunk, and become drunk from the bubbling stream I measured out. Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I myself will become that person, and things that are hidden will be revealed to him."

Here Jesus appears to be saying that we can all become "Christs," that we all have the same divine spark that he has, that we all have the power within us to attain the same level of mystical enlightenment or transcendence that dwells within him. This contrasts with the orthodox view that "God" is omniscient, omnipotent and totally separate from us and that we have no hope of ever attaining any kind of divine-like goodness, that we are all sinners and are doomed and totally dependent upon God for rescuing us. Such a message is one of darkness and despair and contrasts with the Gnostic message of light, hope, and empowerment. We have the power within us to "save" ourselves, so to speak.

Jesus declares that Thomas has become like himself. Matthew claimed that Jesus was a rabbinic teacher--wise philosopher--and Peter thought that Jesus was the Messiah---righteous messenger. In the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, the author thinks their descriptions represent an inferior level of understanding. Thomas, who recognizes that he himself cannot assign a specific role to Jesus, transcends the relation of disciple to master.

6. "Knock upon yourself as upon a door, and walk upon yourself as on a straight road. For if you walk upon that road, it is impossible for you to go astray. Open the door for yourself, that you may know what is. Whatever you open for yourself, you will open."

This supports the basic theology of Thomas. One is to become "not a Christian, but a Christ." Scholars believe that the symbolic meaning of this phrase is you are the twin brother of Christ when you recognize the divine within you. One who seeks to "become not a Christian, but a Christ" no longer looks only to Jesus but also within himself for the source of truth. Orthodox believers, on the other hand, depend upon the church and its leaders and their interpretations of Scripture for their salvation. Compare the Gnostic theology to that of the Gospel of John where the author has Jesus declaring, "I am the door; whoever enters through me shall be saved."

It is not hard to see why the orthodox bishops at Nicaea rejected the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic writings in favor of the Gospel of John to be included in the final canon. Even though many of these Gnostic works more than likely pre-dated the New Testament gospels as many scholars think, they posed a threat to the power base of the church. With the Gnostic gospels there is no real need for the church, its leaders, priests, bishops etc. Traditional church orthodoxy demands its members pass through a hierarchical priestly and church mediation path before anyone can gain salvation. It requires adherence to rules, specific beliefs and creeds by its members. The members have little freedom of choice. They are required, in effect, to set aside their humanity---their powers of reason, conscience, analytical thinking, questioning etc. By blindly accepting traditional church orthodoxy, these believers become in essence robots for the church.

Herb Panko

Some Historical Perspectives on Our Abrahamic Religions

An editorial by my friend Herb.

Some Historical Perspectives on Our Abrahamic Religions

Muslim terrorists justify flying planes into the World Trade Center killing several thousand people because they think Allah sanctions this action. Israelis think they are entitled to their homeland because supposedly "God" promised it to them. Palestinian Muslim fundamentalists have no fear in detonating their bomb belts, killing themselves and their Jewish targets because Allah will reward them in heaven. In Islam, Judaism, and Christianity women and gays, at least at some point in their histories, have been treated as second class citizens because God or Allah according to their interpretations of their sacred texts allows this discrimination. Those who have murdered abortion clinic doctors consider this a God-approved sacred act. A U.S. Congressman says that our country should be governed with a Biblical worldview, and President Bush(according to a Newsweek article)thinks as President he is on a special mission from God.

All of these examples have several things in common. They are a frightening display of the inherent intolerance, naivete, absolutism, and violence that are endemic to the Abrahamic religions. It has always been so---from the bloody Crusades of the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, and the ongoing anti-Semitism and racism that continues to this day. The church used its sacred texts to sanction the Crusades, the Inquisition, and anti-Semitism and even to justify racism in this country for the first 200 years of our country's history. We cannot hope for an end to such religious evils until we accept some stark realities about how man's innate psychological, biological, and religious needs intertwine.

To begin with, at some point during man's evolutionary development, his brain evolved to the stage where he acquired something no other animal had---self-awareness or self-consciousness. It was a frightening evolutionary development for humans. The theologian Paul Tillich called it "the shock of nonbeing," and Sigmund Freud referred to it as the "trauma of self-consciousness." Man now had the dreaded capacity to be consciously aware of something no other living organism had the developed brain to contemplate---his own mortality. In order to cope with this overwhelming hysteria caused by his evolved selfhood, he imagined or created a paternalistic otherworldly protector. This coping device was no doubt crude at first. Early man, according to archaeological findings, performed ritualistic acts to appease demons or spiritual powers that he thought were responsible for destructive natural forces that could injure or spell his doom. It took thousands of years for this primitive animism to reach the earliest stages of a more refined but still barbaric tribal god worship practiced by the early Jewish people and yet another 500 to a 1000 years for them to conceive of the more complex paternalistic monotheism that is recognizable to us today.

We must remember that man's struggle to define the nature of his god concept has been an ongoing process from his primitive beginnings to the present. Down through history man has always adapted his definition of a supreme divine being to fit his changing needs and his better understanding of the natural world. As our knowledge base increases; and our better understanding of the natural world continues, increasing secularization will follow. The vestiges of the old tribal religions that are still with us---supernatural, omnipotent otherworldly gods controlling our lives and nature's laws---will continue to wither and become more and more irrelevant. That is the way of time, knowledge, and biological and social evolution. It has already happened in most of the industrialized world. Church attendance in nearly every European country has dwindled to around 4%. In Japan it is 2%. It is mainly in this country, in 3^rd world countries, and pockets of fundamentalism around the world where there is still a desperate clinging to a religion that is no longer defensible. The challenge for postmodern societies is to find a spirituality or religious perspective that does not compromise our ethics, morality, or humanity but yet makes sense for an advanced technological world community. It is a step forward we must take.

For Christians and Jews it will be easier to make this step if they have a basic understanding of how Judaism and Christianity began. The Jewish people in the early stages of their history around 980 B.C.E. developed a concept of their god that was heavily influenced by pagan Canaanite Baalistic theology. To them God was a transparent, simplistic human-like tribal deity who frequently intervened in the daily affairs of men. At a later stage the Hebrews felt a need for a more mysterious, distant god. But not until four hundred years later in the sixth century B.C.E. during the Babylonian Captivity did the Jewish people confer the qualities of holiness and purity upon their deity. At some point in time the Jewish concept of their supreme being reached possibly its most advanced abstract state. They thought of their god as being inexpressible as indicated by their reference to him as Yahweh, which means literally "no name."

What is interesting is that several other great religions and philosophical movements reached a similar conclusion. An Islamic scholar was recently quoted as saying that to imagine God is to create him, which we cannot do. Buddhism also says that God is indefinable and can only be experienced in a mystical or metaphysical sense. In the third century C.E. the pagan Neoplatonists led by Plotinus said the same----that God was unknowable and any attempt to describe His nature or character or pretend to know His thoughts, desires, and feelings was blasphemous and arrogant.

Any discussion of Christian theology should take into account how its definition of "God" has also evolved throughout history and is still doing so. In the first century when the Christian movement began, the Middle Eastern world where Christianity had its beginnings was a cauldron of unrest. The suppressive fist of the Romans, the restless longing of the Jewish people for a messiah to free them from the Roman stranglehold, and the numerous pagan Hellenic and Asiatic mystery cults with their baptismal and initiation rites, their observance of virgin births, gods coming to earth in human form, and physical resurrections all helped to influence and shape early Christian thinking. According to most New Testament scholars the incorporation of pagan beliefs and practices into Christianity no doubt occurred. After all, the rites of Adonis, Tammuz, Osiris, and Mithra were popular and widespread, predating Christianity. Christianity was in competition with these religious cults for converts, and it undoubtedly became politically advantageous to adopt many of their pagan rites and beliefs.

Even as late as the third century, there were many widely different variations of Christianity with many sects not accepting the divinity of Jesus. Not until 325 C.E. at the Council of Nicaea did a group of orthodox church bishops, after a protracted debate, vote to give Jesus a divine standing. That did not solve the problem, however, for Arian and Gnostic Christian adherents, who could not accept the bishops' doctrines and beliefs.. The process of changing and adapting our religious beliefs to fit our needs and prejudices, as the bishops did, is clearly shown in present day Africa and Brazil where many Christian churches have incorporated the old tribal deities in their rituals.

The Council of Nicaea gives credence to the saying that religion is mainly just politics made sacred. At that period in Christian history with so many variants of Christianity, a few of the more powerful bishops led by Athanasius decreed that all "scriptural writings"(of which there were many)that were at odds with their prejudices be destroyed. In other words our present-day New Testament is the result of arbitrary, political "cherry picking" to include only those writings that fit the individual beliefs of a relatively small number of church leaders of the time led by Athanasius who had their own agendas. It was a political power grab that left out such beautiful works as the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, a compilation of the sayings of Jesus in which He says that anyone can achieve the same(Buddhist-like)divine or sacred qualities He has. This and other Christian writings of the time were rejected because they were a threat to the power base of the bishops. Why were Athanasius and the bishops able to hold sway over the other Christian sects and marginalize them? Church history tells us that the Roman Emperor Constantine, more than likely sick of all the squabbling between the different sects, gave his imprimatur to the bishops' creeds. Luckily many of the rejected Christian leaders whose beliefs were not accepted did not listen to the bishops and hid some of their manuscripts, which were found hundreds of years later in the caves at Nag Hammadi.

It is important to realize then that to proclaim the present-day Bible as the direct word of God is inaccurate and does not square with history. What we should say is that today's New Testament is the rendering of the beliefs of a small group of bishops who represented just one set of Christian beliefs of which there were many at the time. They had their own frailties, prejudices, egos, and agendas just like any group of leaders of any organization. Not to understand and accept that fact opens the door to the continued acceptance of such outdated, nonsensical, and often barbaric practices of an ancient people who could not have anticipated the changing mores, values, and psychological underpinnings of a postmodern society that must deal with such complex moral and scientific issues as stem-cell research, terminating a pregnancy to save a mother's life, the moral issue of medically prolonging the life of a terminally ill patient, and similar modern day problems. Using a 2000 year old sacred text to find answers to such dilemmas which the writers of Scripture could never have anticipated is tantamount to using a 15^th century medical guide to treat cancer victims.

Another point to consider is that according to Oxford New Testament scholar Jeffrey John and other church historians, gospel writers used a narrative method called Haggadic midrash, which is a recasting, with variations, of Old Testament stories and themes with New Testament characters and events. For example, Jesus' parting of the heavens is simply a reworking of Moses' parting of the Red Sea and was not to be taken literally. Most, if not all, of the New Testament stories have their Old Testament counterparts and are midrashic in nature. The Western mind places great value on whether an event can be empirically verified as fact. First century Middle Eastern Jewish writers simply did not. Their main goal was to continue what they considered a powerful faith story in a way that would best connect with the people of the time. In short most Biblical stories were never intended by their writers to be understood as literally true. Symbolic or mythological truth carried a more powerful message, they felt, than literal truth.

The previous brief outline of some of our Judeo/Christian history should give us pause and perhaps reconsider some of our traditional religious beliefs. According to Bishop John Shelby Spong in his book A New Christianity for a New World a faith that narrows its focus to demanding strict adherence of its members to the blind acceptance of the supernatural births, resurrections, miracles etc. of a first century tribal people who had little understanding of the natural world will not last in a postmodern culture. This does not mean that the Bible is to be thrown into the trash heap. It still serves as an inspiration to many, but solving the world's great social problems requires abandoning the Biblical literalism to which so many adhere. It too often has bred violence, intolerance, racism, anti-semitism, and a host of other evils committed in the name of Christianity and the Bible. The church needs to break away from its stifling dogmatism and instead concentrate on tolerance, understanding, and compassion for all religions and individual beliefs as the Dalai Lama so eloquently implored us to do.

Herb Panko

25 Mill House Lane S.W.

Chatfield, Mn. 55923

507-867-4196

hepchat55923@yahoo.com

God's Grace

This is part of a paragraph is from a lesson about the early history of Israel on the Covenant Worldwide website.

God graciously preserved Noah and his family through the waters of the flood. God destroyed the whole world in the flood, but he preserved one family. He did this though He recognized that, according to Genesis 6:5, "Every inclination of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil all the time." That is a dramatic, general statement. We see further astonishing evidence of God's grace in His promise that He will never again destroy the earth with a flood -- though the condition of the human heart had not changed. That is quite remarkable!

Remarkable!?! How could anyone say this is remarkable?!. This is not evidence of god's grace. This genocide pure and simple. God destroys the whole word except for one man and his family and it is called this grace? What if Hitler had decided to spare one Jewish family from the Holocaust? Would that be evidence of Hitler's grace? How can you come to the conclusion that god is gracious when he just wiped out the entire population of the Earth except for Noah? I don't think the people who were killed in the flood think it was very gracious.

After the flood God says in 8:21, "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood (god created humans: every inclination of his heart is evil Isaiah 45:7). And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." The flood did not solve the problem of human sin and wickedness. People were still born sinful (because that is how god created humans from the beginning). And yet God promises that graciously He will never again destroy the world in that way.

That is very nice of you god to say you will never again destroy the world but once a perpetrator of genocide, always a perpetrator. I believe you attempted genocide against the Egyptians, the Ammonites, and several other societies. The greatest mass murderer in history was not Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, but the god of the bible. I would not characterize god as very gracious.

You create the world in your image, then destroy your creation, and then promise never to do it again, even though humans are sinful and wicked. If humans are wicked and sinful, it is because we learned it from the master. After all you created humans in your image. Thus your image must be one of evil, sin, and wickedness. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

There is nothing gracious about god. He creates humans to be weak-minded fools who are expected to blindly follow his so-called teachings. When humans, that he created to be sinful and wicked, do something sinful and wicked he destroys the whole lot except for Noah. God creates evil, gets mad when humans do evil things and destroys the world. I wouldn't call god gracious.

The True Story of Christmas

This morning on NPR, one the republicans running for President, either Romney or Huckebee, said this the season to remember the true story of Christmas. I wonder if, whomever it was, knows the true story of Christmas. In any case here is the true story of Christmas.

Dec. 25 - In 325AD, Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, introduced Christmas as an immovable feast on 25 December. Nobody knows when exactly Jesus was born but we can be sure it wasn't on Dec. 25. The Roman god, Mithras, has his birthday on Dec. 25. Constantine co-opted this date and called in the birthday of Jesus in a political move. Several other gods, including Ishtar and Sol Invictus, also had their birthdays on Dec. 25.

Virgin Birth Story - All through the Mediterranean area, stories of miraculous and virgin births abounded. Ceasar Augustus was supposedly born of a virgin. Caesar Augustus was also considered a god. When the gospels were written, some 30 to 60 year after Jesus died, there were no witnesses to the actual birth. The writers, in trying to appeal to a as wide an audience as possible, included mythology the Romans and Greeks would have understood into the Jesus story. If the Romans or Greeks at the time believed their king was the son of a god, born through a miraculous birth, it wouldn't have been much of a stretch to get them to believe in Jesus. Especially if the people the gospel writers were writing to were disgruntled towards their rulers. Also, miraculous births are nothing new to readers of the bible. Both Sarah and Rachel were barren, yet were able to have children. Mary was supposedly a virgin and was miraculously impregnated. The virgin birth story is a modification and a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. In it Isaiah is talking about his own wife and the imminent birth of his son.

Gospel Story of the Virgin Birth - When Peter and Paul were preaching and writing their letters in Greece and Rome, 5 to 20 years after the death of Jesus, they never mentioned anything about Jesus' miraculous birth. Why? Because the virgin birth didn't happen. The gospels writers added it later.

Bethlehem or Nazareth - Where was Jesus born? Peter and Paul, writer and preaching shortly after Jesus' death don't mention where Jesus was born. Later, the gospel writers try to create a birth story to make it appear he was the expected messiah. The gospels writers knew the old testament very well and they created a birth story to match old testament prophecies. Mainly that the expected messiah would be from the house of David.

3 Wise Men - This a retelling of the story in Genesis when 3 angels visit Abraham in his tent.

Slaughter of the Innocents - This is a retelling of the passover and the killing of all the first born sons in Egypt. There is no historical evidence of either event. Matthew tells the story of the escape into Egypt shortly after Jesus' birth yet Luke tells of Jesus' baptism, circumcision, and presentation to the temple after his birth. After they return to Nazareth. The escape into and back from Egypt is a retelling of Hosea 11:1 to make it fit the perceived prophecy of Jesus as messiah. Jesus and his family escaping to Egypt is also a retelling of Jacob and his family going to Egypt for protection.

Shepherds in the Fields - The only time shepherds would be their fields keeping watch would have been when the ewes were giving birth. The shepherds needed to sleep in the fields to protect the newborn lambs from predators. Ewes give birth in the spring not the middle of winter.

Genealogy of Jesus - Matthew and Mark both have genealogies of Jesus yet they are very different from each other. They also differ from the genealogy listed in the Old Testament. Again, this was done by the gospels writers to make it appear that Jesus was the messiah from the house of David.

If you take all this evidence and put it together, you can only come to the conclusion that the gospels writers were clever man and powerful writers for creating a history for Jesus when none existed.

The Death of the Egyptian First Born Sons

One thing that bothers me about people who take the bible literally is the story of the first passover. I am bothered that no one seems to care about the number of Egyptian males that must have died to prove that Yahweh is all powerful. According to Wikipedia, "Egypt at the time might have supported a total population of around 3-4 million, maybe even up to 6 million." Simple chance (50 out every 100 births is a male) tells us that at least half of the population should have been male, some 1.5 - 2 million upwards to 3 million males. Chance tells us that at least half of these males should be first born son. So, according to Exodus, some 750,000 to 1.5 million first born males were killed by the angel of death at the first passover. Of course the number may not be that high as not every male would be of child producing age or have had enough children to have had at least one son. What we can agree on is that a very large number, in the hundreds of thousands, of male children were supposedly killed. I have never seen any historical evidence of that many males dying at one time. Where is the evidence? One would think that somewhere in Egyptian history someone would have recorded this kind of disaster. Has a mass grave with this many mummies or bodies ever been found? Is there evidence of the economic disaster that would have befallen Egypt with this many deaths? If the bible is to be taken literally, where is the evidence? This is another example of why the bible cannot be taken literally, because logic and reason tells us that if that many males were killed, there must be mass graves, or someone must have written another independent account of what happened. Show me evidence of a mass grave or mass mummies, or historical records apart from the bible, and I will be less skeptical.

I am a Values Voter

After the last election, pundits and pollsters determined that W's (is for wrong) re-election hinged values voters. I would agree, W (is for wrong) was re-elected based on values. Unfortunately he was re-elected based on the wrong values. I am a values voters, and I will be voting based on values I hold dear. Here are the values I will be voting on:
1. I will vote on the value that a book written between 4000 and 1500 years ago is of little or no use in guiding the President.
2. I will vote on the value that the environment is our most precious resource and we need to protect it.
3. I will vote on the value that all people in the US need to be treated equally and fairly regardless of gender, sexual orientation, color, religious or non-religious affiliation, immigration status, or education.
4. I will vote on the value that torture, waterboarding, and rendition are illegal and immoral.
5. I will vote on the value that invading a sovereign country that has not attacked us or threatened to attack us is illegal.
6. I will vote on the value that importing oil from theocracies in the Middle East is not in our country's best interest.
7. I will vote on the value that our young men and women in uniform should not dying in a far off country because the US invaded for no good reason.
8. I will vote on the value that immigrants sneak into our country to make a better life for themselves and the families they left behind, and these immigrants need the help of our country.
9. I will vote on the value that religion has no place in the public life of our country.
10. I will vote on the value that public schools are the most important institution in our country and teacher deserve respect.
11. I will vote on the value that tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country are not in the best interest of our country.
12. I will vote on the value that three-quarters of a trillion dollars is too much money to have been spent on a war in a country the US never should have invaded.
13. I will vote on the value that health care for all is needed and long overdue.
These are some of the values I will be voting on.
The values I will not vote on are the values of religious fundamentalism, intoleration, division, discrimination, hatred, torture, and lying.
Now if I could only find a candidate that holds the same values as me.