The Dumping Ground

[Charmion]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The O.T. (Tanakh) was written in Hebrew. The N.T. was written in Greek. Both have been translated into many languages. Aramaic is included among those languages. Look up Targum if you are interested in learning more about these Aramaic translations of the O.T. For information about the Aramaic translation of the N.T. look up Peshitta.

The author of this website Aramaic Bible, Disciples New Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Jonah, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Malachi. is either a member of the of the Syriac/Chaldean church, or a crackpot. Possibly both.

Thanks for your reply. What do you think of the apocryphal books? I wasn't familiar with them until I began studying Catholicism. They are not in the Protestant Bible. There's an article about the Roman Catholic Bible and the apocryphal books here:

http://www.reachingcatholics.org/rcbible.html

I also found this:

Peshitta
A study in the Aramaic Language of Jesus

[Miss Shelby]

IMO, it's ill-advised to study Catholicism as taught by James McCarthy.

Also see:

Scripture for All: The Books of the Catholic Bible

[Kashmir]

In ancient Judaism, were any of their books considered sacred, God-inspired books like they became in Christian dogma?

Books like Kings and Ecclesiastes wouldn't seem to me to be of that flavor.

Ecclesiastes says that the ability to love ends at death; if that doesn't deny the idea of an afterlife I don't know what does!

The Song of Solomon doesn't mention God one time. It's not even semi-religious in nature, like Ecclesiastes is. It's an erotic love poem.

It's fuckin' hilarious seeing fundamentalists read hidden meanings into it (Sufi mysticism and Kabbalah can't have anything on them), like it's an allegory of Christ's love for his church.

Which part? When Solomon is burying his face between her gazongas all night? When he's "feeding among the lilies"? I don't have a dirty mind, and I know what that's talking about.


Of course their reason for doing so is obvious--smut can't be abided in the Holy Bible. It was 100% God-inspired, don't ya know!

Never mind of course that Proverbs advocates giving strong drink (i.e. alcohol) to people who're depressed, to help them forget their emotional pain. Drinking wine's not only okay, drowning your sorrow in it's perfectly sinless! It must be, or the Bible would be advocating sin.

But the prophetic books seem like they would be in the God-inspired camp.

[Kyuss Apollo]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The O.T. (Tanakh) was written in Hebrew. The N.T. was written in Greek.

NT was written in the Koine, if I'm not mistaken?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Charmion

Are you saying that the New Testament wasn't written in Aramaic?

No, the texts were composed in Greek. Even the sayings are Greek and not Aramaic translated into Greek.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

In ancient Judaism, were any of their books considered sacred, . . .

Not in the way people consider text sacred today.

God-inspired books like they became in Christian dogma?

There is no tradition of inspiration in either the HB or NT. Faced with the various errors and contradictions, the author of the text of Timothy made it up.

Ecclesiastes says that the ability to love ends at death; if that doesn't deny the idea of an afterlife I don't know what does!

See the Witch of Endor--yes, Lucas sucks that badly--where Saul raises Samuel to get some advice. Samuel is not exactly in "heaven." He goes where all go--Sheol--Underworld.

But the prophetic books seem like they would be in the God-inspired camp.

They were not seen that way.

--J.D.

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

There is no tradition of inspiration in either the HB or NT. Faced with the various errors and contradictions, the author of the text of Timothy made it up.

Doesn't that just make the problem worse, though? Why, indeed how, would/could God inspire contradiction?

The apocryphal books were left out because of their contradictions. They jived even less with the Doctrine of the Trinity than the ones that made it into the canon.

Why the doctrinal contradictions weren't completely removed from the texts is a real mystery to me. It would've really improved the whole schism, heretic-killing thing happening. The Koran doesn't contradict itself nearly as much as the Bible, and Islam has had far fewer schisms, and is a more doctrinally uniform religion than Christianity.

Christianity is so diverse that calling someone a Christian is basically worthless as a descriptor. Are they theological modernists who admit the Bible is flawed, that Jesus was just a man, didn't actually perform miracles, that it's all allegory*; are they fanatical fundamentalists; or part of the rainbow in between?

Originally Posted by Doctor X

See the Witch of Endor--yes, Lucas sucks that badly--where Saul raises Samuel to get some advice. Samuel is not exactly in "heaven." He goes where all go--Sheol--Underworld.

On that count, at least, Christianity doesn't fall down.

The NT texts clearly hold that departed souls went to Sheol after death. That's what Jesus' harrowing of hell was about. It wasn't big "H" Hell.
The righteous were taken out of Sheol, the damned stayed in Hell awaiting the Final Judgement.

What the NT does seem to invent is the idea of Hell, visible across the gulf from Sheol. Judaism didn't have a negative afterlife conception, did it? Though in the Second Temple era it seems to have had the idea of a Final Judgement, and resurrection of the body (like in Christianity); I know I've seen OT verses to that effect. Forget the books they're in, though. Daniel, maybe. Isaiah? So perhaps the idea of Hell, or at least a place you go after the Final Judgement was around, it just didn't make it into the texts.

*Which doesn't fly; it's a bizarre attempt to salvage texts that clearly claim to be true, literal events, but couldn't possibly be. Jesus himself says that Noah was real. But geology, genetics, and historical evidence to the contrary makes Noah impossible. So Jesus had to have been wrong. How can you even try to wriggle around that?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

Doesn't that just make the problem worse, though? Why, indeed how, would/could God inspire contradiction?

Again, the different authors did not expect to be combined into the same texts and put in the same book. Also, depending on where you are, the concerns "we" have now were not the concerns back at the time of composition.

The apocryphal books were left out because of their contradictions.

Or because they did not mesh with the Proto-Orthodoxy to steal Ehrman's term.

Why the doctrinal contradictions weren't completely removed from the texts is a real mystery to me.

They tried. Again, no one expected the texts to be combined. For example, the Chronicler wrote an alternative to the Deuteronomistic History. He did not expect to be put in the same book with it. Simiarly, P did not expect to be combined with J and E. Go to the NT and Mt and Lk sure as shit did not expect to be together with Mk.

In the transmission of texts, there are orthodox corruptions. By the time you get to true canonization, there texts are already known.

The Koran doesn't contradict itself nearly as much as the Bible, . . .

and Islam has had far fewer schisms,

The NT texts clearly hold that departed souls went to Sheol after death.

Eeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaano. That is HB texts. Depending on where you are in the NT you have a Kingdom on Earth after the eschaton, you have resurrections, you have all sorts of crap.

What the NT does seem to invent is the idea of Hell, . . .

Public relations: you have to convince the sheep to stay in your pen and not wander off to someone else's. You have to give a bit of negative reinforcement.

I am at a bit of a loss over what your overall point is.

--J.D.

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Again, the different authors did not expect to be combined into the same texts and put in the same book.

Right, the Gospel etc. authors didn't. But the author of Timothy concerned himself with this problem. Why? Was 150 CE really that late in the congealing of orthodox Christianity?

Irenaeus was railing against the Gnostics around then, but I thought it was much more gradual than the better part of a century.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

They tried. Again, no one expected the texts to be combined. For example, the Chronicler wrote an alternative to the Deuteronomistic History. He did not expect to be put in the same book with it. Simiarly, P did not expect to be combined with J and E. Go to the NT and Mt and Lk sure as shit did not expect to be together with Mk.

In the transmission of texts, there are orthodox corruptions. By the time you get to true canonization, there texts are already known.

So 2 Timothy's "all scripture is given . . ." was an attempt to patch something that it was too late to throw away?

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Compared to the Bible. It's like comparing swiss cheese to a screen door. They both have holes.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

From my reading of the history, this seems to be true. There's just a few.
Christianity has had how many?

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Eeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaano. That is HB texts. Depending on where you are in the NT you have a Kingdom on Earth after the eschaton, you have resurrections, you have all sorts of crap.

Hmmm.

Not having read the texts in depth for myself, which is something I should rectify, I can only say what I was taught in church:

Baptists hold that Sheol was harrowed by Jesus (this is in the NT, isn't it, when Jesus grabs the keys to death, hell and the grave*?), the righteous went to Heaven, then with Jesus' return the devout righteous get their resurrected spiritual superpowered bodies, both those returning to Earth from Heaven, and those still on the Earth alive. First Judgement. The damned are judged**. Then the 1,000 Year Reign. Then the final battle between Good and Evil. Then the Second Judgement. The newly righteous, born in the Millennium, get their glorified bodies(or maybe this happens before the Final Battle, can't remember). Then the second batch of damned go to Hell***. Satan is cast into the pit forever after the Final Battle. Then the Eternal Earthly Age, or whatever it's called. Those who had spirit salvation but weren't righteous don't get the special bodies; but neither do they go to Hell.

Like I said, I find it a little impressive that they've managed to stitch together a coherent narrative out of disparate books, one of which is heavily into symbology and batshit insane. Of course millions of them have had since the early 17th Century, so perhaps it's not that impressive.

Originally Posted by Doctor X

I am at a bit of a loss over what your overall point is.

There is none. Just trying to learn the origins of these myths and dogmas.

Tapping your erudition.



*Though why they weren't always in God's control is a bit of a theological mystery.

**The point of this is rather mysterious to me, they're already damned.

***How anyone manages to not convert during this Age is a bit of a mystery.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

Right, the Gospel etc. authors didn't.

Nor did the various HB authors.

But the author of Timothy concerned himself with this problem. Why? Was 150 CE really that late in the congealing of orthodox Christianity?

Very late. Heck Mt and Lk rewrote Mk within ten to twenty years of his composition--both before 100 CE--because they had problems with his text.

Irenaeus was railing against the Gnostics around then, but I thought it was much more gradual than the better part of a century.

What was "much more gradual?"

So 2 Timothy's "all scripture is given . . ." was an attempt to patch something that it was too late to throw away?

Absolutely. For example, Marcion thought you should only have Paul's letters and his expurgated version of Lk--removing all dem Jews!

Compared to the Bible. It's like comparing swiss cheese to a screen door. They both have holes.

Which is kind of what I mean. You have to look at Islam, today, as Christianity in Seville, 1537 . . . just after siesta. You do not see the arguments as easily as we see in other religions because of the intimidation, repression, and all of that. However, there was always a history of argument with Islam.

Not having read the texts in depth for myself, which is something I should rectify, I can only say what I was taught in church:

Everyone has to start somewhere.

Baptists hold that Sheol was harrowed by Jesus (this is in the NT, isn't it, when Jesus grabs the keys to death, hell and the grave*?), . . .

Not in the gospels. Mayhaps some later pseudoletter mentions it and I have forgotten.

. . . the righteous went to Heaven, then ["Snip!"--Ed.] Those who had spirit salvation but weren't righteous don't get the special bodies; but neither do they go to Hell.

You are conflating a number of texts which is understandable. People who believe in them naturally expect them to all agree with one another. Anyways, in the earliest extant gospel, Mk, the eschaton was suppose to happen in the life-time of the readers. Technically, the life-time of those contemporary with the Historical Junior. Since the earliest date for Mk is 70 CE, he expected "it" soon, as in "like now." Both Lk and Mt retain this material.

I do not totally agree with the certitude that Erhman declares that the Historical Junior preached apocalysm--certainly not the certitude he has for "this and that" saying being "legitimate"--but he makes a good case which has been made for decades. Be that as it may, Paul had to address the expectation to followers regarding those who have "gone asleep" and, it seemed, missed the "it."

When you get to later texts, the eschaton clearly has not come. The Romans are not going anywhere--everyone is living in the Roman empire anyways, so you need another "reason," another excuse. Different groups had different solutions which worked and did not work to various degrees.

Of course millions of them have had since the early 17th Century, so perhaps it's not that impressive.

I have had a mentor preach out of a phone book. I once, on a challenge, showed how Flaubert's Madame Bovary predicted the scientific paper I was reading--fortunately, I randomly opened to a spiral stair case! Bottom line is if you start with an assumption that the stories "make sense" you can make up an excuse.

For another example: you may be aware that both Mk and Jn lack a birth narrative. Indeed, some versions of Jn are a bit tweaked to sort of give him one! Anyways, the story we all know and love is a conflation of Mt and Lk which contract one another terminally. They date the birth ten years apart, for example. Now, you may also be aware of a number of attempts to harmonize these. I, and most scholars, find them laughable, but that is not what is important to a believer--he just has to find support for the story he wants.

There is none. Just trying to learn the origins of these myths and dogmas.

Tapping your erudition.

Fair enough. I was getting the impression you were trying to reconcile some of the stories. I do get this from Christians who are in the process of accepting the texts are just "stories" but still want to believe in them.

--J.D.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

Ecclesiastes says that the ability to love ends at death; if that doesn't deny the idea of an afterlife I don't know what does!

Biblically defined, death is the wages of sin. Biblical death is hell. Eternal life is heaven. See Revelation and other parts of the NT--it speaks of eternal life. So you see, it completely supports the idea of an afterlife.

[Vivisectus]

... if you really want it to.

Can we make it support the idea that dogs go to heaven next? Can we can we can we?

[Sock Puppet]

Your boxer sucks cocks in HELL, Sectus!

[Vivisectus]

French mastiff, thankyouverymuch.

And anyway, she's alive, so you are only half right!

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

... if you really want it to.

It's you that is stretching.

wages of sin = death= hell. Romans 6:23 Ain't gonna be feeling the love in hell.

Eternal life:

Originally Posted by the Bible

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." KJV

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." NIV

John 10:30 "The Father and I are one." NLT

John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." KJV

John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." NIV

John 5:24 "I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life." NLT

John 6:47 "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." NIV

John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." KJV

John 11:25-26 "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" NIV

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. KJV

Luke 24:22-23 "Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive." KJV

Luke 24:36-43 "While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, 'Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, 'Do you have anything here to eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence." NIV

John 20:27-29 "Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here and see my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don't be faithless any longer. Believe!' 'My Lord and my God!' Thomas exclaimed. Then Jesus told him, 'You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me and believe anyway.'"

Use any other source you want to disprove an afterlife, but the Bible ain't gonna do it.

[Charmion]

On a side note, has anyone heard about this?

Could this be the biggest find since the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Seventy metal books found in cave in Jordan could change
our view of Biblical history

By Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 8:36 PM on 30th March 2011

For scholars of faith and history, it is a treasure trove too precious for price. This ancient collection of 70 tiny books, their lead pages bound with wire, could unlock some of the secrets of the earliest days of Christianity.

Academics are divided as to their authenticity but say that if verified, they could prove as pivotal as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.

On pages not much bigger than a credit card, are images, symbols and words that appear to refer to the Messiah and, possibly even, to the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Adding to the intrigue, many of the books are sealed, prompting academics to speculate they are actually the lost collection of codices mentioned in the Bible’s Book Of Revelation.

The books were discovered five years ago in a cave in a remote part of Jordan to which Christian refugees are known to have fled after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. Important documents from the same period have previously been found there.

Initial metallurgical tests indicate that some of the books could date from the first century AD.
This estimate is based on the form of corrosion which has taken place, which experts believe would be impossible to achieve artificially.

If the dating is verified, the books would be among the earliest Christian documents, predating the writings of St Paul.

70 metal books found in Jordan cave could change our view of Biblical history
Metal books discovery may have ties to First Century Christianity
BBC News - Derby expert examines 'ancient Christian books'

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

Use any other source you want to disprove an afterlife, but the Bible ain't gonna do it.

You're under the impression that the Bible is consistent.

The NT has a God that is so loving that he gave his Son so man might be saved, but the OT has God murdering people in mass because they're bored with their monotonous food, and would just like a little variety.

Yahweh gets his ass kicked by another god, fights the Leviathan, and is afraid of the people who're building the Tower of Babel.

Very different Gods.

[Kashmir]

Those mini-books, if proved genuinely ancient, can't be dated to a specific decade, or even century, I don't think. They're lead, not organic. Carbon 14 dating can only get you to within seventy years.

The patina only suggests they're ancient, it can't give further information. What those scholars have is wishful thinking. Ancient metal patinas can be faked using chemicals, in any case, so it's not a foregone conclusion they're even old.

The site they were buried at (if indeed they're not fakes) has been disturbed, so nothing can be determined from how deep they were buried, and what other artifacts were in the same layers--which could potentially give a burial date accurate to within seventy years, or maybe even down to a few decades if unique date markers are found. Coins, for instance.

They do look cool, though. Real or fake, they're interesting. They took a lot of work to make.

Fake religious artifacts sell, so I wouldn't hold out much hope that these prove to be genuine. James Ossuary, anyone? All the fake relics in Catholic churches?

Hell, St. Peter's in Rome is supposed to have the spear that pierced Jesus' side! How could you even determine the legitimacy of that claim? Yet there it is.

[Kashmir]

What does Romans 8:29 say in the original Greek?

I've heard Calvinists use that verse to support predestination salvation, and Baptists won't have any of that--that it's actually talking about the church being predestined, not individuals.

To me, though, the Calvinist interpretation seems to be consistent with the words. It really takes some twisting to make it say something else.

[Doctor X]

They could have used Jn to support predestination, but I never respected Calvinistic understanding of anything.

--J.D.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

What does Romans 8:29 say in the original Greek?

I've heard Calvinists use that verse to support predestination salvation, and Baptists won't have any of that--that it's actually talking about the church being predestined, not individuals.

What about the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists. Also Particular Baptists, Reformed Baptists, etc.

[Miss Shelby]

kashmir, you have to follow the lineage from the line of Judah.

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

kashmir, you have to follow the lineage from the line of Judah.

To reach the Emerald City?

[Kashmir]

How did ancient Judaism view the contents of the HB? Was it literal history to them?

Since there're genealogies traced down from Adam, through Noah, Abraham, and so on, it would seem it was intended to be literal history to them. You don't trace your ancestry back to what you believe to be allegorical mythical figures.

The whole allegorizing of the OT and NT seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, post-Enlightenment, in this Age of Science when we now know these things either didn't happen (in the case of Egyptian captivity, sans the supernatural), or couldn't have happened (Eden story, Flood, assorted other zany myths).

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

How did ancient Judaism view the contents of the HB? Was it literal history to them?

Depends on the text, the time period you are in, et cetera. As more than enough have noted, the concept of "history" we use now is different from the past. The authors did not intend to create factual history as we understand it. They provided a past they wanted, a message they wanted. Further, given the way one writer alters another, you can see that the concept of historical accuracy is foreign to them.

Since there're genealogies traced down from Adam, through Noah, Abraham, and so on, it would seem it was intended to be literal history to them.

Not at all. The "begats" serve to establish a time-line and a connection to the past. That is exactly what the conflictiong genealogies of Junior attempt to do: connect him to a lofty past.

You don't trace your ancestry back to what you believe to be allegorical mythical figures.

Of course you do. What is important is the link and not the details.

The whole allegorizing of the OT and NT seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, post-Enlightenment. . . .

See Philo of Alexandria. Heck there are allegorical stories in the HB.

--J.D.