Is the Bible corrupt?

[Thomas]

I don't even know what that means? What church was before scripture?

Scripture was written by members of the Christian community, that's what I mean. They didn't appear out of a vacuum.

Lol the church decided what was scripture.

Exactly, the Church was there before Scripture was written. If we say Mark is the earliest, and the earliest date around 65AD, then what we have is the Church and an oral tradition from 33AD on.

when was the church one? The formation of the universal church was a power grab, an attempt to join all the churches, consolidate the belief. As far as I know that never succeeded....it came close....

LOL. that's just your polemicism.

I hope the syphillis line was a joke along the lines of....but he built good roads...

Yes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Scripture was written by members of the Christian community, that's what I mean. They didn't appear out of a vacuum.

It was edited, redacted and added to significantly over the first 400 years, in particular to support the Church doctrines and dogmas of the Trinity, Virgin Birth, and the physical Resurrection.

Exactly, the Church was there before Scripture was written. If we say Mark is the earliest, and the earliest date around 65AD, then what we have is the Church and an oral tradition from 33AD on.

I have no doubt oral traditions existed ~33AD, but it is high end speculation that Mark was written ~60-65 AD.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don’t. I can only say the theology of Scripture is neither Hellenist nor ‘Roman’, nor is Paul’s theology Hellenist – it departs from Hellenism on too many fundamental principles, . . .

The concept of an incarnate physical God, and the Trinity is essentially a Hellenist/Roman belief, and not Jewish.

But that does not mean it was not composed before 70, just that we don’t have material evidence to say that it was. I place it around the mid 60s, the time of Peter’s confinement in Rome, and founded on Peter’s catechetical teachings.

There is no evidence it was composed before ~70AD though there may be a simpler Q that is early. By far most scholars believe the evidence supports a later date. I do not believe it makes much difference if the simpler shorter Mark was composed before ~70 AD. It is well documented that it is edited and added to over time.

LOL. In matters of Scripture, evidence is never clear, that’s why there’s so many contending theories. As a general rule I would say any argument that ‘asserts beyond doubt’ is dubious and probably polemical.

I do not assert beyond doubt, but the evidence is clear; Many references to support the Trinity, Virgin Birth and the Resurrection were added over time.

The corrupted Hellenist/Roman theology of the Roman Church including the Virgin Birth, reinforcement of a physical Resurrection, and the Trinity, which is in direct contradiction to the Jewish monotheism.

I would say the idea that Christian theology is a corruption of Hellenism fails to grasp the nuances of Christian theology. And are you sure you sure you understand Church history? There was no such thing as ‘the Roman Church’ when these doctrines came into being. The theologians were primarily Greek, the primary schools of thought in Alexandria and Antioch. Tertullian coined the term ‘Trinity’, but the doctrine was in place well before Tertullian. It’s clear in his writings he’s not introducing anything new …

They did not necessarily introduce anything new, but the syncrenistic influence of Hellenism and Platonism is very clear and specific. and rooted in Greek theology and philosophy and the origin of the concept of 'logos.'

Claims of nuances just increases the unnecessary fog index. But the Greek influence is clear in Philo's concept of the 'logos' that contributes to the concept of the Trinity. The Greek link cannot be denied. Though, many Christians do deny the connection, but I will support that the influence of Philo's concept of 'logos' is undeniable,simply by the records of the known literature of Jewish Hellenism of Philo.

The Fathers were, almost to a man, Platonists – Iraneaus being a notable exception – but they saw beyond Platonism and its problems. Origen, for example, was a Platonist, but the accusation of ‘Origenism’ (Platonising Christianity) scholarship now places not at his feet but at followers who misunderstood his teachings. Aries, for example, was another who viewed Christianity through a Platonic lens and tried to Hellenize Christianity, and was resisted.

Even though resisted by some it was incorporated in the concept of Jesus Christ being both God and human.

Origen against Celsus shows how much Origen saw the difference between Christianity and Hellenism. Augustine, another Platonist who’s writings are the most subjective and biographical, makes it quite clear that Platonism was inadequate, but a stepping stone.

Maybe inadequate, but nonetheless influential in the final Roman Christian concept of God.

Maximus the Confessor reworked the very fundamental tenets of Platonism to bring it into line with Biblical Revelation and in a stroke ‘solved’ all the ‘issues’ with the Platonic theory of forms and the origins of being – and from then on we have a clear distinction between Christian theology and Middle and Later Platonism.

Your view of 'clear distinction' does not take into consideration the influence of Platonism from the very beginning. I am not concluding that Christianity entirely embraced Platonism in the later form, but the influence of Platonism cannot be denied, in part, because Greek Platonic and Hellenist vocabulary and concepts became an important part of the theology, doctrines and concepts of Judaism.

Whilst there are virgin births, resurrections, etc, all of them are in line with an agrarian naturalist symbolism, whereas the Virgin Birth, Passion and Resurrection is directed at a different order of understanding altogether, a Scriptural understanding, which was understood from the beginning, with Mary as the New Eve. So whilst the outward forms might appear there same, the inward essence and understanding is not.

It would be foolish and unrealistic to consider the various beliefs of the Virgin Birth and Reincarnation to be the same in the various diverse belief systems, but it is well documented in history that to attribute Divine authority to a messianic figure was to attribute Virgin birth and Resurrection to their biographies as they did with Christ, and has been documented in the progressive redactions, and additions to the gospels and letters, including letters Paul did not write, from Paul.

Christ, for example, utilizes natural symbology throughout. Breaking bread is as old as the hills, but breaking bread is not the same as the Eucharist …

Does not change anything, all belief systems use natural symbology in their scripture.

The criticism of Scripture is well known and well documented. They’re gone over at some length if you study Catholic theology in any detail. It’s an old argument, and really made too much of – there’s simple too many unknowns and uncertainties.

I was raised in the Roman Church and prepared to study for the Priesthood in 1965-67, and I have continued to study ALL sources of ALL religions and philosophies.

 

[Courage]

The ‘corruption’ of the Bible is one of those modern memes that is generally accepted without question by those who choose to do so.

Again, the Bible covers such a vast range of narrative genres, and covers such a vast timescale, that blanket statements along these lines really don’t carry any weight. Nor do blanket statements like ‘it’s all myth’ etc.

When it comes to the New Testament, the ranges narrow considerably. However, when asked to supply evidence in support of the corruption assertion, not much is forthcoming. Personally I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest corruption. It’s fashionable at the moment to insist that Christianity is the Hellenisation of a Hebrew teaching, but again there is no scholar that makes such a claim, as far as I know. The web is awash with subjective opinion about how it’s been misrepresented, misinterpreted, mistranslated, etc., etc., … so much so that one wonders if any of it survives … but when it comes to scientific methodology … the case has yet to be made, I think.

Whilst there are those who criticise how the books of the NT were selected and brought together, what is not offered is a process those same critics would find acceptable. The compilers selected those documents which to their best knowledge had a reliable train of transmission, and rejected many of the apocryphal texts on the grounds that they didn’t. Those who find critical fault with the orthodox texts, in my experience, rarely if ever apply the same critical rigour to the apocryphal texts.

Whilst scholarship takes great interest in the apocrypha, there is no suggestion that such texts are any more ‘authentic’ or ‘reliable’ expression of Christianity, over and above the canonical, but there seems to be the assumption that apocryphal texts somehow offer an authentic insight into an ‘alternative’ Christianity that was suppressed by orthodoxy. Again, the broad consensus of scholarship doesn’t make such claims.

That the text has been redacted is not disputed, but that in itself does not comprise ‘corruption’. Scholars have gone through the various extant versions of the text and whilst differences can be noted, there is no significant theological diversion. Archeological finds continue to support the idea of an uncorrupted text. The DSS etc., the Diatessaron of Tatian, and a host of references in the writings of the early Church Fathers are often so voluminous that near-complete synoptic gospel texts can be put together from these citations.

Again, what texts were considered authentic and what were not, or what comprise revelation and what don’t, can be discerned in the writings of the Fathers. Thus we have utterly orthodox documents like the Letter of Clement of Rome was not considered canonical, whilst on the other hand such dogmas as the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin are asserted in apocryphal texts, but not in the orthodox canon …

If anyone has material evidence of corruption, then I’d be interested.

It's more like the asking of whether a testimony is corrupted in a court case. That depends which court you are talking about and which standard is using. More or less, the Bible is more like a human account of witnessing for God to pass along His message of salvation to keep mostly today's humans informed of His final judgment to be carried out.

It can't be made fully by God alone as in the end it's a human account of testimony. It can't be made fully by humans as they can't reliably pass a document across the border of 2000 years. The Bible could be the only human document of thousand pages which you can still reconcile its contents with scrolls as old as 2000 years.

 

[Thomas]

The Bible could be the only human document of thousand pages which you can still reconcile its contents with scrolls as old as 2000 years.

Good point. While many insist the Bible is corrupted, no-one is able to demonstrate the supposition.

Scholars have long agreed that there is no substantial difference between versions of the Bible.

Spotting 'mistakes', 'contradictions', 'corruptions' etc., is a cottage industry on the web.

 

[wil]

yup.... hasn't changed in 2000 years... that is corrupt in itself. Slavery, concubines, mistresses, stoning, smiting...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Okay now Wil is really officially back. I don't have a clue what he just said! lol.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I do and it's classic wil, I have to say that I think it's sort of...what do day say "pointing at the moon and talking about the finger" or something like that?

 

[wil]

Ah, we are gonna make america great again... when exactly was it great?

I want some of that old time bigoted mysognistic religion!

hopefully that made it clear.

 

[Francis Earl]

Certainly, the Bible is corrupt.

We know exactly when it was corrupted: the Councils.

Now, we are told that people 325 years after Jesus' death know what actually happened, what was actually taught...

The Gnostics were actually experiencing the truth directly, but were killed off because what they experienced didn't coincide with the power-hungry priests who eventually won. Indeed, one of the basic reasons the Christians reject Muhammad is because of what he says happened on the cross, yet his version is stated in those Gnostic gospels which were at least as accepted by the community at large as the ones we have.

I think that once direct experience stopped being emphasized by the Christians, the religion itself stopped being alive.

Today, all we have is a dead corpse of ritual and belief.

The Gnostics gradually moved towards Sufism and other traditions such as Hermeticism and Alchemy.

The ancient philosophers are survived through their contributions to Buddhism (see Greco-Buddhism) and its contributions eventually towards Hinduism (Shankara is very much influenced by Madhyamaka, which is foundational to Mahayana) but largely they were killed off in the West.

I think it is a real shame that Christianity won the battle for mind-share, I think our civilization would be in a far better place today if almost anything else would have triumphed... I think it is awesome that we're beginning to go back to our roots, and I do not think it is a coincidence that since Christianity has been questioned, we have seen our society grow technologically and intellectually.

This might be offensive to some reading, but understand that Catholicism never even won the intellectual battle... unable to defeat the Cathers on the grounds of doctrine, they have began the inquisition.

It has always been about power rather than truth.

 

[Francis Earl]

Let us never overlook the fact that the first Pope was none other than Constantine himself.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Re#51 - Roman Catholic Church seems to disagree. It is my understanding they consider St. Peter to be the first pope even though he was referred to as the Bishop to Rome. They base this on Jesus' instructions in book of Matthew.

 

[Thomas]

Re#51 - Roman Catholic Church seems to disagree.

And not just Catholics. Scholarship — and the evidence — does as well.

The rest is pure fantasy.

By the way, the pope at the time of the first Council — Nicea — was Sylvester, the 33rd pope since Peter.

 

[wil]

If I've learned anything from life...and discussions on this site...

That all religions have their 'saints' folks who use their beliefs to help those around them... and their 'devils' folks who use their scriptures to abuse...

When I see anyone saying they have a corner on belief and everyone else is wrong... I know there are others in their camp... who are wishing they'd be quiet.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

And not just Catholics.

Forgive me Thomas. I considered my response - 'cutting to the chase'.

 

[Nasruddin]

I do and it's classic wil, I have to say that I think it's sort of...what do day say "pointing at the moon and talking about the finger" or something like that?

Yep. Although we have to be careful about that old aphorism. Just discussing whether the Bible is corrupt really is just looking at the finger ,is it not?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

yup.... hasn't changed in 2000 years... that is corrupt in itself. Slavery, concubines, mistresses, stoning, smiting...

See? That's the great thing about the Bible. Something for everyone.

Yep. Although we have to be careful about that old aphorism. Just discussing whether the Bible is corrupt really is just looking at the finger ,is it not?

More like giving it the finger.

 

[Nasruddin]

See? That's the great thing about the Bible. Something for everyone.

More like giving it the finger.

Ha! Yeah, that happens too. See, for me, the Bible, like any text, is like a map, or a road sign. Not to reduce them in order to disparage, rather to show, in their ordinariness, the entire beauty of the universe. The Bible is very much a finger pointing to the moon, and should be honored for doing so. The Buddha himself said that it's silly to carry around the raft after you reach the other shore.

 

[Thomas]

See, for me, the Bible, like any text, is like a map, or a road sign.

I can see that.

To Traditionalists, the sacra doctrina of the Traditions is something more than a text. More than a sign. For Christians, Scripture is a living thing. You don't read the Bible, you enter into it. Like so many spiritual fruits, it has passed from the common consciousness. In the Tradition, the Scripture is a Body of Christ, it is a symbol, and Lectio Divina, the reading of, praying of, meditation on and contemplation of, Scripture is efficacious in that regard.

Does one ever leave Scripture behind? Not really, one simply enters deeper into it. There are numerous texts in the Tradition that speak of the inexhaustible wellspring that is Scripture. Same, I would have thought, with the Psalms, the Sutras, the Upanishads, the Quran? Has anyone ever surpassed them in their personal excellence?

 

[Nasruddin]

I can see that.

To Traditionalists, the sacra doctrina of the Traditions is something more than a text. More than a sign. For Christians, Scripture is a living thing. You don't read the Bible, you enter into it. Like so many spiritual fruits, it has passed from the common consciousness. In the Tradition, the Scripture is a Body of Christ, it is a symbol, and Lectio Divina, the reading of, praying of, meditation on and contemplation of, Scripture is efficacious in that regard.

Does one ever leave Scripture behind? Not really, one simply enters deeper into it. There are numerous texts in the Tradition that speak of the inexhaustible wellspring that is Scripture. Same, I would have thought, with the Psalms, the Sutras, the Upanishads, the Quran? Has anyone ever surpassed them in their personal excellence?

Ah, my old friend, once again we cannot disagree. I cannot argue with your sentiment, nor your reasoning. As so often in the past, we have met on similar ground, only to find we really are talking about the same thing. This is the problem with our language, it constrains and shapes our thinking as well as our communication with others. You see, I don't know if what the sacred documents embody can be surpassed. In the Bodhisattva vow, we say that the dharmas are innumerable, I vow to master them all, and the way of the Buddha is unsurpassable, I vow to become it. So likewise I view all texts and dharmas.

Yet, I think it wastes our time to argue about the veracity of any translation, or small point, because one begins to "pick nits" as it were. The physical copies of the texts, the words they use, the images they invoke are not as important as to what they point. It is thus I keep it all in perspective. If all the Bibles were burned tomorrow, I would not despair, if their words are written in my heart/mind. For me, and my own understanding, it is important to keep this perspective, lest I lose patience with someone, or take offense when someone seems to disparage what I love and revere.