Holy book or holey book?

[Zzyzx]

.
Holy book or holey book?
Case of Jesus and the Adulteress

Most of us are familiar with the tale in John 8 about Jesus saving an adulteress from being stoned.

What most are probably NOT familiar with is that the tale does NOT appear in the earliest known copies of the Bible. Neither the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus contain that story.

Those two, the earliest known existing copies of the Bible, do not contain the “Pericope Adulterae" (story of Jesus and 'let the one without sin cast the first stone'). So where did that story come from, why was it added to the Bible, and by whom and what authority.

Did someone make up that tale?

Weren't the sinaiticus and Vaticuanus accurate and correct Bibles?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 10 by liamconnor]

liamconnor wrote:

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Demons and pigs:

First, I do not a priori rule out the existence of supernatural and hostile powers. I do not claim to know, if they existed, what interactions they could have with the human brain.

It's not necessary to know about the existence of supernatural and hostile powers. I'm not saying that the idea of demons possessing humans itself is impossible. However, it makes no sense in a theology where we are supposed to be able to trust a God.

So, this really comes down to the Problem of Evil.

And because you cannot find an answer to the "Why evil?" question, therefore, there is no answer, and therefore no god (or not that god)?

The argument is from our inability to find an answer?

liamconnor wrote:

Second, I do not approach the Bible as a single book, which sinks or swims together: if the incident of the pigs was fabricated, that belief does not by itself create a ripple which destroys all the other claims. Each claim is to be studied on its own merit. That is how all historians operate. I have little interest in defending The Bible as GOD'S WORD.

That's your position. Moreover, if you embrace this position then you are in harmony with my position. I have made it clear many times on these forums, my position is simply this: The Biblical account of God cannot be true as it is written.

We are not in harmony. I do not reject the authenticity of the account on moral grounds; I simply remain unsure on historical grounds.


Hypothetical Q: suppose there were a God but quite independent of the biblical god; suppose Jesus was most certainly not this God in the flesh. Would the evidence convince you that Jesus was raised, even if (unfortunately) everyone interpreted this as an act of the biblical god?

The problem is that many of the arguments you give to support Christian Theology would also need to support all the other religions as well. You seem to be totally ignoring, or forgetting this fact.

I have never ignored this. The fact is, the quality of the documents (dates, implications, etc.) for other religions do not even compare with what we have in the situation of Christianity.

If you expect me to explain why someone would tell a story about Jesus casting demons from humans into pigs,

I don't. I thought this obvious when I said that I couldn't. I was presenting a difference between our historical inclinations.

then how about you explaining to me why someone would tell a story about Muhammad going up to heaven to argue with God about how many times Muslims should have to pray each day?

Before my explanation, I first observe what dating we have to work with; whether eyewitnesses are even implied; whether the story challenges the presuppositions of the author and/or religious atmosphere.


After discovering the very poor historical credentials, I conclude the story was invented to avoid factions and establish unity.

And just so I am not accused of favoritism, I will turn this critical eye to the gospels:

Both Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus' infancy years, and both place his birth in Bethlehem. But the means by which they place him there are disparate. I see a number of options, but I will skip all of them but the most skeptical: both Matthew and Luke were aware of the Micah prophecy; they therefore feel he must have been born there, and so create what they think are plausible means of getting him there. That is, that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem is a plausible explanation.

I do not see how I can demonstrate my fairness any more in my historical scrutiny of the data.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 9 by 1213]

I can't believe this - you really do not read other people's posts do you?

In this thread we recapped the fallacy of the story:

[Please read our posts]

[bjs]

What most are probably NOT familiar with is that the tale does NOT appear in the earliest known copies of the Bible.

This was the part that seem like the most outlandish and implausible claim to me. Nearly every modern translation of the Bible has the passage set off with a note saying something like, “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11.�

How can you seriously suggest that most people are not familiar with the fact that this account is not found in the earliest manuscripts?

[liamconnor]

What most are probably NOT familiar with is that the tale does NOT appear in the earliest known copies of the Bible.

This was the part that seem like most outlandish and implausible claim to me. Nearly every modern translation of the Bible has the passage set off with a note saying something like, “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11.�

How can you seriously suggest that most people are not familiar with the fact that this account is not found in the earliest manuscripts?

correct. I think this thread is done. Z? Do you agree?

[1213]

Jesus told them that only those who are without sin are to cast the first stone. That was never in the Old Testament. So Jesus was wrong.

I think you should look again what the Bible actually says.

Now very early in the morning, he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him. He sat down, and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst, they told him, "Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?" They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her."
John 8:2-7

Now, according to that, people asked in temple what they should do to the woman who was caught. Jesus doesn’t answer they should not stone her. He says just that the on without sin should begin. They all had chance to stone her, but no one taught they were sinless. They could have admitted that and then stone her, but for some reason nobody did that.

Jesus also didn’t stone her, because he had right to forgive and act as it is said for judges in the Law:

"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9
I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6

It makes me wonder, why people ignore all the rules for judges and are only focused on stoning people. Also, not all people are judges, set by God, so perhaps people should be careful before judging.

So Jesus couldn't have been "God" either.

Bible tells there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus who is the temple of God. Jesus also says he doesn’t know all that God knows.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/index_eng.html

[Willum]

[Replying to post 15 by 1213]

I think you should look again at what the other people actually say. Here I fixed what you said up a little, making it a little more grounded in reality.

Now very early in the morning, Billy Graham came again into the temple, and all the people came to him. Billy sat down, and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst, they told him, "Reverend, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such. What then do you say about her?" They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of. But Billy stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her."
John 8:2-7

Now, according to that, people don't ask reverends what to do in the case of a crime, which adultery was. Billy doesn’t answer they should not stone her, because he is a private citizen without a dog in the fight, like you and I. He says just that adultery should not be punished. They all had chance to stone her, but no one taught they were sinless. So, when the actual authorities caught up with her and her disgusting sinful lover, they stoned them to death. Fortunately there were no cynical Greeks or Sadducee in the crowd, or else the story would never have survived.

Billy also didn’t stone her, because he recognized that that bronze age law is despicable, despite it being a Ten Commandment, and he recognized the Ten Commandments are suggestions, really.

"Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9
I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's (and thus his Rabbi on Earth): and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
"Insert inappropriate quote here."
Exodus 23:1-3
Weasel words to assume the story was true when it makes the Christian point, but false where it supports it, as well.
Deuteronomy 17:6

It makes me wonder, why people ignore all the rules for Reality and human nature and are only focused on doing God's will as dictated in the commandments.

[1213]

[Replying to post 15 by 1213]

I think you should look again at what the other people actually say. ...

Sorry, I think I have done that and I don’t see what did I miss in your opinion?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 17 by 1213]

Obviously you did not:
Many of us have stated it many times, in many ways, and I exaggerated it in my re-wording of your own post, yet you still need to ask.

[Divine Insight]

liamconnor wrote:

Second, I do not approach the Bible as a single book, which sinks or swims together: if the incident of the pigs was fabricated, that belief does not by itself create a ripple which destroys all the other claims. Each claim is to be studied on its own merit. That is how all historians operate. I have little interest in defending The Bible as GOD'S WORD.

That's your position. Moreover, if you embrace this position then you are in harmony with my position. I have made it clear many times on these forums, my position is simply this: The Biblical account of God cannot be true as it is written.

We are not in harmony. I do not reject the authenticity of the account on moral grounds; I simply remain unsure on historical grounds.

But you are in harmony with my position. My position is that the Bible cannot be true as it is written. (no moral assessments required)

And that's the position you have just agreed with above. You are willing to accept that parts of the Bible may indeed be totally fabricated and not trustworthy to be "God's Word".

Moreover, once we get into the habit of rejecting parts of the Bible then we can no longer claim that we obtain our moral values from the Bible. Instead, we end up pushing our own personal moral values onto the Bible based on which parts of the Bible we accept and which parts we reject.

Hypothetical Q: suppose there were a God but quite independent of the biblical god; suppose Jesus was most certainly not this God in the flesh. Would the evidence convince you that Jesus was raised, even if (unfortunately) everyone interpreted this as an act of the biblical god?

No, because there is no "evidence" that anyone had actually died and returned from the dead. All that exist are unverifiable rumors. Rumors that could have easily been started simply because a person who was believed to be dead turned out to not have actually died.

So there is no "evidence" that anyone was raised from the dead. If you think that such evidence exists that's your personal opinion. And it's certainly an opinion that cannot be backed up by any compelling evidence. All you have to go by are unverifiable stories. That's hardly evidence that anyone had actually died and was later raised from the dead.

So there is no "evidence" to back up these stories.

Also, you were wrong about Jesus being restored to perfect health. The scriptures themselves have a wounded Jesus walking around after the crucifixion complete with the wounds he had received during the crucifixion. This actually favors the conclusion that he simply survived the crucifixion rather than having been magically resurrected by a supernatural God.

In fact, your incorrect assumption that Jesus was restored to perfect health would actually make sense if Jesus had been magically resurrected by a supreme God. But clearly that's not what the stories have to say about the matter.

I do not see how I can demonstrate my fairness any more in my historical scrutiny of the data.

What "data"? All you have to go by are unverifiable stories. That's hardly constitutes "data". So you are miss-characterizing the material you are working with.

Your claim that you have historical "data" to work with is actually a misrepresentation of the truth. Whether this misrepresentation of truth is intentional or due to ignorance I will not speculate on. But the fact remains that unverifiable stories do not constitute "data".

So your claim that you have "data" as evidence for the resurrection of Christ is simply false. All you have are unverified rumors. And you're wrongfully calling that "data" as though it represents some sort of measured or verified result.

[bluethread]

Yet, the detractors drag it out again and again, insisting on a simplistic interpretation that does not taking the applicable laws into account, so that they can accuse Yeshua of violating those laws. How Ironic.