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
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Monday, September 08, 2008
Sunday, September 07, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, January 28, 2008
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.
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.
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
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
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
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.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Blasphemy
Recently I posted a message on the message board of a group I belong to. The gist of my message was that westerners are ignorant of the Middle East and Islam. My reason for this thinking was the recent bruhaha over the teacher from England who was teaching in Sudan. The teacher allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammed. What transpired next baffles the imagination. Fundamentalist Muslims called for the teacher's execution for blasphemy. My contention in my message was that the teacher should have known better than to name anything Muhammed in a Muslim country. She should have known she was going to be teaching in a theocracy. The teacher, in my opinion, was ignorant of the country she was going to and she was ignorant of Islam. I stated she was one in a long line of westerners that showed how ignorant they were and that these examples only reinforce the perception in the Middle East that the west is ignorant of Islam.
Another member of the group wrote back and said to the effect, if a person's religious belief is such that they feel threatened by a child's toy, then they need to re-exam their beliefs. The writer from the group is absolutely correct. If you believe something and you believe it strongly enough, then your beliefs should be able to withstand any criticism. If however your belief is threatened by a child's toy, you need to re-exam your beliefs. How in the name of (insert favorite sky pixie name here) can a religion be threatened by naming a child's toy after your founder/god/prophet!? Get over yourselves! Are your beliefs in your sky pixie that weak? What exactly do you believe? One would think that naming something after your sky pixie would be a form of flattery. Think about it, everyday the children would see Muhammed and perhaps think about the person the bear is named for. Are the fundamentalists ready to call for the execution of every father that names their son Muhammed? Blasphemy I say! How dare the father compare their son to the prophet! How about Muhammed Ali? Should he be executed because he, a westerner, selected the name Muhammed when he converted to Islam? How ignorant could he be?
I believe that westerners are ignorant of the Middle East and Islam. However, everyone in the world should be free to say anything they want, no matter how provocative. It is up to the people who hear the message to search their beliefs and decide how they will respond. Words are wind through our pharynx, as the writer put it. They are only as meaningful as the attention we give them. Naming a teddy bear, Muhammed, pales in comparison to the continued slaughter of innocent men, women, and children by suicide bombers in the name of god. Where is the talk of blasphemy when a suicide bombers kills himself and others in the name of god? Where is the outrage? Prove to me that your religion (every religion) is a religion of peace. The only way I will ever believe that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., are religions of peace is when there are no more wars, attacks, bombings, etc., in the name of god. There will still be wars in the world but no one will die in the name of their sky pixie.
Stop taking your religious texts literally! It is ridiculous to base your belief on things written between 1400 and 4000 years ago or more. These texts were written at time when humans lived in tents and were nomadic. Most of the population was illiterate. They were written before science was around to verify things. They events in the texts may have been based on actual historical events but they are also layered with mythology from all corners of the Middle East. Elements of Persian (7 day creation story), Babylonian (the flood), Egyptian (9 creation events), Roman (king is the son of a god, virgin birth), Greek (twins), and other mythology have made it into the bible and the koran. There is enough archaeological evidence to show their was a flood that was localized in the area of Caucasus area in Central Asia. There is also evidence that oral traditions can survive for thousands of years, i.e., Inuits in the Arctic have an oral tradition of Mammoths. Mammoths have been extinct for 10,000 years. The flood is very likely an oral tradition embellished from the end of the Ice Age. If the flood covered the whole Earth, how come only Middle Eastern place names are used?
The gospel writers built the Jesus story out of events in the old testament. Jesus walking on water is a retelling of Moses parting the waters. Jesus feeding the multitudes is a retelling of Moses feeding the multitudes in the desert. Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt for protection is a retelling of Joseph's family's going down into Egypt for help in Genesis. The story of the slaughter of the innocents is a retelling of the passover story in Exodus. Jesus entering Jerusalem on the donkey (colt) is a retelling of Zechariah 9:9-11. Jesus throwing the money-changers out of the temple is a retelling and embellishment of Zechariah 14:21. Jesus' sermon on the mount is nothing more than Psalms 119. Luke incorporates many elements of the story of Elijah into his gospel. John begins by retelling a hymn from Proverbs. Jesus' “I am” statements are directly from the burning bush in Exodus. Judah sells Joseph into Egypt; Judas sells Jesus. King Saul and Paul both tried to capture and kill servants of god. Both were overcome by god. As the saying goes, there is nothing ever new under the sun. There is nothing ever new in religious texts. The new testament is built on the old testament. The old testament is built on many myths from many different cultures. The koran is built on both the new and old testament, as well as other Middle Eastern myths.
The bible was built on other culture's mythology in the same way JRR Tolkien and JK Rowlings have taken northern European myths and created best selling novels. These authors took old stories and created something new. The writers of the old and new testaments did the same, They took old myths from neighboring cultures, or from the culture they were living in (Egypt, Babylon) and reworked them for their own culture, and called the new stories religious stories. The bible is in no way, shape, or form a work of god. It may have gods in it but it is nothing more than a book of mythology and fairy tales.
We shouldn't believe what is written in any religious text any more than we should believe what is written in the Odyssey or the Iliad, both of which were written several thousand years ago, around the same time as the old testament was being written down, These books are based on historical events but one does not believe there were cyclops, sirens, golden fleeces, etc. It is the same with the bible. There are historical events in the bible but there is too much mythology for me to accept it as anything other than a book of mythology created in the mind of men.
Another member of the group wrote back and said to the effect, if a person's religious belief is such that they feel threatened by a child's toy, then they need to re-exam their beliefs. The writer from the group is absolutely correct. If you believe something and you believe it strongly enough, then your beliefs should be able to withstand any criticism. If however your belief is threatened by a child's toy, you need to re-exam your beliefs. How in the name of (insert favorite sky pixie name here) can a religion be threatened by naming a child's toy after your founder/god/prophet!? Get over yourselves! Are your beliefs in your sky pixie that weak? What exactly do you believe? One would think that naming something after your sky pixie would be a form of flattery. Think about it, everyday the children would see Muhammed and perhaps think about the person the bear is named for. Are the fundamentalists ready to call for the execution of every father that names their son Muhammed? Blasphemy I say! How dare the father compare their son to the prophet! How about Muhammed Ali? Should he be executed because he, a westerner, selected the name Muhammed when he converted to Islam? How ignorant could he be?
I believe that westerners are ignorant of the Middle East and Islam. However, everyone in the world should be free to say anything they want, no matter how provocative. It is up to the people who hear the message to search their beliefs and decide how they will respond. Words are wind through our pharynx, as the writer put it. They are only as meaningful as the attention we give them. Naming a teddy bear, Muhammed, pales in comparison to the continued slaughter of innocent men, women, and children by suicide bombers in the name of god. Where is the talk of blasphemy when a suicide bombers kills himself and others in the name of god? Where is the outrage? Prove to me that your religion (every religion) is a religion of peace. The only way I will ever believe that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., are religions of peace is when there are no more wars, attacks, bombings, etc., in the name of god. There will still be wars in the world but no one will die in the name of their sky pixie.
Stop taking your religious texts literally! It is ridiculous to base your belief on things written between 1400 and 4000 years ago or more. These texts were written at time when humans lived in tents and were nomadic. Most of the population was illiterate. They were written before science was around to verify things. They events in the texts may have been based on actual historical events but they are also layered with mythology from all corners of the Middle East. Elements of Persian (7 day creation story), Babylonian (the flood), Egyptian (9 creation events), Roman (king is the son of a god, virgin birth), Greek (twins), and other mythology have made it into the bible and the koran. There is enough archaeological evidence to show their was a flood that was localized in the area of Caucasus area in Central Asia. There is also evidence that oral traditions can survive for thousands of years, i.e., Inuits in the Arctic have an oral tradition of Mammoths. Mammoths have been extinct for 10,000 years. The flood is very likely an oral tradition embellished from the end of the Ice Age. If the flood covered the whole Earth, how come only Middle Eastern place names are used?
The gospel writers built the Jesus story out of events in the old testament. Jesus walking on water is a retelling of Moses parting the waters. Jesus feeding the multitudes is a retelling of Moses feeding the multitudes in the desert. Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt for protection is a retelling of Joseph's family's going down into Egypt for help in Genesis. The story of the slaughter of the innocents is a retelling of the passover story in Exodus. Jesus entering Jerusalem on the donkey (colt) is a retelling of Zechariah 9:9-11. Jesus throwing the money-changers out of the temple is a retelling and embellishment of Zechariah 14:21. Jesus' sermon on the mount is nothing more than Psalms 119. Luke incorporates many elements of the story of Elijah into his gospel. John begins by retelling a hymn from Proverbs. Jesus' “I am” statements are directly from the burning bush in Exodus. Judah sells Joseph into Egypt; Judas sells Jesus. King Saul and Paul both tried to capture and kill servants of god. Both were overcome by god. As the saying goes, there is nothing ever new under the sun. There is nothing ever new in religious texts. The new testament is built on the old testament. The old testament is built on many myths from many different cultures. The koran is built on both the new and old testament, as well as other Middle Eastern myths.
The bible was built on other culture's mythology in the same way JRR Tolkien and JK Rowlings have taken northern European myths and created best selling novels. These authors took old stories and created something new. The writers of the old and new testaments did the same, They took old myths from neighboring cultures, or from the culture they were living in (Egypt, Babylon) and reworked them for their own culture, and called the new stories religious stories. The bible is in no way, shape, or form a work of god. It may have gods in it but it is nothing more than a book of mythology and fairy tales.
We shouldn't believe what is written in any religious text any more than we should believe what is written in the Odyssey or the Iliad, both of which were written several thousand years ago, around the same time as the old testament was being written down, These books are based on historical events but one does not believe there were cyclops, sirens, golden fleeces, etc. It is the same with the bible. There are historical events in the bible but there is too much mythology for me to accept it as anything other than a book of mythology created in the mind of men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)