13 letters, 7 confirmed as genuine correct.how much pious fraud are we attributing to the new testament in amongst all the scribal errors? as we know around 7 of pauls letters are forgeries
nor what they actually contain, albeit it would a be fool to say there wouldn't be a resemblance, the question is how much, being in mind the first complete copy is a 4th century version, so bascially a 300 yr black hole13 letters, 7 confirmed as genuine correct.
The gospels cannot really be fraudulent in the same way as we don’t even know who wrote them.
Scribal errors have to be taken into account and that’s why textual criticism is huge.
Anyway here’s a Christian response to claims against forgery which is interesting - https://isjesusalive.com/is-bart-ehrman-right-when-he-says-half-of-pauls-letters-are-forgeries/
Is interesting that you speak of advice rather than instruction. Have mentioned Neil Douglas Klotz before and his work from Aramaic. That would very much suggest instruction in practices not just theoretical advice. But yes, I can imagine it is possible to read the Bible and it it doesn’t come across so much. Perhaps it has a bias from being translated by a culture which values intellectual understanding to be above all else?Well Christianity is more of a religion of advice rather than instruction other than the main determining factor being accepting Jesus for salvation. Everything else (apart from blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) can be forgiven by repentance and accepting the free gift of salvation.
The general premise of the Gospels is fairly accurate enough I feel.
I think Mark is 3rd century in full off the top of my head. The earliest is John which was 2nd century but what was found is smaller than an A4 piece of paper so isn’t much use so yeah you’re right and it’s a good point.nor what they actually contain, albeit it would a be fool to say there wouldn't be a resemblance, the question is how much, being in mind the first complete copy is a 4th century version, so bascially a 300 yr black hole
Paul says “the law” is guidance but guidance in which people are always going to break and therefore they need “Christ Jesus” (as he calls him) to give us all salvation.Is interesting that you speak of advice rather than instruction. Have mentioned Neil Douglas Klotz before and his work from Aramaic. That would very much suggest instruction in practices not just theoretical advice. But yes, I can imagine it is possible to read the Bible and it it doesn’t come across so much. Perhaps it has a bias from being translated by a culture which values intellectual understanding to be above all else?
the consistency i'll maintain is that they are basing their versions(matthew luke and john) on mark albeit mark has no nativity nor resurection/ascension, so its obvious that the basic components are similar, thats no biggie in my eyesI think Mark is 3rd century in full off the top of my head. The earliest is John which was 2nd century but what was found is smaller than an A4 piece of paper so isn’t much use so yeah you’re right and it’s a good point.
The way of looking at it is based on sheer numbers as early as possible and how they compare.
There could be 200,000 New Testament errors compared to the original texts according to scholars. But the vast majority of these errors are misspellings, getting words the wrong way around, punctuation and things that are ineffectual to the story.
Some are very significant - such as the Woman taken in Adultery being from another Christian document, being added to John 1000 years later when it wasn’t a gospel story but an earlier tradition.
Or the ending of Mark being added centuries later which was copied from the other gospels to finish the story.
There’s a ton of grey with the New Testament and none of it is black and white other than the basic components of Jesus’s life that are consistent across the NT.
Or it may be commonly translated that way? And maybe it is necessary to speak to people where they are at, and according to their motivations? If I spoke some to people on even this thread about heart they would reject this but if I spoke to them about, say, ‘the rule of the gun’ I’d imagine they might nod their heads and be more inclined. For what it’s worth, I don’t really agree with you on how youn read the message of Jesus but that’s just fine too. Each to thier own and that.Paul says “the law” is guidance but guidance in which people are always going to break and therefore they need “Christ Jesus” (as he calls him) to give us all salvation.
It’s common in Jesus’s sayings about committing sin and going to hell that you can repent.
The thief on the cross being a perfect example personified.
Yes absolutely and I think Mark likely based his on parts of scripture that was lying around prior to 70AD and put it together… as well as listening to oral tradition.the consistency i'll maintain is that they are basing their versions(matthew luke and john) on mark albeit mark has no nativity nor resurection/ascension, so its obvious that the basic components are similar, thats no biggie in my eyes
Each to their own exactly but I’m always open to being wrong and changing my ideas so why do you think I’m wrong?Or it may be commonly translated that way? And maybe it is necessary to speak to people where they are at, and according to their motivations? If I spoke some to people on even this thread about heart they would reject this but if I spoke to them about, say, ‘the rule of the gun’ I’d imagine they might nod their heads and be more inclined. For what it’s worth, I don’t really agree with you on how youn read the message of Jesus but that’s just fine too. Each to thier own and that.
I wouldn‘t say ‘you are wrong, I am right‘ so much - rather I might read the bible through a different context. For example, if I read this :Each to their own exactly but I’m always open to being wrong and changing my ideas so why do you think I’m wrong?
I don’t necessarily disagree with klotz, it’s not an outlandish definition at all and the Sermon on the Mount is hotly debated.I wouldn‘t say ‘you are wrong, I am right‘ so much - rather I might read the bible through a different context. For example, if I read this :
“This third Beatitude was translated, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” L’makikhe could be translated as “he meek” (as was done from the Greek), but the Aramaic would say “gentle” or “humble.” Behind these words, the old roots carry the meaning of one who has softened that which is unnaturally hard within, who has submitted or surrendered to God, or who has liquefied rigidities, heaviness (especially moral heaviness), and the interior pain of repressed desires. Nertun can mean “inherit,” but in the broad sense of receiving from the universal source of strength (AR) and reciprocity (7). In this case, softening the rigid places within leaves us more open to the real source of power—God acting through all of nature, all earthiness.”
— Prayers of the Cosmos: Reflections on the Original Meaning of Jesus' Words by Neil Douglas-Klotz
…then to read the true message of the bible as a tale of ‘you are sinner and you have to live in fear or you will go to hell’ type thing, makes little sense to me. Actually, for me, it suggests that this is the mindset one has to let go of. BUT I can also understand that the teachings/writings/preachings by those that are invested in the fruits of a moralistic power/outlook on life, could come to take on that flavor. And so others may be lead this way, if they have no other context.
Edit : ps am not saying that even Douglas Klotz is necessarily right - however in my practice elsewhere then softening the unnatural tension , hardness, stress, resistance is part of a way of change…and there can be a sense of letting go of carrying a heavy burden, so one feels stronger, life can feel lighter and more grounded.
It would take way to long to go into here - but for me it is curious that the gospel of Magdalene is nowhere to be seen. Just because I have a sense that if one tried to open to/integrate those teachings, then some of the common understandings of ’christianity’ might not fare so well. Could be a bit awkward. Might have gotten a few folk tortured and killed for not towing ‘the official line’ along the way :)I don’t necessarily disagree with klotz, it’s not an outlandish definition at all and the Sermon on the Mount is hotly debated.
The central part of Christianity is Jesus dying for everyone’s sins on the cross and “making it new” with the resurrection and washing sins away. This only happens if you accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour. So I would say if you believe it then you should be worried for your sins and try not to commit them (but inevitably you will) and then ensuring you are accepting Jesus… that’s the main instruction you have from the New Testament.
There is an idea of ‘embrace the opposites’ in Taoism. Perhaps the yogis borrowed from this when they had the idea of practicing the ‘downward dog’ asana? Or maybe not… ;-)With all the known errors and typos acknowledged in the Bible……
God is Dog backwards…..
Just saying.
I’ll leave it there.
You mean the Gospel of Mary that isn’t clear if it’s Mother Mary or Mary Magdalene :-)It would take way to long to go into here - but for me it is curious that the gospel of Magdalene is nowhere to be seen. Just because I have a sense that if one tried to open to/integrate those teachings, then some of the common understandings of ’christianity’ might not fare so well. Could be a bit awkward. Might have gotten a few folk tortured and killed for not towing ‘the official line’ along the way :)
Heh. Maybe so. Either way, I reckon if you add Mary Magdalene into the mix, it would stir things up a bit. Why might be why she isn’t seen so much :)You mean the Gospel of Mary that isn’t clear if it’s Mother Mary or Mary Magdalene :-)
Misogyny.Heh. Maybe so. Either way, I reckon if you add Mary Magdalene into the mix, it would stir things up a bit. Why might be why she isn’t seen so much :)
Or patriarchal? Or a valuing of masculine ideals over feminine qualities? But yes, something along those lines.Misogyny.
Clear and simple.
I know I got more peace and serenity from my dog than I ever did from god.There is an idea of ‘embrace the opposites’ in Taoism. Perhaps the yogis borrowed from this when they had the idea of practicing the ‘downward dog’ asana? Or maybe not… ;-)