Doesn't the new testament bible talk about aquarius/ganymede. So to me the new testament is no better then the old testament like many liberal fluffy loving xtians proclaim think. I'm trying to research negative things about the new testament any help would be great:) One thing I found out while researching human sacrifice within christianity is that their is some evidence that the bible was edited to change the fact that Isaac was actually sacrificed.

Views: 800

Replies to This Discussion

For example the polytheism of the jews was edited out of the bible the original jews were polytheistic not monotheistic. The bible has been edited over time. I don't agree with the bible but I find it a fascinating historic document to study.

I don't know about edited out, rather than just occurring quite a bit earlier than when the Torah was actually codified and written down, which was when the concept of monotheism was pretty well-established among the Jewish people. There are a couple of interesting remnants in those writings, though: 1) the word "elohim" which is still used to refer to god, has a plural form (-im). 2) there are a number of words (still used) for god, such as YHWH (NOT Jehovah, and probably not Yahweh, as the Christians have interpreted it), and El Shaddai, which may point to earlier polytheism, or possibly the absorption of other tribes. 3) the ancient custom of a defeated tribe adopting the god of the victorious tribe, sort of like "My god is stronger than your god" which actually implies a belief in the existence of both.

You have to remember that the Torah was the product of a long oral tradition before it was written down, so as with any oral tradition, things must have surely changed. What is interesting is that when it WAS finally written down, there came about the tradition of strict proofreading of each Torah scroll, and if even one letter was written imperfectly, the whole scroll was rendered unfit for use. To me, this seems to imply an awareness of the imperfection of oral tradition, and the need to be precise in passing down the tribal heritage.

 I also relate how atheists may feel the need to be accepted by their parents even if they don't believe what their parents believe. So this causes moral problems. But the new testament seems to have a lot of moral problems in itl its not good when family members will disown their child for pointing out the bad things in religion. I think little children should grow and research on their own I don't believe they should be brainwashed to believe in a higher being.

As George stated humans are born with a basic moral sense, however, it is our social surrounding, traditions and parenting is what really defines what we consider moral.

Atheists are questioned constantly about their morals and at times, I am sure, we are not even considered as real humans because of our lack of faith. The standards that are put in place by religious beliefs has been injected into those who believe so deeply that they cannot see the light (so to speak).

Of course I can say that I know many christians that are completely immoral as well as many jews, atheists and the list goes on. The main question is: are humans completely moral at all? We as a collective race cannot seem to make up our minds which topics belong in what moral department and differing opinions will also alter perceptions.

Are morals really something we should even be worried about in this day and age? In my opinion it is just another moot argument between christians and atheists.

Suzanne,  My go-to verses to connect the pernicious old testament directly with the new is from Matthew 5:17-19 in which Jesus says:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy , but to fulfil . 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled . 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

That "law" that the mythical Jesus is talking about there is the Mosaic Law which includes all the hideous parts of Deuteronomy & Leviticus and the silly restrictions on clothes and shellfish.  Jesus is saying that he is not here to change "one jot or one tittle", i.e. not one part of any letter of any one word of the Mosaic Law.

The fuzzy-feel-good Xtian Joel Osteen crowd don't like that Deuteronomy & Leviticus stuff and will tell you ad infinatum, ad nauseum, that J-Boy didn't play that; that he would never stone to death any whores or homos.  It even says so in John 8:7, the story where J-Boy saves the whore.  Of course, everyone knows that story was added to the bible in the 13th Century.  Read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".

My favorite bible-exploder is Silberman & Finklestein's "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts",  which proves that the the Torah was written in the 7th century BCE as a political polemic to unite the prosperous Northern territories of Canaan with the ghouls in the decrepit South.

Suzanne,  My go-to verses to connect the pernicious old testament directly with the new is from Matthew 5:17-19 in which Jesus says:

Yup, that's another nice go-to segment, if you need a solid reference.

Even without a specific verse though, you can shut down the "Oh, that's the Old Testament," people with a few simple points.  The Old Testament is the foundational document.  It defines the character of their god ... which is to say, it exposes him as a war god.  Unless they want to argue that this eternal, omnipotent, omniscient god was changed by the Israelites (as Moses did in Deuteronomy 9:26-29, which kind of puts the whole omniscience thing in the crapper), they've got nothing.

Stephen, that verifies what a devoutly Christian friend who studies the Bible from a historical point of view told me: Matthew was written as a tract (read: propaganda) intended to convert Jews to Christianity. So it's obvious that he would emphasize what was important to them: following the law they had been taught to respect.

On the other hand, John (or was it Luke?) was aimed at the Greeks, and emphasized the word (logos) which was important to the Greeks, and explicitly excused them from unwanted Jewish customs like keeping kosher and circumcision.

Paul's writings (not all of which are really his) were aimed at the Romans, and others tailored to that population as well, so when it came to WHO killed Jesus, it was more expedient to blame the Jews, who had no real reason to kill him in order to take the onus off the Romans, who had EVERY reason to kill him.

So, from MY point of view, the New Testament was ALL propaganda, and was being used for political purposes in order to sway the populace, and has nothing to do with reality at all. Lots of manufactured myth and parables made up to make a point, but in no way making Christianity superior to any other similarly artificial religion. It's just that Christian myth is nowhere near so charming as some of the mythology of other peoples, and is WAY too influential in our modern world!

Here, check this out: 

And for the record, the whole concept of hell and eternal damnation was not really emphasized until the "New Testament"

Interestingly, it's not a particularly common thought in modern Judaism, either. There is a dim concept of "Sheol", which means "a watery place", certainly not the Christian fiery hell, but other than that, nothing.

When I was 10, I asked my Jewish mother where we go after we die, and she simply said "we go back to where we came from." Well, I think that's about as good an answer as anyone is going to give you: if you believe in god, then you go back to god, but if you believe that we are a product of the atoms of the earth, and biological processes, well, we go back to being atoms of the earth, and recycled by biological processes into whatever comes next. It's a good explanation for an atheist, too! :-)

It's cool not to be banned or shunned anytime I would ask these type of questions to theists they would ban me or even disown me So I'm so happy to get great responses. They are all awesome I have learned so much from alll of you and I know i have much more to learn. I don't have the right answers I just started researching this in the last few years so any help is great. And thanks so much for all the help you gave me so far.

Can't we just answer this question with a NO and leave it at that.... :)

I agree alice carr I shouldn't have made this post when I was frustrated but I agree with what you said. I shouldn't have posted it like this. I hope your doing well I mainly go to chat but I'm online at times.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service