Biblical experts seek to make ancient texts widely available

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/world/11103764.htm
LONDON - (KRT) - Is the Bible the infallible word of God or a text doctored by calligraphers, priests and politicians to satisfy their own earthly motivations?

Evidence suggesting the latter is contained on the pages of the world's oldest Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus. The ancient Greek Bible, written between the 1st and 4th centuries A.D., has been divided since the mid-1800s after European and Russian visitors removed sections of it from a desert monastery in Egypt.

But on Thursday, experts from Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt and the United States launched a four-year project to digitally reunite the fragile texts and make them available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

"The Codex is so special as a foundation document and a unique icon to Christianity," said John Tuck, head of British Collections at the British Library in London. Unification of the manuscript, albeit digitally, "is a blockbuster in scholarship."

Only a privileged few have ever been allowed to handle the original manuscripts. Scholars need access to determine, among other things, how far the modern Bible has veered in interpretation from the Codex. Parts of the project announced Thursday will include Christian texts written as few as 45 years after the death of Jesus Christ.

The manuscripts are so delicate that only four scholars have been granted access in the past 19 years to sections of the text housed in London, said Scot McKendrick, head of medieval and earlier manuscripts at the British Library in London.

But researchers and the general public will be able to examine the digitized texts in minute detail. Historical and explanatory notations will accompany the digitized text so that viewers can trace how changes were made and, more important, why.

"Obviously, the way the editing works ... is exceedingly interesting. What is the process leading to this or that correction? Whether it was merely editorial, or if they were following a theological lead" in altering the message, McKendrick said.

Ray Bruce, a film director who is producing a documentary on the project, cited the Book of Mark as an example of how much the modern Bible has been altered from the Codex text. In the Codex, he said, the Book of Mark ends at chapter 16, verse 8, with the discovery that Christ's tomb was empty.

But more modern versions contain an additional 12 verses with testimony from Mary Magdalene and 11 apostles referring to the resurrection of Jesus.

"It shows how much this is a dynamic process of editing and adaptation," he said, but also raises questions about the influence man has had on texts regarded by Christians as divinely inspired.


Researchers and plunderers have particularly coveted the Codex because the texts were written so soon after the life of Jesus, and they are the largest and longest-surviving Biblical manuscript in existence, including both the Old and New Testament. In addition, the Codex contains two Christian texts written around 65 A.D., the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Until the mid-1800s, the complete Codex was housed inside St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, Egypt. But the texts were broken up when visitors bribed, cajoled or deceived monks into letting certain sections be removed for further examination in Russia, Britain and Germany.

"They were never returned," said Greek Orthodox Archbishop Damianos of Sinai. "The monastery felt a great injustice was done."

He said disappearance of the texts led to upheaval in the monastery, and because of lingering resentment, the monks at St. Catherine's had been "a bit reluctant to respond positively" when asked to participate in the current project.

In particular, he singled out Britain for criticism because of what he described as the underhanded manner in which it obtained its texts and its longtime refusal to return them. Nevertheless, he said, the monastery agreed to join the digitization project.

Other parts of the manuscript that had been taken to Russia disappeared after the 1918 Bolshevik Revolution and were feared lost forever. They did not reappear until the mid-1940s and are now kept at the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg.

McKendrick said the Codex was originally produced on high-grade papyrus with state-of-the-art ink and pens - the best available at the time.

Similarly, the new digitization project will use some of today's most advanced technology, he added. "So in a sense, we'll be matching 4th century cutting-edge technology with cutting-edge 21st century technology."
This will certainly be interesting when this project is completed.

Are we finally nearing the time of the end of centuries of lies and propaganda from the Catholic Church? Will this be the time that the Prieuré de Sion releases all it knows and all of this Grail/Jesus as Divine controversy is finally put to rest?
 

Spamela

Diamond Member
Oct 30, 2000
3,859
0
76
Are we finally nearing the time of the end of centuries of lies and propaganda from the Catholic Church? Will this be the time that the Prieuré de Sion releases all it knows and all of this Grail/Jesus as Divine controversy is finally put to rest?

you get your history from The Da vinci Code, a work of fiction?

try reading "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" by historian Bart Ehrman.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
interesting thing i found...

the new world translation, or jehovah's witnesses bible, contains both endings of mark labeled short conclusion ending at verse 8 and long conclusion continuing to 20. a small explanation is added with both versions to the effect of differences in manuscripts.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Spamela
Are we finally nearing the time of the end of centuries of lies and propaganda from the Catholic Church? Will this be the time that the Prieuré de Sion releases all it knows and all of this Grail/Jesus as Divine controversy is finally put to rest?
you get your history from The Da vinci Code, a work of fiction?

try reading "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" by historian Bart Ehrman.
No, from these books:

Who Wrote the Bible? - Richard Elliott Friedman

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts

Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed - Laurence Gardner,Foreword by Prince Michael of Albany

Genesis of the Grail Kings - Laurence Gardner

Realm of the Ring Lords: The Myth and Magic of the Grail Quest - Laurence Gardner

Holy Blood, Holy Grail - Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, Richard Leigh

Gnostic Gospels - Elaine Pagels

From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries and Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith - L. Michael White

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail Margaret Starbird, Foreword by Terrance A. Sweeney


Oh, btw, you should check out:
DaVinci Code Decoded It interviews some of the above-listed authors
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
You do know that the author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" doesn't even believe it. It was a hypothesis, nothing else. Also, Umberto Eco thought that some of Brown's conclusions were laughable.

Also, this is really nothing new...

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: azazyel
You do know that the author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" doesn't even believe it. It was a hypothesis, nothing else.
That's not exactly true. Lincoln has stated there is no "proof" that his work is true. However, he states that the amount of evidence that exists that Jesus was a man, was a descendant of the Davidic line, got married, conjoined the priestly and kingly lines and fathered three children is much more convincing than a theory that he was born of a virgin, died, and rose from the dead.

Also, Umberto Eco thought that some of Brown's conclusions were laughable.

Also, this is really nothing new...

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/
Right. It's certainly not new. That book came out right about the time that a lot of new study was being done on ancient texts. There has been a slightly revised version released in 2004 and there was the followup book, The Messianic Legacy. Personally, for a summary review of the evidence from the time of Jesus, through the Fisher Kings, the Merovingians, Carolingians, Scots, etc. I like the book: Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed - Laurence Gardner,Foreword by Prince Michael of Albany
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Excelsior
So when do they think the projcet will be completed?

From the article:
But on Thursday, experts from Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt and the United States launched a four-year project to digitally reunite the fragile texts and make them available to anyone with the click of a mouse.
;)
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
That's not exactly true. Lincoln has stated there is no "proof" that his work is true. However, he states that the amount of evidence that exists that Jesus was a man, was a descendant of the Davidic line, got married, conjoined the priestly and kingly lines and fathered three children is much more convincing than a theory that he was born of a virgin, died, and rose from the dead.

A theory that he actually is was a women is more convincing than a virgin birth and rising from the dead. It's the whole Prieuré de Sion thing that is annoying. What secret organization doesn't believe that it is from the Templars. Hell, the masons think they have the stone pillar of Enoch for god's sake. Also, in the movie DaVinci Code Decoded one of the people interviewed said that if the Prieuré de Sion existed it is only 100+ years old. To say that DaVinci was part of it is kind of stretching it. I mean if you are trying to get credibility over some of these secret groups having a list very impressive head masters 'accidentally' being found would seem logical. I think people are getting too caught up in this stuff.

I mean if Jesus was the son of god and his powers were passed on from generation to generation then I can see this as a big deal. But if he was just a man, who gives a fark. If anything it was probably just used to create an impression of power.

You might want to check out "from Jesus to Christ".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/


 

UbiSunt

Senior member
Oct 1, 2004
516
0
0
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.
 

Excelsior

Lifer
May 30, 2002
19,047
18
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Excelsior
So when do they think the projcet will be completed?

From the article:
But on Thursday, experts from Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt and the United States launched a four-year project to digitally reunite the fragile texts and make them available to anyone with the click of a mouse.
;)

I am lazy..and damn that is long time.
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.

I have read this 4 times and still don't understand the point.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: conjur
That's not exactly true. Lincoln has stated there is no "proof" that his work is true. However, he states that the amount of evidence that exists that Jesus was a man, was a descendant of the Davidic line, got married, conjoined the priestly and kingly lines and fathered three children is much more convincing than a theory that he was born of a virgin, died, and rose from the dead.
A theory that he actually is was a women is more convincing than a virgin birth and rising from the dead. It's the whole Prieuré de Sion thing that is annoying. What secret organization doesn't believe that it is from the Templars. Hell, the masons think they have the stone pillar of Enoch for god's sake. Also, in the movie DaVinci Code Decoded one of the people interviewed said that if the Prieuré de Sion existed it is only 100+ years old. To say that DaVinci was part of it is kind of stretching it. I mean if you are trying to get credibility over some of these secret groups having a list very impressive head masters 'accidentally' being found would seem logical. I think people are getting too caught up in this stuff.
Why do people keep focusing on the DaVinci Code aspect of this? There is FAR more evidence of Jesus having been married to Mary Magdelene and fathering a daughter and two sons than just what Dan Brown researched on for his book.

I mean if Jesus was the son of god and his powers were passed on from generation to generation then I can see this as a big deal. But if he was just a man, who gives a fark. If anything it was probably just used to create an impression of power.
Which is the scam that has been perpetuated by the Church of Rome for centuries. It also had to do with the fact that Peter and Saul were not very tolerant of women being in power in the priestly line. Jesus having been married was in direct conflict with that attitude so the early followers of Jesus split into two factions with the "true" followers actually following James, Jesus's brother - also known as Joseph of Arimathea (which is a titular name only...there were multple Josephs of Arimathea - Ha Rama Theo) to Europe (notable, the south of France and then expanding on into Britain and through Europe. The other faction (following Peter/Saul - Paul), ended up being used by Constantine later on to consolidate power and and the military.

You might want to check out "from Jesus to Christ".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/
I've seen parts of that but not the whole thing, yet.

Actually, one of the books I listed above was authored by L. Michael White who was the central figure in that PBS production.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.
I'll ignore your ad hominem and focus on the meat of your rant.

So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts?

Yes, VERY different. You see, it can be proven that the Catholic church has intentionally altered the content of the Bible over the course of the centuries to turn Jesus into a divine being and to turn his mother, Mary, into a virgin. They even went so far as to issue an edict that all depictions of Mary must have her clothed in blue and white. That gets away from the traditional garb that would have been red, green, or black and would have meant that Mary (and Mary Magdelene) were normal women and actually held respected levels in their society.
 

UbiSunt

Senior member
Oct 1, 2004
516
0
0
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.

I have read this 4 times and still don't understand the point.

Ok, I thought is was pretty clear, I guess not. Basically, the OP states:

"Are we finally nearing the time of the end of centuries of lies and propaganda from the Catholic Church? Will this be the time that the Prieuré de Sion releases all it knows and all of this Grail/Jesus as Divine controversy is finally put to rest?"

-This is obviously straight out of the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, a literary hack who based his interpretation upon interpretations of original texts. The fact that people blindly accept what Dan Brown, a poorly educated conspiracy theorist, preaches is highly ironic.

-Brown attacks religious people for not questioning enough and for accepting what someone else has interpreted. In short, imitating sheep.

-My point is that by basing your understanding of biblical texts upon the foundation of interpretations crafted by hacks is no different. Unless you are going to read the documents themselves, I doubt anyone here has even fully read a translation of the Bible, then you are unwittingly criticizing what you practice.

-Basically, don't criticize people for doing the same thing you are doing. It's hypocritical.

-A Books-A-Million theologian, historian, etc. is a proficient consumer of the most recent faddish texts and is excellent at parroting the theses of such works in the hopes of appearing intellectually superior.
 

UbiSunt

Senior member
Oct 1, 2004
516
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.
I'll ignore your ad hominem and focus on the meat of your rant.

So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts?

Yes, VERY different. You see, it can be proven that the Catholic church has intentionally altered the content of the Bible over the course of the centuries to turn Jesus into a divine being and to turn his mother, Mary, into a virgin. They even went so far as to issue an edict that all depictions of Mary must have her clothed in blue and white. That gets away from the traditional garb that would have been red, green, or black and would have meant that Mary (and Mary Magdelene) were normal women and actually held respected levels in their society.


So, YOU came to these conclusions upon your own? Interpreted from what PRIMARY texts?

-Way to be Dan Brown's Janeane Garofalo.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.
I'll ignore your ad hominem and focus on the meat of your rant.

So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts?

Yes, VERY different. You see, it can be proven that the Catholic church has intentionally altered the content of the Bible over the course of the centuries to turn Jesus into a divine being and to turn his mother, Mary, into a virgin. They even went so far as to issue an edict that all depictions of Mary must have her clothed in blue and white. That gets away from the traditional garb that would have been red, green, or black and would have meant that Mary (and Mary Magdelene) were normal women and actually held respected levels in their society.
So, YOU came to these conclusions upon your own? Interpreted from what PRIMARY texts?

-Way to be Dan Brown's Janeane Garofalo.
Yes, I've read the DaVinci Code. Yes, I know it's a novel. But, I know Dan Brown based much of it in the actual research that's been conducted over the last 2-3 decades. Research including the books (and more) of what I listed above.

Wake up and smell the coffee and dispense with the BS rhetoric.

There are many accounts of people having read these books, and others, and leaving their faith behind, or at the least, altering their view of Jesus.

Myself, these books are just confirming what I've believed for years: that Jesus was just a man, a preacher, who was NOT born of a virgin birth and was NOT a deity of any kind.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
63,112
19,433
136
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.
I'll ignore your ad hominem and focus on the meat of your rant.

So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts?

Yes, VERY different. You see, it can be proven that the Catholic church has intentionally altered the content of the Bible over the course of the centuries to turn Jesus into a divine being and to turn his mother, Mary, into a virgin. They even went so far as to issue an edict that all depictions of Mary must have her clothed in blue and white. That gets away from the traditional garb that would have been red, green, or black and would have meant that Mary (and Mary Magdelene) were normal women and actually held respected levels in their society.


So, YOU came to these conclusions upon your own? Interpreted from what PRIMARY texts?

-Way to be Dan Brown's Janeane Garofalo.

So you don't think anyone should be able to discuss these matters without first learning dead languages and creating their own interpretations?
 

UbiSunt

Senior member
Oct 1, 2004
516
0
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.
I'll ignore your ad hominem and focus on the meat of your rant.

So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts?

Yes, VERY different. You see, it can be proven that the Catholic church has intentionally altered the content of the Bible over the course of the centuries to turn Jesus into a divine being and to turn his mother, Mary, into a virgin. They even went so far as to issue an edict that all depictions of Mary must have her clothed in blue and white. That gets away from the traditional garb that would have been red, green, or black and would have meant that Mary (and Mary Magdelene) were normal women and actually held respected levels in their society.


So, YOU came to these conclusions upon your own? Interpreted from what PRIMARY texts?

-Way to be Dan Brown's Janeane Garofalo.

So you don't think anyone should be able to discuss these matters without first learning dead languages and creating their own interpretations?

No, that is what translations are for.

-However you have to be caeful even there, look at all the different versions of the Bible. BTW, the bible is not simply the New Testament.

-My point is that none of the books cited above are credible are significant scholarly works upon the topic. They are commisioned garbage from the publishers who wish to capitalize from the success of the Da Vinci Code. Look at how bookstores fill with relevant topics depending on the most recent Hollywood production.

-Secondly, the OP has obviously not read the original texts, translated or not, and is simply parroting misinformation.


 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
Cojur, I think you and I are actually in agreement on the major points. But the fact remains that we don't know if he had a wife or children. There is no real proof, just conjecture. The Catholic Church did recently state that Mary was not the prostitute and one of the people interviewed in the movie was a priest who said that Mary was a very important part of Jesus' life. He even stated that she was probably the most important apostle. Also, after his death, early Christians used to actually rely on many women for financial and spiritual help. But it is just as believable that Jesus didn't have a wife as it is that he did. While some will point out that it was abnormal at the time for a Jewish man not to be married we do know that John the Baptist wasn't and there were other sects of the time which practiced abstinence as well. The real question is does it matter either way?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.
I'll ignore your ad hominem and focus on the meat of your rant.

So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts?

Yes, VERY different. You see, it can be proven that the Catholic church has intentionally altered the content of the Bible over the course of the centuries to turn Jesus into a divine being and to turn his mother, Mary, into a virgin. They even went so far as to issue an edict that all depictions of Mary must have her clothed in blue and white. That gets away from the traditional garb that would have been red, green, or black and would have meant that Mary (and Mary Magdelene) were normal women and actually held respected levels in their society.


So, YOU came to these conclusions upon your own? Interpreted from what PRIMARY texts?

-Way to be Dan Brown's Janeane Garofalo.

So you don't think anyone should be able to discuss these matters without first learning dead languages and creating their own interpretations?

No, that is what translations are for.

-However you have to be caeful even there, look at all the different versions of the Bible. BTW, the bible is not simply the New Testament.
Really? I never would have known that. Gee...guess I read Who Wrote The Bible? by mistake. What's this Old Testament to which the author kept referring?

-My point is that none of the books cited above are credible are significant scholarly works upon the topic. They are commisioned garbage from the publishers who wish to capitalize from the success of the Da Vinci Code. Look at how bookstores fill with relevant topics depending on the most recent Hollywood production.
You just lost ALL credibility right there. How about you check out the books I listed above and see when they were first printed. Compare that to when Brown wrote The DaVinci Code.


I'll be waiting here for you to remove your foot from your mouth.
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur

Myself, these books are just confirming what I've believed for years: that Jesus was just a man, a preacher, who was NOT born of a virgin birth and was NOT a deity of any kind.


There are a lot of people who believe the same thing. Look at Thomas Jefferson's bible.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: azazyel
Cojur, I think you and I are actually in agreement on the major points. But the fact remains that we don't know if he had a wife or children. There is no real proof, just conjecture. The Catholic Church did recently state that Mary was not the prostitute and one of the people interviewed in the movie was a priest who said that Mary was a very important part of Jesus' life. He even stated that she was probably the most important apostle. Also, after his death, early Christians used to actually rely on many women for financial and spiritual help. But it is just as believable that Jesus didn't have a wife as it is that he did. While some will point out that it was abnormal at the time for a Jewish man not to be married we do know that John the Baptist wasn't and there were other sects of the time which practiced abstinence as well. The real question is does it matter either way?
That's it exactly!

Myself, I like to focus on the truth. And, being a Catholic-turned-atheist, I'm very interested in the archeaology and that actual historical truth (as much as I can find of it.)

But, yeah, for Christianity, in general, Jesus's teachings should be all that's necessary. It shouldn't matter if Jesus was a man or was divine; married or celibate; died on the cross or survived and lived another 20-30 years. What matters are his teachings. And what are those? Well, I think the Beattitudes sum it up well. Too bad too many so-called Christians today feel the need to focus on supernatural events and miss what Jesus was teaching.
 

UbiSunt

Senior member
Oct 1, 2004
516
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.
I'll ignore your ad hominem and focus on the meat of your rant.

So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts?

Yes, VERY different. You see, it can be proven that the Catholic church has intentionally altered the content of the Bible over the course of the centuries to turn Jesus into a divine being and to turn his mother, Mary, into a virgin. They even went so far as to issue an edict that all depictions of Mary must have her clothed in blue and white. That gets away from the traditional garb that would have been red, green, or black and would have meant that Mary (and Mary Magdelene) were normal women and actually held respected levels in their society.


So, YOU came to these conclusions upon your own? Interpreted from what PRIMARY texts?

-Way to be Dan Brown's Janeane Garofalo.

So you don't think anyone should be able to discuss these matters without first learning dead languages and creating their own interpretations?

No, that is what translations are for.

-However you have to be caeful even there, look at all the different versions of the Bible. BTW, the bible is not simply the New Testament.
Really? I never would have known that. Gee...guess I read Who Wrote The Bible? by mistake. What's this Old Testament to which the author kept referring?

-My point is that none of the books cited above are credible are significant scholarly works upon the topic. They are commisioned garbage from the publishers who wish to capitalize from the success of the Da Vinci Code. Look at how bookstores fill with relevant topics depending on the most recent Hollywood production.
You just lost ALL credibility right there. How about you check out the books I listed above and see when they were first printed. Compare that to when Brown wrote The DaVinci Code.


I'll be waiting here for you to remove your foot from your mouth.


I know the publication dates, and yes, some are before the release of the Da Vinci Code. My comment is what you call a generalization or "to make vague or indefinite statements". However, I am not the one mistaking works of fiction for historical fact.

-My challenge remains: Do not attack others' for not doing their homework when you yourself refuses to provide a single shred of primary documents, archeological evidence, or otherwise credible scholarly documents.

-My foot may have been in my mouth as I generalized, but at least my head is not up my a$$.

-
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
63,112
19,433
136
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: conjur

Myself, these books are just confirming what I've believed for years: that Jesus was just a man, a preacher, who was NOT born of a virgin birth and was NOT a deity of any kind.


There are a lot of people who believe the same thing. Look at Thomas Jefferson's bible.

That's rather how I feel about it. I'm not a christian, of course. Seems to me he was some dude who had a lot of good things to say, but unfortunately they got buried under mountains of crap and misused by miscreants and generally just twisted and perverted.