W. Vida

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 7:30 p.m.

Hi Forever21, Ok. I would argue that Nicaea gets misconstrued quite a bit. The bishops that met there had been bishops under the persecution. Many of them had been tortured. One had lost an eye. Constantine called the council with hopes that there would be a comprimise between the Arians and the Orthodox majority. Instead of doing Constantine's bidding, the council overwhelmingly voted to condemn Arianism. The decision reflected long established beliefs. There is no indication that the council invented new beliefs but instead they affirmed things that you can find much earlier in history (for example you can read Tertullian's affirmation of the Trinity over 100 years prior). In short, there are a lot of conspiracy theories about what the Council of Nicaea was and I think they are unfair critiques.

Forever27

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 3:34 p.m.

When I say that the Bible was written 400 years after the alleged events I am referring to the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. What most people use as a frame of reference for their religious beliefs are rooted in the decisions that came from this event. What was deemed acceptable and unacceptable was done so for political reasons.

Bill Wilson

Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.

Okay, let's try this again. From your piece: "This idea of physical death and physical resurrection was unique. There were cults that told stories of gods who would rise during seed-time and die during the harvest but the gods of pagan myths were just metaphors and only lived in the spirit world. New Testament scholar NT Wright writes, Did any worshiper in these cults, from Egypt to Norway, at any time in antiquity, think that actual human beings having died, actually came back to life? Of course not. These multifarious and sophisticated cults enacted the gods death and resurrection as a metaphor, whose concrete referent was the cycle of the seed-time and harvest, of human reproduction and fertility. Even a novice in the field of Egyptology is aware of the fact that the Egyptians placed physical items within their tombs with the expectation that these items would be used by the inhabitants. Whatsmore, slaves were often led into the tombs and killed, so as to provide the tomb owner with servants to be used in his/her after-life.

W. Vida

Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 8:45 p.m.

Hi Longfellow, I think you are quite wrong about the idea that "every story in the bible was "taken/adapted/rewitten from a far, far older Mesopotamian myth". I can't go through each example but let's look at Jesus. The fact is that all the attempts to make his story fit pagan myths have failed quite miserably. His story only makes sense in the first century Jewish context. I wrote a much longer argument here and I encourage you to read it and let me know your thoughts: http://religionannarbor.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/a-jewish-messiah-not-a-pagan-myth/

W. Vida

Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 8:38 p.m.

Hi Forever21 The Bible was not written 400 years after the events. Even the most liberal scholars state that the New Testament was complete by the early second century (less than 100 years). I think that it is much more likely that it was almost entirely complete by the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Either way, it was clearly much less than 400. I am not sure which passages were "kept" and "thrown out" can you expand on that? You stated that "for anyone to take it literally is mindboggling". I think when we say that we "take the scriptures literally" we mean we take it in the sense that the author intended it. You should not take metaphor literally and you should not take historical narrative as metaphor. I would argue that the gospels are historical narrative and to take them as metaphor would do violence to the intent of the author. I would argue that even liberal scholars should read it literally for this very reason. This is a separate question from "is the literal account true?" I of course believe it is true but perhaps we can talk on that more later. For now, let's all agree that the gospels should be read literally. I do think that they are true. I think that they were written very soon after Christ walked on earth and they were written by people who had a great interest to make sure that what they were writing was true. I think that the stories make sense within the first century Palestinian context and that not taking them to be true creates more intellectual problems in the historical data than to accept them as accurate.

W. Vida

Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 8:27 p.m.

Hi Darcy, Interesting post. Here are my thoughts. First, I think it would be helpful to provide more detail on what "contradictions" exist in the scriptures. I am quite familiar with the Bible and am fairly convinced there are none. The one example offered("the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" passage) is not actually a contradiction. As you noted, Jesus offered a higher level of mercy as he also did when he said that not only should we not murder we should not hate (Matthew 5:21-26). Offering a more stringent standard doesn't overrule the more lax standard (no one would say that Jesus contradicted the law 'do not murder'). So, more examples of contradictions would help the conversation more. My second thought is that it might be important for me to clarify what it means for the scripture to be inspired. You are right to note that the scriptures were written by people and not the audible voice of God. This is actually one of the great distinguishing characteristics of the Christian scriptures against many other holy books. But this does not mean that they were not inspired and ordained by the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy has always maintained that the scriptures were written by people *and* that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. This point is made in 2 Timothy 3 when the author states that "All Scripture is God-Breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). I don't think that it is silly to ask questions about infallibility and inspiration. I think they are important questions. I have actually come to the conclusion that scripture is both inspired and infallible. I think that the data shows that this is the case. Blessings.

Bill Wilson

Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 5:32 p.m.

Are the stories in the Bible true? Well, they are stories... and yes, they are in the Bible. Other than that... every story in the Bible was taken/adapted/rewitten from a far, far older Mesopotamian myth: Noah (The lay of Gilgamesh), Moses (The Akkadian tale of Sargon), Jesus (The Sumerian tale of Inanna), etc, etc. The question begs: although they're not related in any manner to the history of the jews, did the events these tales relate actually occur? And again, somewhat. If we examine the tale of Gilgamesh (rewitten as Noah), yes, a flood occurred, and yes, those with boats escaped. Like all of these stories, the Sumerians invented the story to explain the flood, therefore, the flood must have been served up by God to punish man. See the logic? Anything bad that occurs is because man somehow displeased God. But what we've discovered is that as the earth warmed and the ice melted, the waters of the Mediterranean sea rose and eventually spilled into the Black sea, flooding that region. God no more destroyed a wicked mankind than I punished my wife by spilling a cup of milk (although it did cause her pain). If the Bible or Torah is important to you, ignore the fact that most of these tales are Sumerian in origin and sing Kumbaya with your fellow worshppers. If you wish to learn more pick up a copy of 'History Begins At Sumer' by Noah Kramer.

Forever27

Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 2:32 p.m.

considering the fact that the Bible was written 400 years after the events it alleges to have happened, I'd say that there's plenty of room for error. Not to mention the fact that some passages were kept, some thrown out; what we see is an arbitrary compilation of different perspectives of a time and place. For anyone to take it literally is mind boggling. Get inspiration from it, that's a reasonable thing to do, but to assume it is the irrefutable truth is just crazy.

Chris Blackstone

Wed, Sep 29, 2010 : 1:11 p.m.

If the Bible isn't completely true, then how can we even know anything about Jesus and His commands? It would seem very easy to simply ignore the parts that make us uncomfortable or play up the parts with which we agree. What would prevent someone from ignoring Jesus' commands to care for "the least of these" (Matthew 25:45) while playing up Jesus' teachings on hell (Matthew 25:41, Matthew 18:7-10, or Matthew 10:28)? It would seem to me that the Bible is either all true or none of it is true. Anywhere between those ends of the spectrum lets the individual person make up their own religion, picking and choosing what to believe in.