Yikes!

[Bubbagump]

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Wether or not they agreed with God’s word or not, they were only charged with copying it word for word. Any other meddling not only went against thier own beliefs but was a serious offence. Sure each teacher of the Law had their own interpretation and were at liberty to use it, but that never changed the transcribed words.

Um, yes, yes it did. Do you simply not believe that the writing were edited for political reasons at various times through out history? It is a fairly widely held belief amongst Bilical scholars that that was the case. When I say edit I mean actually removing and adding pieces and parts, not fixing punctuation.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

That’s the thing, for the Jewish people these book your reffering to are their history.

And are stories about the world on the back of a turtle in American Indian culture… that doesn’t make it true in the “it really actually really really happened” sense. I mean, there are questions as to the truth of the actual exodus. Sure, that will offend a Rabbi. But, it is the difference between saying Pee Wee Herman was the king of England in 1776 in the english war against Mexico and saying King George was the king in 1776 against the Americans. one is true, the other isn’t. Just becuase it is their accepted history doesn’t mean that is what really happened.


<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

So this was the time you think something happened that convinced the Jewish leaders to “change” God’s word?

not specifically this time… but certainly one of them… then add pre and post Maccabean Jewish thinking and how the writings may have been effected. Look at the various priestly traditions and there takes and agendas. The Hellenizing of the Jews and how that changed the writings adn their thinking. Moses didn’t come down from any mountain with these books and we now have them in their identical form.


<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

“Deuteronomy” to my knowledge was written by Moses. Not in a responce to anything but as an acurrate account of the journey of His people. Im not sure who wrote “Deuteronmy” since it’s not in my Bible, and can’t seem to find a reference to it in Jewish Antiquities either. Maybe I’m not looking in the right place, the Pentateuch perhaps contains this book?

You’re kidding, right? I mean, the Torah is the basis of the OT. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy… That one comment of yours alone tells me you have A LOT to learn about Biblical history and the Bible itself. I am no authoritative scholar myself, but this stuff is out there to be learned. What you just said was tantamount to saying “Genesis, never heard of it.” And no, it wasn’t written by Moses. That is what it claims and that is a strictly religious belief. It was most likely written during the reign of Josiah by Shiloh priests. Next, look up the Deuteronomist… the original author(s) of Deuteronomy and Kings, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. Holy moley dude, really, read some history. It is apparant to me you don’t have a clue where these texts came from.

As for support to my statements… the library. Really, go check something out. From a very basic ancient history stand point, “Antiquity” by Norman F. Cantor and read the chapters on the Jews. Then, do what the rest of us do and follow his bibliography to find out more where he got his sources and what his sources say adn where they got their souces and what their souces say… I mean this with all sincerity and not in a malicious way, but have you ever learned how to do research and critically think through research? Maybe I take this for granted.


We are so getting to 100 pages…

[system]

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

It was most likely written during the reign of Josiah by Shiloh priests. Next, look up the Deuteronomist… the original author(s) of Deuteronomy and Kings, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. Holy moley dude, really, read some history. It is apparant to me you don’t have a clue where these texts came from

I was using a book as reference. Granted it’s prolly an outdated source, The Everyday Guide To The Bible by Carol Smith @1995. It named Moses as the author of Deuteronomy. And I still am in search of the book you claim to have been written by Joshua, namely Dueteronmy. Maybe I’m operating under false pretence here I have made certain assumptions about your original post I quoted from.
One was that you ran it through a spell check.
If I am wrong on that first one, than it only caused a string of errors from there.

Makes no never mind to me, for with all those text Jesus says these two things are the most important.
1.Love the Lord with all thy heart.
2.Love thy neighbor.

I’m able to do both, the rest is just interesting reading on the weekend.

keep shinin’

jerm

[KingFish]

Maybe a spelling checker would help?

KF

[system]

Here’s an interesting discussion on the ten commandments…two or three different versions. Someone actually mentions Dueteronmy in there AND Deuteronomy…maybe even AND Dueteronomy Seems like they are indeed one and the same book. Learn something new every day.

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74384

Regardless, the discussion is pretty interesting…maybe there were differences because of translations.

How about http://www.dueteronomy.com/?? Maybe there’s more ways than one to skin a goat?

[Pancho]

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Maybe there’s more ways than one to skin a goat?

Not if you’re a goat.

[Willy]

Still going for page 100

[Bubbagump]

Quote (jeremysdemo @ Aug. 24 2006,17:44)

I was using a book as reference. Granted it's prolly an outdated source, The Everyday Guide To The Bible by Carol Smith @1995. It named Moses as the author of Deuteronomy. And I still am in search of the book you claim to have been written by Joshua, namely Dueteronmy. Maybe I'm operating under false pretence here I have made certain assumptions about your original post I quoted from. One was that you ran it through a spell check. If I am wrong on that first one, than it only caused a string of errors from there.

Okay, you have to be screwing with me. Yes, I typoed on Deuteronomy, but who mentioned Joshua? I did say during the reign of Josiah. The book of Deuteronomy is so incredibly common and in every Bible on the planet, a typo should have been understood.

Jeremy, if you aren't screwing with me, well, I am dumb founded. For someone who is so supposedly Biblically centered in their life, you are incredibly ignorant of the Bible. TomS, I am nuts here? Did I imagine 4 years of religious studies where the book of Deuteronomy was clearly discussed? Did I imagine D and the Documentary Hypothesis? Did Deuteronomy somehow become part of the Apocrapha in the past 5 years in the KJV? Like, is the Torah somehow optional or something now? Is the Torah a term I invented? Holy smokes... dumb founded.

[system]

Keep stabin’ with your steely knives but you just can’t kill the beast…



“No fair No Fair”-Damien

[system]

Yep,
Been yankin’ your chain, or joggin’ your shrimp boat, which ever suites ya!

If you will notice in my original post with your quoted statements.
I say, I have found “Deuteronomy” which my source said was written by Moses.
But I was still in search of the book you mentioned, “Deuteronmy”.
Again, a personal oversite being under the impression that your ritualisticly used spellcheck, must have gotten you confused with another member, perhaps pooh?
<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

you are incredibly ignorant of the Bible

Jesus said even a five year old child can understand how to enter the kingdom of heaven, so what more is required of me?


Anywho, no skin of this ducks azz.
My feathers are well groomed and oiled so most waves slide off the back!

I never said I was Biblically centered. I get the word right from the source.
The Bible does make for interesting passtime though, it’s certainly something I enjoy.


Memo has been sent to Carol she should be updating her sources as we speak.

keep shinin’

jerm

[Pancho]

So, becoming more interested in Cassandra Tom’s prophesy, I’ll also try to push this over 100 pages.

So, the crux of the current debate.

Which is: What is the purpose of debate?

If anyone believes that the object of the exercise is to convince one’s opponent that he is wrong and you are right, then forget it! You’re living in a fool’s paradise.

The best one can hope for is to slightly sway the on-looking fence sitters, and that is better done by appeals to base emotion, not rationality. That’s how politicians and missionaries work; get them into church with free beer, then scare the bejasus out of them with hellfire and show them the carrot of paradise. But don’t try logic, it don’t work.

Jesus could materialise in front of Jerm tomorrow saying; “Sorry mate, it was all a joke”, and it wouldn’t shake his beliefs in the slightest. Likewise Tory/Labour, Democrat/Republican, global warming/no global warming, all believers are blinded by their beliefs.

Once someone has taken a stance, then it’s only a major personal life changing event that might, and I repeat might, change it.

So I ask again, What is the purpose of debate?

I think, it’s because it’s fun.

It exercises the brain, it rouses the juices, and it’s more entertaining than watching TV.

So I’m a cynic perhaps. But I’ve never encountered any evidence that I’m wrong.

So don’t get too dumbfounded guys, ‘tis just a game.

[Wihan_Stemmet]

seamus - how about (in light of recent topics and the qoute you did):

“We are like sheep without a shepperd
we don’t know how to be alone
So we wander 'round the desert
and wind up following the wrong gods home
But then the flock cries out to another
They keep following the bell
and one more starry eyed messiah
meets a violent farewell”

[BillClarke]

Quote (Pancho @ Aug. 25 2006,02:06)

So, becoming more interested in Cassandra Tom’s prophesy, I’ll also try to push this over 100 pages. So, the crux of the current debate. Which is: What is the purpose of debate? If anyone believes that the object of the exercise is to convince one’s opponent that he is wrong and you are right, then forget it! You’re living in a fool’s paradise. The best one can hope for is to slightly sway the on-looking fence sitters, and that is better done by appeals to base emotion, not rationality. That’s how politicians and missionaries work; get them into church with free beer, then scare the bejasus out of them with hellfire and show them the carrot of paradise. But don’t try logic, it don’t work. Jesus could materialise in front of Jerm tomorrow saying; “Sorry mate, it was all a joke”, and it wouldn’t shake his beliefs in the slightest. Likewise Tory/Labour, Democrat/Republican, global warming/no global warming, all believers are blinded by their beliefs. Once someone has taken a stance, then it’s only a major personal life changing event that might, and I repeat might, change it. So I ask again, What is the purpose of debate? I think, it’s because it’s fun. It exercises the brain, it rouses the juices, and it’s more entertaining than watching TV. So I’m a cynic perhaps. But I’ve never encountered any evidence that I’m wrong. So don’t get too dumbfounded guys, ‘tis just a game.

Some truth to that - more than I like to admit, actually.

The desire to prop up deep-seated beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence of their falsehood is startlingly strong in most (all?) people. If you want to prove this to yourself, go to a bar or other social-gathering place in middle America and strike up a conversation in which you state the (absolutely, 100% historically accurate) fact that George Washington was not the first President of the United States.

Then wait for the reaction. But be prepared; if you stick to your guns you may well be threatened with physical violence (possibly dependent upon the level of alcoholic content in said social-gathering place).

People will contort the facts and do all sorts of mental gymnastics solely to preserve their deep-seated (though erroneous) belief that Washington was the first President and the more compelling your logic and reason the closer you get to being threatened.

We are not a logical and reasonable species.


Edit - Well, I’ll be darned. 100 pages. - Edit

[Bubbagump]

Quote (jeremysdemo @ Aug. 25 2006,00:19)

Yep, Been yankin' your chain, or joggin' your shrimp boat, which ever suites ya!

Phew, I had to imagine you were screwing with me becuase I could not imagine anyone with a basic knowledge of the Bible having never heard of Deuteronomy. You got me.

Well, at least we made it to page 100.

[system]

Sorry Bubba, well that’s a untruth.


Anyway it seems Pancho is a regular riddler.
<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

Jesus could materialise in front of Jerm tomorrow saying; “Sorry mate, it was all a joke”, and it wouldn’t shake his beliefs in the slightest.

Seems you’ve created an enigma.
Because if Jesus materialized in front of anyone, he would be who he said he was, and be proving it by the materialization.
Then for Him to say, “It was a joke” would be a lie.
But God is incapable of lying or all His creation would fall apart since the strenth of His word is it’s truth.
Because if it all was a joke, he would have no power to show up anywhere after His death, let alone in front of me all these years later.
If he ever did show up in the flesh, neither you or me could predict what he would say to me, he’s not that predictable.
But He certainly wouldn’t say something that goes against His own word.
Now, that’s where it gets interesting and what a part fo this debate is about, since you asked. His word, and it’s authenticity. No doupt with all the different translations and years anyone would be stunned and suprised at what would be said and how it differs, myself included.
I’m really not a closed minded as you like to think. And am not as confident in all the scripts as others think.
As I say over and over there were two things Jesus said that were most important (read page 99) And I have no problem doing either with the help of our ceator, never by myself or for my own glory.

The rest is very interesting and gives much insite into the origin of Judaic religion, nothing more.

keep shinin’

jerm

[system]

Hey… 100 pages! Where’s the balloons and funny hats? Quick. Somebody spike up the punch!

I don’t have much to add though as I just believe and thats it. I would like for others to know and feel what I feel but each has to find his/her own way. One thing I have found out for SURE… you cannot and should not try to force your belief on anyone. That is the surest way to turn people off. If you believe in the teachings of Christ, the best way to let others know is to let them see him through you and your life. Period. BTW, that is what His word says if you care to look it up. It does not say, “Go ye therefore and pound the heathens about the head and neck until they submit!”

D

[TomS]

Quote (BillClarke @ Aug. 24 2006,07:29)

Quote (TomS @ Aug. 23 2006,22:48) Yes, but the latest scholarship suggests some very exiting things about how early some of it really is. Anyway, if you are going to claim anything in the NT as a source, you will have to include G Thomas as well, and then to keep consistent you'll have to distinguish the various sources in the NT, hence not one but several sources. An academic but important point, IMHO. In terms of supplying insight into, or evidence of, the Historic Jesus it really doesn't matter how early the writings are - it is the content and authority of the writings that matter. The Gospel of Thomas, while fascinating, isn't really a gospel at all but is rather a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus that provides few if any details about the man, himself. Claiming that it provides evidence of the man's existence would be akin to claiming that Aesop's Fables proves that Aesop was a real guy. Or that 1001 Arabian Nights provides evidence of the existence of Sheherazade. St. Paul is useless; never met the man. Ditto Luke. We don't know about Matthew and Mark - their timing and commonality suggest a mutual source of information that may be authoritative but, sadly, we don't have that source. We are left with John - warts and all - and even John is problematic. Other than a passing and likely forged entry in Josephus that's the lot. Precious little upon which to investigate the possibility that it "...might be true."

Well, I can't keep up with this thread, but I just have to say, Bill, that the weight of contemporary scholarship doesn't support most of your position here. G Thomas is a sayings gospel, and least that's the term used by academics; we could quibble about what a "gospel" is and restrict it to the kind that includes a biographical narrative, but early gospel writers didn't restrict themselves in this way, so we'd only be thining anachronistically.

I'd say that It certainly does matter how early a given text is, since the earlier the text (or parts of it at least, since there is so much later editing and adding to these texts) the closer we are to the historical Jesus. I am not certain what "authority" here could mean, other than "Jesus said it," unless Christianity is not about what Jesus said, but rather is about what others want Jesus to have said (OK, that was a bit sly on my part, since we all know that Christianity has almost always been about anything BUT what Jesus said). And as you note there is a lot in the cannonical gospels that is simply not Jesus...

Your take on the synoptics is not the usual one. Standard reading: Mark comes first, Matthew and Luke draw on Mark and on another source, the reconstructed Q gospel (which was, not incidentally, a sayings gospel). This is the "Two Source Hypothesis" which is nearly universally accepted; and Luke is usually thought to have incorporated Q with very few changes, including even the order of the sayings. Thomas overlaps the synoptics about 60% of the time, but is an independant source, so the common attestations take on particular significance when looking for the actual, real, historical Jesus using the best historical methods we have. The really problematic gospel is John, since it has almost no historical Jesus in it. Still not useless, but it needs to be used very carefully.

I think it is also reasonable to rely on what a person has said as a basis for understanding that person - indeed, I can't see anything wrong with doing this, since this is what we do all the time. In any case, evidence from G Thomas about what Jesus said doesn't stand alone - along with what Jesus said we can also reconstuct with some historical plausibility some of the things he did. Granted, our conclusions in most cases will not be quite as well grounded as similar claims made about, say, Geo. Washington, but in terms of historical inferences they still are quite worth considering.

Even Paul is not useless - what you get there is a ton of information about disputes in the early church, and those disputes were often between Paul and people who knew Jesus personally. So Paul is not at all useless; you just have to use him carefully.
Anyway, when your book is out let us know, and we will all buy a copy!

[TomS]

Quote (phoo @ Aug. 24 2006,20:17)

Here’s an interesting discussion on the ten commandments…two or three different versions. Someone actually mentions Dueteronmy in there AND Deuteronomy…maybe even AND Dueteronomy Seems like they are indeed one and the same book. Learn something new every day. http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74384 Regardless, the discussion is pretty interesting…maybe there were differences because of translations. How about http://www.dueteronomy.com/?? Maybe there’s more ways than one to skin a goat?

Ain’t that just the funniest thing? Three sets! Go look up the passages, phoo - you’ll also discover that one set is not at all about ethics, but rather about ritual, and the other two differ in important ways. Wikipedia’s article on it is a good short summary. It’s also the case that sometimes they get divided differently depending on your sect - or on whether it’s a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim doing the reading…

Here’s the main wiki article on what people usually mean when they refer to “the” Decalogue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments

Here’s a discussion of the Ritual Decalogue in Exodus 34:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_Decalogue

These different versions are the result of the way in which the Torah or OT was edited together. Multiple traditions, multiple versions. Not a translation problem.

[system]

Which of these books were written in the time of Jesus? Or what is the timeline of the books?

Tag you’re it.

[Pancho]

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote

People will contort the facts and do all sorts of mental gymnastics solely to preserve their deep-seated (though erroneous) belief that Washington was the first President and the more compelling your logic and reason the closer you get to being threatened.

Ach! History Bill, one of the areas where entrenchment is very firm. It’s all to do with “roots” I expect.

(And especially in the USA, where you have so little of it, and therefore have to make the best of what you have! )

For example, consider the Alamo; the American public image of it is as portrayed in the movie, whereas the truth is rather different.

And here is what the rest of the world, outside the USA, knows to be the real facts…

In 1821 Mexico gained independence from Spain, and in a fit of emancipation the Mexican president, Carlos Santana, freed all the slaves.

At that time, Texaco was a colony of Mexico, and Texacan gringos (from the Spanish word “gringo” meaning “gringo”) didn’t like that idea much; especially the two gringo co-rulers of Texaco, Sam and Dave.

Most especially Sam, (Sam Houston owner of the Texans that is, not to be confused with Sam Austin the bionic man) who needed a plentiful supply of black slaves for his football team.

Not only that, but Sam (also not to be confused with Sam JR Dallas or Sam Antonio) saw the opportunity to rid himself of Dave and become sole ruler of Texaco.

So he sent all of the Daves off to the Alamo to fight Santana. Amongst others were: Davy Crockett, David Bowie, Dave Lee Travis (aka the BLT), David Copperfield, and John Wayne (real name Marion Davies).

Unfortunately, then came one of those minor events that had a major historical significance.

St David is the patron saint of whales, and for some obscure reason, also of the Welsh. As a consequence many Welshmen are called David, which is often shortened to Dai - pronounced “die”. (Sadly it’s not known how whales pronounce Dai).

So as the men marched bravely off to war, Sam Austin shook the hand of every departing Dave, and attempting to be ethnic said, “Good luck Dai”. And so those Daves, incredibly loyal and brave, but unbelievably stupid, did.

At the Alamo, Travis kept his men occupied by drawing lines in the dirt and forcing them to jump over them all day long; so when Santana arrived, Travis’s Daves were too exhausted to fight and were slaughtered to the last man. (All except Dave Brubeck who deceitfully told Travis that he was just gonna take a 5 minute break, and would be right back).

Anyway, after a prolonged bout of mutual slaughter, Texaco finally became independent.

But after thinking about it for a while, they decided they didn’t really like that idea much either.

And so they joined the USA, (which they thought had a much healthier attitude towards slavery). But not before all the Mexicans who had supported Sam Antonio were rewarded by having their lands taken from them and forced to live in Barrios (a type of sandwich).

And that is the real story of the Alamo, so don’t forget it!

[system]

Hmmm… sounds good to me! I’ll buy it! Certainly more interesting than Mrs. Morelocks version in the fifth grade.

D