Do you think the bible is a work of delusional people?

I doubt the writers were insane.

And the book of revelations was written by some guy who was shut himself in & was told of exactly how God was going to kill us all. I wouldn't say the Bible was written by delusionals, I'd say the Bible is a compelation of stories that had been passed through the ages, much like all cultures have. Interpretations took over, mix-ups in the translations, etc. It can't be looked to as fact. It has a lot of great ideas & principals, but to actually derive any dogma out of it is unfair & impossible.

No.

Quite sane and quite inspired.

... to discount generations of people as being delusional.

This is a certainty of progress.

it was either written by a bunch of complete psychos or by some of the wisest people.

The topic question is much too big.

Each individual writer of a book of the Bible is either
a) telling the truth
b) thinks they are telling the truth but are mistaken
c)lying
or
d)delusional.

One could argue "d" for a few books I suppose, but at the very least a non-believer would have to go with "b" for 97% of the books until they believe otherwise.

I completely agree with Burke.

The title of this thread could just as well be "Do you think Fight Club was written by delusional people?"

C'mon folks, explain what you mean? There are ambiguities as well as passages of ultimate clarity in the Bible as translated in the King James version.

I suppose the same thing could easily be said of the Q'uran.

I am a work of the Bible (least I like to think so, at least in progress)

Does that, rather then my name, make me delusional?

Yes.

Burke is dead on - depending on what passage you're quoting, it's either a or b for me.

Dog gone it!

A beautiful piece of fiction. It's our mythology. A book of fairy tales, that if used properly can be used to teach positive things.

Having been translated in every language on Earth, including Klingon; mix-ups, misinterpretations and complete BS is bound to occurr.

Yes. It seems fairly obvious to me.

There's nothing too obvious about the Bible.

Really? I suppose I have to beg to differ.

Beg?

It's a page turner, hot summer reading, and a cracklin' good read...

That should certainly NEVER be filed in the non-fiction section of a bookstore.

Delusional writers? Nah... inventive, creative folks with a knack for giving their readers what they need: SECURITY.

Sproinnnngggssssshhhhhhhhhhthoomp!

Bullseye!

Actually....awwwww heck its way to late.

Actually most of it were eyewitness accounts written many years later.

More....late....zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Gotta go with Zod on this one.

And we all know how absolutely reliable eyewitness accounts are...

And the reality is the Bible was put together by a committee.

Luke was a disciple. Matthew was a disciple. John was a disciple. Mark was a disciple.

They were there.

Technically, Matthew and John were disciples, but Luke was Paul's amanuensis and Mark was Peter's. There is some evidence that Mark did meet Jesus in the flesh (as a little kid at the crucifiction) but that's fairly speculative. Luke certainly did not meet Jesus, and as a non-Jew would have had no reason to come in contact with him. Most important historical figures would dictate their memoirs so it's no shock that Peter and Paul did the same.

Irregardless, our culture of instant autobiograpies is vastly different from their (the denizens of that period) oral tradition and cultures. We can't understand how someone could memorize a long story or poem becuase we are trained from early on to write it down. But, just because we can't understand it doesn't invalidate it.

Ah yes. You are right. I defintely should have double checked on that. If anything these discussions have been opening my eyes to is the fact one needs to constantly refresh oneself on matter of his/her faith.

I've have been tragically slipping as of late and really need to get back into it. I mean with a rather thorough study Bible I should be able to readily know this stuff.

*sigh* Lord forgive

So you would go with:
c) lying
on my list of what type of people wrote the Bible. See, here's the thing. Lets take the New Testament for example and to start off let's make an assumption that many people feel is correct. That Jesus lived blah blah and died at the hands of a Roman tribunal. So his disciples get together, feeling rather down in the dumps etc. Then they hatch a plan. Why does Jesus have to die? After all, if he was the messiah, as they believed, then why couldn't he still be alive? Blah blah and the new religion Christianity is formed with the reported resurrection of its founder. Okay, so now we've got a whole bunch of people who decide that it's not enough that they believe that Jesus didn't die but that everyone else should as well. Remember, the people doing this know for a fact that Jesus died completely on the cross. So, not only do these liars pretend to be happy about Jesus’ resurrection they begin to try to convert people to their point of view. Course, they've got a mighty big hook in "believe in Jesus and go to heaven."

Okay, so we've got a bunch of liars pretending to be ecstatic about their leader's death and all of a sudden they start getting converts. Not to mention the strange case of Saul nee Paul, the model of a God-fearing Jew, a Rabbi in the Hebrew faith, who suddenly renounces all that he was to preach Jesus on the cross! There is no way that Paul could not have known that the disciples weren't liars as he spent many years with them after his conversion. To sum up... if we accept that the writers of the NT are trying to make us the reader feel good by promoting the idea of a Jesus in the sky, this would have to be a lie. So Peter and Paul and all the rest are a bunch of liars, losers I might add who couldn't accept the death of Jesus (Paul's motivations would be nebulous.)

Then the unexpected happens. People start killing them for their preaching’s. Sure, it was fine and dandy for Jesus to die with his weird ideas about sin offerings etc. but now these liars are going to die for their lies. Now we've all met many strange people with fascinating and far-fetched hypotheses regarding the human condition. How many people have you met who were willing to suffer excruciating tortures and a horrific death for a cause that they knew was a lie? Sure, we get fanatics who kill themselves or allow themselves to be killed for what they believe in, but how many of those fanatics believe that their death is for an untruth. Can anyone find any example of a person who dies for something that they know for a fact is a lie? You've gotta have a pretty strong will and stomach to do something like that.

Does that sound like a bunch of cowardly losers, who have promoted a pack of lies that they know to be false? I don't think so. So what we're essentially left with is that the people who wrote the New Testament were either:
a) telling the truth
b) thinks they are telling the truth but are mistaken

I don't think "proclaiming a known lie to make people feel good" really fits into either of those two categories.

Edited to clean up some of my bad work-related grammar.

And if I recall correctly some of the disciples died for their beliefs in some rather gruesome ways.

...um...No?...

CT, what are you getting at with this statement? There have been many disciples of various faiths who have died gruesomely because of their beliefs.

Well....I guess its just to expand on Burke's point.

And to say that it does indeed continue today. Several Asian countries as well as many Muslim ruled countries add many to the Christian martyr population. Not to say other religions aren't done to the same of course.

But they (according to our belifs) would fall into the category of b) thinks they are telling the truth but are mistaken. I think he was saying that the disciples would not lie and then be willing to die for it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Burke:
<strong>Technically, Matthew and John were disciples, but Luke was Paul's amanuensis and Mark was Peter's. There is some evidence that Mark did meet Jesus in the flesh (as a little kid at the crucifiction) but that's fairly speculative. Luke certainly did not meet Jesus, and as a non-Jew would have had no reason to come in contact with him. Most important historical figures would dictate their memoirs so it's no shock that Peter and Paul did the same.</strong>

Actually to be really techincal they were all disciples. Only Matthew and John of the four were Apostles. Disciples are merely students and Jesus had hundreds of disciples. These are the twelve (Mt 10) 2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

And as for your statement about Luke, Jesus came into contact with Gentiles all the time.

And don't use irregardless. Though a word certainly, regardless is more poper and means the same thing.

Considering most scholars estimate Luke wrote his gospel in about 80AD i doubt he spent much time with your buddy hayzeus.

Yes, yes... I find people get confused between Apostles and Disciples so I tend to go with Disciples when talking about Apostles, and followers, rather than disciples, for anyone after the death of Jesus.

Bad writing on my part (at work, thoughts do not flow nearly as well). What I should have said was that there is no evidence that Luke lived in Palestine or knew anything about Jesus before meeting up with Paul. So the likelihood of Luke actually meeting the corporeal Jesus is rather slim.

Yes, but irregardless sounds cooler. wink

There is some very compelling evidence that suggests the books of Luke and Acts were written in approximately 61-62 AD (I say this as someone who has actually researched the subject, which tends to involve more than a one-sentence declaration by "most scholars.") Of course an in-depth discussion of more than a sentence may be beyond "he who shall remain nameless's" capabilities, so I won't ask for one. wink

"Yes, yes... I find people get confused between Apostles and Disciples so I tend to go with Disciples when talking about Apostles, and followers, rather than disciples, for anyone after the death of Jesus."

What do you call people who followed him inhis lifetime? (other than the 12)

And I'll forgive your bad writing and poor word choice. I never make misteaks. wink

Here's a good roundup on the thinking behind who wrote the gospels:

<a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html</a>

This is true. Most accounts were written some 70 years after Christs death.

Got it. Personally I don't think that God's disciples are purposefully lying. Truth is subjective, and what they believe is "truth." I can disagree with what they believe, but that doesn't negate "their truths."

Also, I don't completely agree with the idea that disciples who are willing to die prove that they are not lying. I don't think they're lying, it's just they have strong convictions that they're willing die for. There are people with strong convictions and have died because of them -- even though such convictions were ultimately misguided.

I wish someone would counter those insufferable ads on TV with this statement.

But I digress...

Yes, there is indeed a huge difference between truth and fact.

Really? According to what I've read most were writen by AD 70 only about 35 or 40 ytears after.

My biggest problem with the Bible is that there is no single definitive version of it, and considering that it's meant to be the Word of God, that's a bit of a stumbling block to any serious analysis of it.

It's been translated and edited and interpreted and twisted by so many hands over the years, both for good reasons and bad, that I really don't know how you could start to make any sort of trustworthy chronology from it, let alone base your life around it.

From the Roman's rewriting and reinterpreting the book, to modern evangelical attempts to "modernise" the Bible in order to appeal to kids, it's - at best - a diluted remnant of the original work, which itself was the sum effort of many different writers, all with their own viewpoints and agendas.

Basically, what I want to ask the faithful here is this: How do you know that the Bible you buy off the shelf today is true to what God intended 2000 years ago?

The Bible is inspirational for me. It helps me make it through tough times. The people who wrote it were brilliant. I do not claim to be perfect, but then WHO IS? I am grateful for it.

PS. I am openminded to other religions though, and do not judge a person whether they are religious or not.

A Response I peened a couple months ago to a similar question from Guttenberg Fan Club...

To sum up, the Bible that we have today is the most accurately translated Bible since the original documents were penned (leaving aside translations that are written in certain styles of vernacular to make it "hip.")

Caveat: New Testament scholarship has proven again and again how accurate the reproductions and copies of the NT books are. However, because of the Jewish tradition of burning or otherwise destroying older copies of the Old Testament (after they had been copiously re-copied) scholars have far less evidence about the veracity of the OT translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls did alot to persuade scholars that the OT was not edited or revised during the Christian era.

Burke, isn't it possible that people doing research to further or preserve their own agenda and religion may not be the most reliable of investigators?

So then the people who disagree would only be doing so to further or preserve their own agenda against religion? Either way, it all comes down to evidence. If you think that a scholar is inherently biased or has come to some inacurate conclusions, look at the evidence they have collected and make your own decision.

Most people have biases; as long as I know what they are, I have no problem 'cause then I get to make the final decision about what I do or don't believe.

Nice slur on historians/archaeologists/linguists though. Never have found an honest person out of those groups. wink

Yea but in addition to faith in the Lord that He would keep His Word whole over these many years keeps confidence.

Yea they could have ulterior motives. But then we might as well never believe another soul again in our life no matter what they say.

This isn't trusing a mechanic that he is actually fixing your car, and not fucking you over. You're talking about the meaning of life & all that crap. A little more significant.

As much as one can claim that their perception of God & religion is forged by the Bible, I don't believe them. People's idea of the Christian God is one that is given to them when they are young, by other people. You are only Christian because your parents were & THEY told you what God is. You didn't just open the Bible, take it in, & then just happen to agree with Christian preachers in their interpretations of it. You're working backwards. You are taking someone else's interpretation, and then reading the book. You're outlook has been formed before you even have a chance to read it yourself. Then when you do have a question, there are open ended answers like 'You must have faith', 'It's God's will', and other cop-outs.

I know there are converts, but to say the least, they are an extremely small portion of the Christian base. So don't drop a 'my friend' or 'I know a guy'. There are always exceptions to everything.