As with most forums Ive read on the bible there is much misinformation. Very few people seem to realize that the new Testement was not written by the apostles.
The dead sea scrolls discovered in the 50s, far from validating the Bible actually include many of the texts that had been purposefully excluded during the construction of the Christian bible in the 3rd century because they did not at all fit into the authoritative dogma of the orthodox Church. The Church at the time under the direction of Constantine picked only books that supported submission of the populace to the will of the Roman Church and State.
The stories of Jesus, son of God, the virgin birth, “love thy neighbor” ministry, miracles, sacrifice on a cross or tree for the sins of man, resurrection and future return to judge mankind is nothing but a Jewish adaptation of the the pagan mystery religions. Osirus, Dionysis, Mithras, and Jesus all shared the same stories in their respective cultures starting with Osirus in Egypt thousands of years prior to the claimed birth of Jesus.
Christianity would probably have died out were it not for Constantine finding it usefule as a way to control his subjects and made it the state religion.
Why are these things never addressed in these forums?
Very interesting post, I’ve spent a lot of time reading books about all these other mythologies. If you’re interested in the history of religions you should look at some of the books written by Joseph Campbell, they’re every interesting. As he has looked into why do all the mythologies seem to mirror one another? The Masks of God, by Joseph Campbell is his big work 4 volumes.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have NOTHING to do with Christianity, or at least that is the current consensus. They are the writings of an isolationist Hebrew doomsday sect known as the Essenes, and scholars tend to date the scrolls to before the birth of Christ.
There are the Gnostic Scriptures–the Nag Hammadi codices–which were also dug up in the 50s. These are later texts than what we have in the New Testament, hidden to protect them after the church began purging non-orthodox texts. One of these texts, the Gospel of Thomas, consists of the sayings of Christ with none of the familiar biographical stories, seems to share source material with the “Q” source for the synoptic gospels. It’s worth reading. My favorite (paraphrased): “The Kingdom of God is spread out before men and yet they do not see it.”
I’d recommend Nietzsche’s the Anti-Christ if the adaptation of Christ’s teaching to pagan mystery religion bothers you–it bothered him too, he blames Paul, the Hellenized Jew, for the whole mess. Paul was the one who really spread the religion, and it likely got alot of its Hellenistic touches from him. In order to get his audience to take Christ seriously as a spiritual authority, he would have to have told them lots of miraculous, mythological-sounding stories–and if he didn’t have them, he’d have had to make them up. Demi-gods that die and are reborn, impregnation by a god, etc. are common features of Mediterranean mythologies and Paul may have had to throw that stuff in for the same reason McDonalds has to sell beer in Europe.
When you read the gospels as we have them, the younger the text, the less of the fantastic stuff. The earliest gospel has no manger-scene, no childhood miracles, and ends with the open tomb (i.e. no resurrected Jesus walking around). If you look at some of the non-canonical “gospels” there are some really off-the-wall miracle stories, much more exagerrated than in the NT–and those were written later. The teachings, proverbs, etc. do stay consistent, however. It all seems to suggest to me that Jesus was a Jewish teacher who Paul turned into a Greek god. I suppose sooner or later I’ll find out for sure.
Blauboad,
those were some very interesting statements. I appreciate the fact that you shared them with us, you brought back a tinckle of curiosity, wonder, and awe through controversy, I like it. I’d love to learn more for an in-depth understanding of the sources, reasonings, and hopefully an insight into what the originals actually say. Can you refer me to any specific websites or books?
I don’t think you can underestimate Paul’s influence on the religion that Christianity became. Paul’s letters are the earliest documents in the New Testament.
blauboad,
thank you kindly for the sources, they seem VERY interesting, especially the Nietzche one. I will need a bit of time for reading over the sources and for the brewing of my interpretation and opinion on what I have read, and ofcourse finally in formulating a conclusion based on what I have learnt in the past, along with your sources, along with logic…and presto! Anyway, you get the point. I will try to respond as soon as I can.
Please guide my mind in the right direction. How can one be certain that the Bible is the definite source for a Catholic, when the idea that the Bible was edited still lingers?
There are people that tell me the Bible wasn’t edited only on the basis that the Bible was “written by God” and it couldn’t have been changed. What do I say to such a veiwpoint?
For Catholics it’s not the Bible that’s definitive, but the Vatican’s interpretation of the words of God. They believe that the Bishops and the Pope have the only correct understanding of it, and if people examine it themselves they run the possibility of be misled in matters of the faith that are believe to be to complicated for a casual reader. It’s only in the last 40 years have the Catholic laypeople have started to read the Bible, before that it was a job for the priests alone.
Wow Pax, I’ve wondered and am quite ashamed of my ignorance in the religion that I spent a better portion of my childhood serving. I was an alterboy for eight years and always wondered why the Bible wasn’t the cornerstone of the religion. I’ve strayed since my catholic school days into Buddhism.
Then I will rephrase my question. How can one be certain that the Bible is the definite source for a Christian when the idea that it has been edited still lingers. I have tried to speak with people of undenying faith. But they will always go back towards the Bible as a reference point. But if I don’t believe the Bible to be the ultimate answer of all human knowledge, how can I try to reason with such a person?
You can’t reason with them! There’s an old saying, “Don’t argue with a fool, as he’ll bring you down to his own level, and then beat you with experience.†People believe in such things because it gives them hope, and its hope that’s more important to them then the truth. Nietzsche said, ‘Truth is what’s good for Man’. To a person who wants to live a sincere life this seems madness, but it’s all about what is more important to a person, Truth at any cost? Or, Make believe happiness found in Religion? Either search to rational eyes is foolish as there’s little truth beyond ‘I think therefore I am’, and religions are baseless towers with a foundation built on sand. To me there’s little beyond the Quest in its self, as both goals are elusive.
but isn’t science & psychology becoming the new religions? Setting up dogma’s just the same. Whatever psychologist say is what we deem true. If they say someone is crazy, then that person is crazy. Or maybe I’m taking a movie too serious.
Church and State.