DVDizzy Forum

I read the bible but didn't like PAssion of Christ

I don't think I have read any part of the bible. I'm not Christian. Are Genesis and "The Lords Prayer" in the Bible? Just wondering.

pinkrenata wrote:Personally, I find the Bible to be an interesting read for both folklore and mythology, in addition to truths.

I maintain it is the greatest fictional epic ever written.

Way better than Gone with the Wind....

Check out the body count!

Very nice that this hasn't turned into a flame war. Not yet at least.

But anyways to the question. Yes, I read the Bible, and I do so because I'm a christian. I would go into more detail, but Aaron (awallaceunc) has already said everything I would've said (and much better than I probably would have said it at that ).

Favorite books are Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel, Matthew, Romans, Ephesians, and Revelation.

Starion wrote:I don't think I have read any part of the bible. I'm not Christian. Are Genesis and "The Lords Prayer" in the Bible? Just wondering.

Genesis is the first book of the Bible, and The Lord's Prayer is included in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Possibly in Mark and John as well, but I'd have to look that up.)

And to lighten the mood a bit, because I'm pretty sure somewhere down the line, this topic will become one big debate, another joke:

A young boy was doing HORRIBLE in his math class. His teacher had told the mother that if he didn't bring up his grades, he'd have to repeat the entire year. So instead, the mother decided to send him to a Catholic school, hoping that the strict discipline that's enforced there would kind of give the boy a hint. The first day of school, the young boy returns home, silent and runs up to his room. He immediately does all his schoolwork, and this pattern continues for about a week. When the first semester grades arrive, the mother is thrilled to see that the young boy has gotten straight A's in all his classes, especially in Math. The mother asks him how he was able to understand it now, and what the Catholic school did to get him to study. He replied, "When I saw that guy nailed to the plus sign, I knew they meant business!"

Escapay

One time when I was in a hotel and had nothing to read when I felt like reading I found the bible in a drawer. I began reading some of it but there were parts that seemed unsettling to me. Anyway, I ended up reading much of it but didn't like the part where gays are mistreated. And since I am an animal lover, I didn't appreciate god killing them all in a mass flood where even innocent people were killed. I reminded myself it was just a story and I read it much easier.

Oh well, I still believe in a god, but I am more of a spiritual person than a religious person. I believe just treat people good, have good morals, be a nice person.....etc...

Very much so, but as a guide to life not as a literal reading. I do try to take the core values like the ten commandments, the seven golden virtues and the seven deadly sins very seriously. Some of it with a grain of salt as well. The Roman Catholic church(as well as others) have made too many changes over the milleniums(is that a word?) for us to believe every word. For example, the story of Pilot offering the Jewish people the life of Christ or the thief almost certainly did not happen. It was a story cooked up by the Romans centuries after the fact so the Jews and not the Romans would be held culpable for Jesus's death.

As well, stories like Adam and Eve are a very valuable parable but quite obviously not a truth(Well I can see myself trying to explain this post to God after this life is over if it turns out it was a real story).

Further, Revalations is likely just something somebody thought would be a good tack on after the fact. It is written in such a differnt style it likely is not a real Gospel. On the flip side, some real gospels were not included by the Roman Catholic Church. Like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

Although a Christian, I have much respect for all religeons that worship God. I really can't get over how many wars we fight with each other over religeon and in God's name. It makes my sick.

I am really still trying to get a handle on this too. Until about five years ago I was a non-believer with much the same attitude as Jens.

I thought Maxim was the bible.

They lied to me!

JimmyJackJunior wrote:
Further, Revalations is likely just something somebody thought would be a good tack on after the fact. It is written in such a differnt style it likely is not a real Gospel. On the flip side, some real gospels were not included by the Roman Catholic Church. Like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

Yeah I remember watching a special on the History Channel about the Forbidden Books from the Bible. one of the books i remember was a book about more detail on Jesus' childhood. they showed Jesus back then as a spoiled brat that used his special powers for abosuletly nothing. one of the stories in that book told how Jesus was playing with a friend on top of a roof and Jesus pushed his friend off the roof causing his friend to fall to his death onto the ground. a whole bunch of people were mad at Jesus for doing this but Jesus claimed that he didn't push his friend off the roof. to prove that he wasn't guilty, Jesus made his friend come back from the dead and Jesus told his friend to tell the people that Jesus didn't push him off the roof. there were some other bad stories in here as well but closer to the end of the of the book, Jesus at the age of 12 or 13 decided to stop his foolish ways and become more like the person that God wanted him to be. this book with the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the unused books from the Old Testament were never used in the bible after many religious leaders thought of them as blashemy. still the books are fun to read.

I read the Bible. I think it is the greatest book ever written, and the best book to read. There is something in there for everybody. Personally, I'm not big on poetry, so I tend to read some of the narratives more than the "Writings" (like Song of Solomon, Psalms, etc.); though I do like reading Ecclesiastes for some reason.

My favorite Old Testament book is Daniel; for the New Testament my favorite is Matthew. I also like to read some of the other books that nobody else ever talks about. Because, believe it or not, there IS some good stuff in the middle of those prophet books where God is telling Israel how bad they are. Anybody ever heard of Joel? He was one of the twelve minor prophets, and when I was reading the book the other day I was amazed to find that it had a prophecy on the Holy Spirit:

"And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days." -- Joel 2:28-29 (NIV)

I wonder why I never see people quote that.

I also believe that the books of the Bible were selected with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that they are inspired by God. I believe that it's not a fluke that James or Hebrews somehow ended up in the New Testament with all of Paul's letters.

I don't believe in the Qu'ran or Book of Mormon because they contradict the Bible (similarly, I don't believe the popular idea that "all religions lead to the same place" or "all religions are different paths to God"). And I also believe that there are some translations that are flawed (such as the New World Translation / NWT, which deliberatly changes words around to fit doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses). My preferred translations are the NIV or New King James, but as long as a translation does not change the doctrine of scripture I have no problem with it.

Also, I do believe in the narratives in Genesis. The only reason that they're so laughed at by the "intellectual" community is because these are stories that have been around for thousands of years. When a story has been around for thousands of years, variations develop, and so "intellectuals" believe that this is a sign that no account is accurate. I think it vouches for the narratives: if there are multiple versions of a story spread across hundreds of cultures, that means that the event probably happened, and one of the versions of the stories is accurate. If a man told their children about how God created the earth or how they were saved from a worldwide flood, their children develop into multiple cultures over thousands of generations and that's how we got so many different versions of the stories. Which account is the accurate one? The one that makes sense, and also the fact that it has been so carefully preserved over thousands of years helps, too.

So yes, I do read and believe the Bible.

JimmyJackJunior wrote:It was a story cooked up by the Romans centuries after the fact so the Jews and not the Romans would be held culpable for Jesus's death.

I don't believe this is true. Jesus himself chose to die for all man's sins, and no person or group is responsible but himself. He chose it out of love. It's ridiculous, 2,000 years after it happened, for people to be instead of accepting the gift, to be arguing about who killed him. Also remember that the Roman Catholic church was not necessarily made up of Romans, so it doesn't make sense that Romans cooked up the story.

JimmyJackJunior wrote:As well, stories like Adam and Eve are a very valuable parable but quite obviously not a truth(Well I can see myself trying to explain this post to God after this life is over if it turns out it was a real story).

How do you determine what's truth in the Bible and what's not?

JimmyJackJunior wrote:Further, Revalations is likely just something somebody thought would be a good tack on after the fact. It is written in such a differnt style it likely is not a real Gospel. On the flip side, some real gospels were not included by the Roman Catholic Church. Like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

Revelation is not a gospel nor does it claim to be. It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not a gospel. Also, The Gospel of Mary Magdalen is not a "real" gospel because it was written sometime after the first century A.D. All of those "other" gospels were written by Gnostic heretics.

JimmyJackJunior wrote:Although a Christian, I have much respect for all religeons that worship God. I really can't get over how many wars we fight with each other over religeon and in God's name. It makes my sick.

I agree. The truth should be told in love. Enough blood was shed by Jesus himself; we don't need to kill other people because they're not Christians. What kind of example is that?

Uncle Remus wrote:Yeah I remember watching a special on the History Channel about the Forbidden Books from the Bible. one of the books i remember was a book about more detail on Jesus' childhood. they showed Jesus back then as a spoiled brat that used his special powers for abosuletly nothing. one of the stories in that book told how Jesus was playing with a friend on top of a roof and Jesus pushed his friend off the roof causing his friend to fall to his death onto the ground. a whole bunch of people were mad at Jesus for doing this but Jesus claimed that he didn't push his friend off the roof. to prove that he wasn't guilty, Jesus made his friend come back from the dead and Jesus told his friend to tell the people that Jesus didn't push him off the roof. there were some other bad stories in here as well but closer to the end of the of the book, Jesus at the age of 12 or 13 decided to stop his foolish ways and become more like the person that God wanted him to be. this book with the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the unused books from the Old Testament were never used in the bible after many religious leaders thought of them as blashemy. still the books are fun to read.

Hey Remus, is there a book where Jesus is riding a tricycle down a corridor, and somebody is on a step latter over the landing fixing a bulb?

dacp wrote:And I also believe that there are some translations that are flawed (such as the New World Translation / NWT, which deliberatly changes words around to fit doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses). My preferred translations are the NIV or New King James, but as long as a translation does not change the doctrine of scripture I have no problem with it.

Well, how do you know what the original doctorine was? It is a recorded fact that King James influenced the translation of "his" Bible, especially regarding witchcraft (King James had a illogical fear that his reign would be brought down by witchcraft, he even wrote a book himself on the subject, The Daemonologie, and attended various witchcraft trials and executions in person)

Regardless, it was James I who authorized the translation of the King James Bible. Under his control, the soon to be oft-quoted Exodus 22:18 was changed from "Thou must not suffer a poisoner to live" to "Thou must not suffer a witch to live."

is one of the most famous "tweaks". Also, predictiably a number of accidental errors are supposed to be in the translation.

Being as it is accepted by most people, including a number of Christians, that the text is 'flawed' in places, it does seem wrong to follow the text too religiously (pun intended).

After all the Bible is full of contradictions throughout. On one hand it tells us "an eye for an eye", while on the other it tells us to "turn the other cheek", for example. The "meek shall inherit the Earth" but terrible battles were fought in the Crusades (for no real reason, from what I can see).

Also it has been pointed out in a number of places (including on this forum in another thread, The Passion of the Christ one probably) that when Jesus came to Earth, he created a new scripture for us to follow and, by extension the whole of the Old Testament is superceeded and now irrelevent. It seems odd to continue to include it then, especially if it results in confilcts with the New Testament teachings.

That said, I have nothing but respect for the monumental work that was done - especially as it was done in the early 1600's. It was a massive task and one which fully deserves to be applauded, even though both unintentional and intentional errors have been reported since.

Oh, and no, I don't read the Bible. But I am aware of most of the 'major' stories having attended a Church of England school. Basically my thoughts are, if there is a God and I've lived my life wholefully and without malice then should the judgement arrive, he'll be on my side. And if he isn't, then maybe he's not he God the Bible says he is in the first place, especially when I see some of the war, greed and intolerence afflicted in God's name. (Which isn't a slight to Christianity as a concept or idea, but it is a slight to some 'Christians').

2099net wrote:
Hey Remus, is there a book where Jesus is riding a tricycle down a corridor, and somebody is on a step latter over the landing fixing a bulb?

Haha very funny. No I'm serious. There was a special on the History Channel that talked about the forbidden books of the Bible. another one told about angels that feel from the sky and had made women pregnant to give birth to giants. I think these stories were known to part of the Pseudepigrapha:

http://www.historychannel.com/perl/prin ... ?ID=108583

Hey Loomis,

I checked out your link to SAB, out of curiosity. Your beliefs aside, you can find good reasons to disbelieve--I assume that means either in the historical accuracy or divine inspiration--of the Bible. (Me, I tend to think some books don't belong in it, but you know, whatever. ) But the boneheads behind SAB don't understand (1) modes of expression used in the bible, (2) rhetorical devices used in specific books, (3) methods of translation, (4) general concepts about storytelling about which the original audience would've been familiar, (5) cultural context for the texts in question.

I just looked at the SAB critique of Matthew, and really, this is like playground namecalling stuff. It doesn't even accurately the simple textual (read: surface level) messages of many of the passages it critiques. Come on, this is the level of intellectual critique of the bible as represented on SAB: "Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other"?

Matthew Highlights

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29, 18:8
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
Jesus tells his disciples not to pray in public. 6:5-6
Jesus says that most people are going to hell. 7:13-14
Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32
Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. 10:21
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34
John the Baptist is still not sure about Jesus (he's in prison and is soon to die). He sends his disciples to ask, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Well, if he isn't sure after seeing and hearing the events at Jesus' baptism, then how can anyone else be? 11:3
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
Jesus casts out a devil from a man who was blind and dumb (blind and dumb people are possessed by devils). 12:22
Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, "lest ... they ... should understand ... and should be converted, and I should heal them." 13:10-15
"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Isn't this from the Republican Party platform? 13:12, 25:29
Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50
Jesus is rejected by those who know him the best -- the people of his home town of Nazareth. 13:55-57
Herod thought Jesus was a resurrected John the Baptist. Apparently, it was a common opinion at the time. If so many of Jesus' contemporaries could be so easily fooled regarding John the Baptist, what does this do to the credibility of Jesus' resurrection? 14:2 16:13-14
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." 15:4-7
Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. 16:28, 23:36, 24:34
Jesus cures an epileptic "lunatic" by "rebuking the devil." (Epilepsy is caused by devils.) 17:15
Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give your a big reward. 19:29
Matthew has Jesus ride into Jerusalem sitting on both an ass and a colt (must have taken some practice!). 21:2-7
"Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19
This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. 27:25

PS Loomis, in no way was that meant to be a critique of you or your beliefs. Simply a critique of the information on SAB. If these people are going to go to the time to critique the ENTIRE bible, they should at least do so in a reasonably scholarly fashion. I imagine it took someone years to put that together, but in the end, what they've put together is basically crap. It doesn't contribute at all to a meaningful discussion on authority.

2099Net wrote:After all the Bible is full of contradictions throughout. On one hand it tells us "an eye for an eye", while on the other it tells us to "turn the other cheek", for example. The "meek shall inherit the Earth" but terrible battles were fought in the Crusades (for no real reason, from what I can see).

Well you offer the explanation I was about to give here...

2099Net wrote:Also it has been pointed out in a number of places (including on this forum in another thread, The Passion of the Christ one probably) that when Jesus came to Earth, he created a new scripture for us to follow and, by extension the whole of the Old Testament is superceeded and now irrelevent. It seems odd to continue to include it then, especially if it results in confilcts with the New Testament teachings.

Well, that's the general idea, but it's not that Jesus decided to throw the Old Testament to the wind. Instead, he came to fullfill the covenant that was the OT. It's quite necessary for understanding the New Testament and Jesus. The Old Testament is built around a series of prophecies, the majority of which was devoted the coming of the Messiah. It told exactly who He would be, and the manner in which He would come. It also set up laws and traditions for living a life in which there was no savior to shield man from the direct consequences of sin.

When the Messiah came, those prophecies (at least the ones dealing with His first coming) were fulfilled. In fact, all four Gospels constantly reference the Old Testament. It wouldn't make much sense to leave them out. The New Testament is built atop the Old Testament, it fulfills the voids that were intentionally installed in the Old Testament in await for the Messiah.

So when Jesus fulfilled the old covenant, he made a new covenant. The new covenant was much more living, because "love had come." Therefore, Christians aren't obligated to follow the laws and traditions mandated by the old covenant. The Old Testament still holds 5 very important purposes for Christians, though:

(1) Understanding the Messiah. In studying the New Testament, one must look at what it was built off of, and the prophecies that were made, and the way in which they were fulfilled. This is no doubt very important for converting Jews.

(2) Prophecy of things to come. A good deal of end times studying comes from the Old Testament. In fact, I'd say more of it comes from there than from Revelation, though I'm not 100% sure on that. The books of Daniel and Ezekiel are especially significant in this regard.

(3) Learning the nature of God. Though much of the Old Testament is about the course and nature of mankind in the early part of history, many references are made to the true nature and desires of God. Since God is unchanging- something reinforced in both covenants (which, by the way, many things were indeed carried over from the old covenant to the new one- including all but one of the 10 commandments), then His nature was the same then, and is an important thing for Christians to learn about. The Psalms are a very good example of this, as are Genesis and Exodus.

(4) Wisdom. Just as notions about God's character are presented in the Old Testament, advice on wisdom is presented as well. I'm of course especially referring to Proverbs, which is simply a collection of proverbs of wisdom.

(5) History. Adam, Eve, Cain, Able, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Daniel, Jonah- to name a few- are pretty important to Christian and Jewish history, as well as history in general. They are referenced throughout the entire New Testament and are important for insight in all 4 of the aforementioned areas.

Dacp wrote:"And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days." -- Joel 2:28-29 (NIV)

I wonder why I never see people quote that.

I wish they would as well. It's one of the most quoted scriptures among eschatologists, but outside of end-times discussions, you don't hear it much. By the way, I agree with everything you said- good job.

As for Bible translations, I have a copy of every major translation, including the Hebrew Bible. I prefer to use a Parallel Bible with KJV in one column and NIV in the other, though there are other important translations as well.

Satoshi, thanks for the kind words.

Oh, and someone asked about Saved. It didn't show in theaters here, unfortunately, but I very much want to see it. It looks funny and will hopefully make the same point made by Tartuffe, one of my favorite plays. I am worried, though, that it may cross the line into blasphemy, but that's a judgment that can't be made, obviously, until after seeing the film.

-Aaron

I read the Bible, everyday. I am also reading some stuff on the Koran. Should be done soon to start reading that as well. Interesting read!

Rev. Poco

Dacp wrote:

JimmyJackJunior wrote:It was a story cooked up by the Romans centuries after the fact so the Jews and not the Romans would be held culpable for Jesus's death.

I don't believe this is true. Jesus himself chose to die for all man's sins, and no person or group is responsible but himself. He chose it out of love. It's ridiculous, 2,000 years after it happened, for people to be instead of accepting the gift, to be arguing about who killed him. Also remember that the Roman Catholic church was not necessarily made up of Romans, so it doesn't make sense that Romans cooked up the story.

Actually it makes perfect sense. The Roman Catholic Church started while the Roman Empire was still going fairly strong. It deflected blame. There is also absolutely no historical evidence of this practice in Pilot's court or any other Roman court. i.e. letting one prisoner go.

JimmyJackJunior wrote:As well, stories like Adam and Eve are a very valuable parable but quite obviously not a truth(Well I can see myself trying to explain this post to God after this life is over if it turns out it was a real story).

How do you determine what's truth in the Bible and what's not?[/quote]

I dont determine what's truth and what's not. To me it does not matter if the story is truth or a parable. I believe there is probably a great deal of both in the Bible. As I said, I use the Bible as a guide for life. The story of Adam and Eve means a great deal to how one should lead their life no matter which it is. And I don't totally discount the possiblility that it happened that way either.

JimmyJackJunior wrote:Further, Revalations is likely just something somebody thought would be a good tack on after the fact. It is written in such a differnt style it likely is not a real Gospel. On the flip side, some real gospels were not included by the Roman Catholic Church. Like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

Revelation is not a gospel nor does it claim to be. It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, not a gospel. Also, The Gospel of Mary Magdalen is not a "real" gospel because it was written sometime after the first century A.D. All of those "other" gospels were written by Gnostic heretics.[/quote]

I don't think you can say that definatively. You may be right, but on the other hand they may be real Gospels left out of the Bible for political reasons.

JimmyJackJunior wrote:Although a Christian, I have much respect for all religeons that worship God. I really can't get over how many wars we fight with each other over religeon and in God's name. It makes my sick.

I agree. The truth should be told in love. Enough blood was shed by Jesus himself; we don't need to kill other people because they're not Christians. What kind of example is that?[/quote][/quote]

I'm just joining the conversation, so I must say that yes, I do read the bible. I am a christian and have made a pact (don't swear!) with some family members and friends that we would all read it in a year. I'm finding a lot of interesting things that I somehow missed in Sunday school classes.
The motivations for a nonbeliever to at least be familiar with the bible are plentiful. Not only are the stories entertaining, but familiarity will allow someone to find influences in all sorts of literature that may otherwise lack meaning. In my university classes, we've found biblical subtext in all sorts of books, from Alice in Wonderland to Angels in America.

Yep, not to mention that it never hurts to have a little knowledge about what a very large percentage of people (and in some places a majority) at least claim to believe.

-Aaron