There's 5000 documents that form the NT from within the first 100 years of initial writing. They're roughly 99.5% accurate. The bible is easily the most reliable ancient document we have. In comparison we only have 49 copies of Aristotle's writings and they're from 1400 years after initial writing.
Do you have a reference for these assertions? I find they strain credibility, but then my familiarity with the Bible is, alas, limited.
Using the Bible to prove its own validity is circular reasoning at its worst. The Bible may be a reliable guide to the development of a specific culture's view of God, and many of the historical details contained in it are, indeed, corroborated in other documents of the period. The divinity of Jesus, his supposed virgin birth and bodily resurrection are not among them. These are matters of faith, and to recognize them as such is not a criticism.
The motivations of the authors of the Bible may not have been political, but the goals of those who edited and compiled the Bible into its present form were substantially so. This does not necessarily diminish the value of what the Bible contains, but it neglects, indeed seeks to bury, important documents from that first century after Jesus that shed much light on his life and work. It is noteworthy that many of these excluded early writings reflect the feminine aspect of the divine much more clearly than what was included.
The excluded writings to which I refer appear to have been written well within the first century, and thus significantly predate the "canonization" of the Bible. These include gnostic writings, and the texts in the "Nag Hammadi library" that came to light only in the last century, such as the gospel of Mary (Magdalene), and the gospel of Thomas. The latter contains what is probably the oldest recorded account of words Jesus actually said; predates the 4 gospels of the Bible; and is credited as a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
If we are going to claim something as objective fact, we must judge it using the objective measures of accuracy, logic, and internal consistency. If we intend something to be taken on faith, then let it be so; it does not need the trappings of objectivity for that.
Last edited by Coriolis; 05-03-2010 at 12:18 PM.
Reason: fixed typos
I have no belief of any mortal being without sin. In fact i deplore the word 'sin.' I say ignorance. This i can more appreciate, for each of us has only a limited perception when it comes with reality. If Jesus had no "sin" he would not lose control and have that episode with the temple and money lenders. Losing control is a mark with imperfection. He would definately not chosen cursing a fig tree, just for the reason that the fruit was not ripe. The episode where he drives "demons" into swine and all of them fall over a cliff is also inconsistant with any perfection. This being said, I love Jesus. All he represented, i admire. He was a phrophet who had remarkable abilities and was far more insightful about the real essence of the world.
I don't/have never understood the benefit to anybody of fire and brimstone teaching, that you should not do certain things because the Bible says so and if you do you'll rot in everlasting hell.
Certain readings of Romans Chapter 8 reveal that there is no condemnation for those who are in Jesus Christ. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are
So if you've declared your faith, your salvation can't be taken away from you. Which kind of makes the "saved" person like Christ -- a Christ one -- human but dwelling in god and forgiven by god.
I think when Romans and other places in the Bible talk about the flesh, they are not talking about skin -- they are talking about physicality, things that exist that you can see and touch -- and the teaching is not to get attached to those things. Don't get attached to the idea of sex, don't get attached to the idea of money, don't wrap yourself up in these things, because if you do, you can't focus on being more like Christ, and perfecting your faith is what you're supposed to be about.
he is without sin in the way that he was born without the sin that Adam and Eve brought into the world. He was not concieved by a descendant of Adam and Eve but was "concieved" by God to be born by a descendant of King David.
The question is not was he carnal, but what is a perfect human.