Bible

I'm interested in starting to read the Bible, out of curiosity and a desire to know what it's about more than anything (I'm an atheist). Where do I start? I once had a guide but forgot. Some said to start with Mark, then Matthew or John; I plan on reading all of the gospels first, then the rest of the New Testament, then whatever else might be interesting in the Old Testament.

Also, what version should I use? Currently reading the New English Translation (NET Bible), that seems to be a mix between literal interpretation of the source material and readability; unfortunately my PC version doesn't have footnotes, but the online version does. I've also heard the New International Version is good. Not sure what else is; if anyone can give me links to downloads, I'd appreciate it.

Other urls found in this thread:

lumina.bible.org/
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 1&version=ESV
youtube.com/watch?v=jaAWj9yv6DY
youtube.com/watch?v=reYBCz_kf1c
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It' a hell of a read to actually just sit down and work through but it's worth it, it's absolutely hilarious.

Nothing could cement an athiest perspective quite like actually sitting down and reading the bible (not to lessen the important of the cultural and philosophical content within)

Maybe if you take some things in the Old Testament literally, but so far in Mark (I'm up to 2:18) I don't see what's "hilarious". Jesus basically just heals a bunch of people (fever, leprosy, paralysis) and drives demons out of some others.

>Where do I start?
>I plan on reading all of the gospels first, then the rest of the New Testament, then whatever else might be interesting in the Old Testament.
yep that's what i'd recommend

>Currently reading the New English Translation (NET Bible)
yep that's what i'd recommend too, if you're reading it on lumina's website ( lumina.bible.org/ ) there is a really handy tab that has all of dr. constable's notes, they're really good.

>I've also heard the New International Version is good
it's trash

Mark is the most basic of the Gospels, an easy read but my favorite.
Matthew portrays jesus as more of a teacher and contains lots of his teaching
Luke focuses on Jesus's miracles and healings
John really talks about how Jesus in a different way and focuses a lot on his divinity

The old testament is pretty cool, a lot of it is just old moral codes and stuff like that but some of it reads like a fantasy novel with stories of kings and battles and stuff.

First and second Kings are my favorite books in the bible.

>Maybe if you take some things in the Old Testament literally
Which you were required to do for a thousand years or be tortured to death, exiled, stoned, etc.

Thanks for this, now I know what to expect. What's interesting in the Old Testament? I'm familiar with Genesis and Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus I think are about laws, then I know the story of Job, but the rest I don't know, must be something about the kings Samson or Samuel or David in there.

Start with a summary of the historical period between the Old and New Testaments. Most study bibles have them in between the two. Then start with Matthew.

I doubt it but ok.

>Most study bibles

I guess I don't have that. Why is that important?

Begin and end with Ecclesiastes

Well you should understand that it is the creation mythology of Judaism.

It reads like the ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Sumerian myths upon which it was based in large part, only with a focus on the people of modern day Palestine.

The most notable related points come prior to the Bible, in the stoic philosophies of Jesus, as per the Gospel of Thomas.

>I doubt it but ok.
Don't doubt the inquisitors man, that's also a crime. Doubt was a crime. Read the findings of the Council of Trent and history of medieval dogmatism.

>"Dark ages dogmatism never happened! Christianity is a religion of peace! It's all allegorical!"

OK I believe you. You seem more knowledgeable about the subject than me. What about today? Literal interpretation or no?

Read about the Historical Jesus. A man named Jesus probably did exist, is as likely to have existed as Socrates (in both cases, all we have are the writings of the antecedents). Mark was the first gospel and Luke and Matthew are essentially rewrites but they incorporate texts from what scholars hypothesize as source Q. John comes in later and is very different.

>Gospel of Thomas
>stoic philosophies of Jesus

Why have I never heard of this? That's awesome! Jesus and Marcus Aurelius had something in common? Where can I find out more?

>Read about the Historical Jesus.

Good source on this? Also why are only Americans replying to me?

The life of a historical man named Jesus was merged with the typical tale of apotheosis - a mortal man being a god or becoming a god. Many stories exist - Zoroaster, etc etc. Many times the men don't die but are lifted into heaven. Like the flood myths, there are stories that are essential and human and timeless. What is important about Jesus are his teachings. That is why they were immortalized.

>Why have I never heard of this?

Because most of the bible isn't included in the bible

Any study bible. The Bible itself is unreadably contextless and assumes that you already know or will soon learn a wealth of meanings and connections, which are laid out in the text, but not clearly enough for the average modern lay reader to understand. Almost all atheist "gotcha" attacks come from reading the Bible directly and unprepared.

>What about today? Literal interpretation or no?
A modern secularized Christian will say "no, it's allegorical", but that is because Science has provided a better explanation than Dogma, and so they have implicitly ceased being "Christian" from the perspective of the "Christianity of a hundred plus years ago".

But if you're reading it from the perspective of "how did the people who wrote this believe?", then they all literally believed it was all true, including Isaac Newton who searched the Bible for clues to "divine secrets", before settling more to work on secular physics.

In my estimation, if you are viewing it as allegorical myth, there is no reason to subscribe to it at all, since scientific ethics supersede it at that point.

>I believe you
don't, he's full of shit, the gospel of thomas is a 4th century gnostic forgery

>Why have I never heard of this?
As says, the cult which wrote the Bible had the goal of protecting itself by enforcing mysticism and blind belief.

Historical Jesus is theorized to have been a stoic philosopher, and many things like "turn the other cheek" were stoic philosophies of the time.

The cult however shut down the stoic school of philosophy, and ensure that mystic platonism was promoted over it, again possibly to protect themselves from the similarities.

Start at the beginning. That's how books work. You start at the beginning and read to the end.

Read the Quran

Most of my harry potter fanfic isn't included in the official series. Are you saying my fanfic is just as valid?

>4th century
Not according to modern historians.

It and Q source, the oral sayings of Jesus, are noted to be the basis of the Bible, which was written after to conform to Judaic mythology.

The authors of the Bible did not know Jesus, they compiled his tales later from oral tradition.

>The cult however shut down the stoic school of philosophy

Interesting. How did it take over the Roman Empire and become so widespread, so that in Egypt, Britain, Dacia, they were there? Why was the Church so important to states in the Medieval period, and to their expansion (e.g. Sweden into Finland, Teutonic Order into the Baltics, Crusades in the "Holy Land")? Where can I read more?

>The cult however shut down the stoic school of philosophy, and ensure that mystic platonism was promoted over it, again possibly to protect themselves from the similarities.

Or just tell me where I can read more about this in detail.

Old Testament is great but the value comes from recognizing meaningful patterns because all the stories are basically exploring the same themes from different perspectives. Once you get past the history parts and get to Psalms, the wisdom writings, and Prophets you'll understand how the Old Testament already is pretty directly pointing to the New Testament (most of Jesus' supposedly radical teachings are just restatements or direct quotes of things you'll find in the latter half of the Old Testament).

Proverbs in particular has a lot of practical advice that is relevant even today.

Are you implying that any of the accounts in the Bible are first hand?

You understand that much, much more scripture has been included throughout the years (much of it older than what is considered canon today) and has been progressively added in and stripped away by various groups over it's two thousand year history?

well said

Try a YouTube series; an atheist bible study by The Bible Reloaded. They skip all the genealogy stuff that is boring and is meaningless.

They have one for the child and camel fuckers sky book called The Quran Reloaded.

To this point.
The Chinese have a story about a man who loved dragons. He cluttered his home with ceramic, wood, metal, and painted decorations of the dragon motif. His love for dragon art was so famous that it came to the attention of actual dragons. One visited and wanted to ask what the origin of the man's fixation was, but the man was terrified at the sight of a real dragon and ran away screaming.
Now look at Paul Crouch's Trinity Broadcasting Network.

>Or just tell me where I can read more about this in detail.
The conversion from Roman Philosophy to Christian Dogmatism occurred perhaps most finally during the reign of Emperor Theodosius, who shut down the pagan temples and democratic systems to implement Feudalism across Rome. You may read of his reign.

Prior to that, Christians gained power through taking over the Roman public schooling system, and then the aristocracy which used it as a means of controlling the plebeians. You may read of the reign of Emperor Julian, who attempted to reverse this before his untimely death, to restore Hellenic Freedom of Religion.

Finally, Justinian, shut down the last Greek philosophical schools, and broke treaties with Egypt to hunt down and kill the last Priests of Osiris, maintaining the old Egyptian ways.

Thus the Classics faded into history.

If you actually read Gospel of Thomas, it's not really the "stoic philosophies of Jesus". It's just a collection of quotes attributed to Jesus, the vast majority of which are already contained in the canonical Gospels. A few quotes are entirely unique to Gospel of Thomas and they are fairly interesting, but I wouldn't say they paint a radically different portrait of Jesus (they're things the canonical Gospel Jesus could plausibly and without contradiction have said).

>are already contained in the canonical Gospels
They are not. The wording is very notably different.

Jesus spoke of the concept of "truth", in the Greek philosophical way, which was replaced with Yahweh in the Judaic integration that was the Bible.

Start with the gospels yes, they all tell the same story from different perspectives, but I would personally recommend John since he goes into more detail about the crucifixion account.

Next comes Acts, which shows how the early Church began and it is amazing. It's all amazing really, there's not a single book I wouldn't recommend.

I personally read the ESV (English Standard Version), I don't know the NET but I found the ESV to be easy to understand and being accurate in translation. NIV is fine too I think, but I remember choosing ESV over it, for reasons I don't remember...

You can find the entire Bible and all the different translations from Biblegateway.com:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John 1&version=ESV

Have fun :)

Find the archived lectures of Father Matthew Raphael Johnson, notably on the book of Isaiah.

The epistles by Peter claim to be first hand accounts by the actual Peter. There's no convincing historical evidence that anyone other than Peter wrote these epistles, beyond incredulity about the supernatural claims contained therein. If someone was lying about the supernatural claims, I don't see why Peter, one of the founders of the Christian movement, couldn't have done it himself.

I'm biased as a Muslim, but here goes:

Read it from the perspective of different cultures.
Start with the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) for the Jewish version.

Then add on the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and Psalms, and you have the Islamic view of what is true in the Bible (though seen to be incredibly exploited and corrupted).

Proverbs and Revelation are also worthwhile.

This thread Is a disaster. Atheists derailing it for their own agenda. Gnostics being Gnostics.

As to your original question, I would buy a book that compares the texts of the three synoptic gospels (excludes John). The parallels are not as easy to see when you read the books sequentially or wholly because Matthew and Luke authors rearranged Mark and added Q material in different ways. The authors changed the text of Mark (which scholars argue was a written version of an oral history) in surprising and interesting ways.

What do you mean?

>John
Written as a fictional response to the ancient popularity of Thomas and perhaps Manichaeism, which was larger than Christianity and incorporated the words of Jesus.

Again, one can trace the historical sources.

The Bible is not corrupted. Good on you for being honest about what you are, but as an e-Muslim, the notion that the Bible is "corrupt" is arbitrary and an attempt getting legitimacy while telling similar stories.

>"muh mortal man"
>"What is important about Jesus are his teachings"
>Ignores all of Jesus teachings where he explicitly says "I am the son of God"

Cool heresy bro

The rich history in the Old Testament is very interesting to me, the fact that you can read about all the early people who formed our nations today (Mizraim for example, which is literally Egypt in Hebrew) talked about in Genesis for example.

Books like Psalms and Proverbs contain great teaching and music material, lots of praises and wisdom. Isaiah and Daniel contain great prophesies.

Books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy are an interesting insight into the loving yet strict and holy nature of God, as seen by the way he disciplines the Jewish people. It's important to understand that the laws there are meant for the Jewish people of that time only, not for anyone else back then, and nobody at all after Jesus came and fulfilled the law, but that is a deep theological discussion that isn't important right now.

Historians have done so, and the conclusion they all came to is different than yours. The Bible is the most historically credible ancient document in existence, all of academia attests to this, do your homework.

I would rather trust educated academics with multiple degrees than some guy on Sup Forums.

>the notion that the Bible is "corrupt"
One may use the term "corrupt" in the meaning that "it is not what it says it is". Even apart from its editing and 'translating' over time.

It is not a first hand account. Jesus was long dead by the time any of it was written.

Please show me where in the synoptic gospels Jesus refers to himself as "son of God." Referring to God as "my father" and himself as "son" do not count. What you'll find is he said "Son of Man."

Some Biblical corruption is really undeniable, like mentions of Moses' death in books he supposedly wrote.

That said, I always thought it was funny how they taught us to critically read the Bible and then blindly follow Islamic sources. The hadith is best read with a bullshit filter, and it's important to understand the format/context in which the Quran was given to Muhammad.

>Historians have done so, and the conclusion they all came to is different than yours.
Quite false, but one may look up the historical origins of the bible.

>Another argument for an early date is what some scholars have suggested is an interplay between the Gospel of John and the logia of Thomas. Parallels between the two have been taken to suggest that Thomas' logia preceded John's work, and that the latter was making a point-by-point riposte to Thomas, either in real or mock conflict. This seeming dialectic has been pointed out by several New Testament scholars, notably Gregory J. Riley,[37] April DeConick,[38] and Elaine Pagels.[39] Though differing in approach, they argue that several verses in the Gospel of John are best understood as responses to a Thomasine community and its beliefs.

Thus your claim has been disproven.

>academics with multiple degrees
Appeal to authority. The evidence is manifest. You would rather trust Christians who have acquired degrees from Christian Universities, as a confirmation bias.

Umm.. Jesus literally referred to himself as the "I AM" of the Exodus, also the only one with power to forgive sins is God himself.

The evidence is all over the Bible, you'd have to be blind not to see it...

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
(John 8:56)

I think your remark about different wording is missing the point. Even the original language manuscripts for the canonical Gospel will have notably different wordings even though for anyone with basic reading comprehension it's clear that the meaning is the same.

As for your other claim, much of the New Testament is all about adapting the religion of the Jews for the Greek-speaking Gentiles. The Gospel of John literally begins by identifying Jesus as the physical embodiment of the Greek concept Logos (often translated as "the Word" in English, but in the original Greek it is "Logos").

>all these fedorafags

>>all these fedorafags
Virtue signalling image.

You are the nihilists with your fictional 'aftrlife'.

I dont know anything about christianity,only the things i heard online.Can you guys give me any advice on where to start?

Please do you have any sources from Mark, Matthew, or Luke? I already made the argument for interpreting the Historical Jesus as narrowly as possible, so only texts that were theoretically written within a generation or two of Jesus' life. John is called the believer's gospel for a reason.

I don't know why you are singling out the synoptic Gospels to make your argument. In John 10, he explicitly identifies himself as the Son of God, and God.

>Appeal to authority

Then you go
>"QUOTE HERE"
>Thus your claim has been disproven.
lol ok

Anyway, I'm no Historian, so I have to listen to others who have studied the historicity of the Bible for many years and discuss these issues with other historians, Theist and non-Theists alike, and their conclusion is that the Bible is historically actual. In fact most historians agree that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical fact.

Here's some watching material if you're interested:
youtube.com/watch?v=jaAWj9yv6DY
youtube.com/watch?v=reYBCz_kf1c

>and their conclusion is that the Bible is historically actual
A false statement, as already demonstrated. There is no historical evidence for the mystical effects claimed.

Furthermore, as an example, Exodus is purely fictional according to modern archaeology.

>>Appeal to authority
It was. And not only that, it was wrong as well, thus I demonstrated historians with degrees which disproved your claim.

Read Reverend Tim Keller's exposition on Mark concurrently as it will give some much needed context. It used to be called "The King's Cross" but they changed the title for some reason. TK is a very successful Presbyterian minister in NYC b/c he is not dogmatic nor is he dismissive of athiests.

>Ctrl-F "KJV"
>Ctrl-F "King Ja"
>no results

brehs... KJV is the most accurate and best translation

Also
>I'm an atheist
sad. I mean I was agnostic for the longest time and then Kekist for a short time, but why would you be an unironical atheist. How can you be so completely sure? I hope you find the way and start believing in Jesus.

Also, start with Genesis tbqh

Nihilism "argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value."

If we were created completely by chance, then there is no objective morality and no deeper purpose to life.

Nietzsche's argument is a worthwhile read on this. He's not religious, but he argues that religious people have a deeper code of ethics and appreciation for life. He wrote that as atheism becomes popular, society will descend into a culture of nihilism before these religious values are supplanted with new ones.

This. KJV or nothing

>haven't found archeological evidence of jews being slaves in egypt yet
>therefore, exodus is fiction

did the scythians exist?

>How can you be so completely sure?
The same reason we can be sure Aeolus does not blow the winds from four corners of a flat Earth.

These were all myths based upon a physical world humans didn't understand.

Scientific evidence and epistemological skepticism supersedes mythological explanation.

Wow you really bought into the Bart Ehrman hogwash, I feel sorry for you.

Matthew 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.


Pinning your hopes on a stupid technicality that can only stand by discounting 85% of the bible is a stupid path.

Even as a Muslim I have to agree about KJV.
All the other translations absolutely butcher Psalms.

Kjv is crap.

>thou shall not murder (not kill)

>so only texts that were theoretically written within a generation or two of Jesus' life
Second letter of Peter in the New Testament is a first hand account by someone who spent time with Jesus and makes explicit claims about the divinity of Jesus. Maybe he was delusional or lying, the way people in cults are about the leaders of their cult, but the historical evidence for the perception of Jesus as being divine started with his earliest followers.

People who use the expression 'synoptic gospels' have been fully indoctrinated into satanic beliefs without their realization

The gospels are told in a specific way for a specific purpose:

Matthew: the story of a king
Mark: the story of a servant
Luke: the story of a man
John: the story of a God

Sure

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
(Matthew 28:18)

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
(Matthew 1:23)

The above, FYI, fulfills the prophecy in the Old Testament book of Isiah:

"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
(Isaiah 9:6)

These are just a few examples.

If you look at the entire Bible, you will clearly see that Jesus is God in the flesh. From the virgin birth, to the forgiveness of sins and authority he has that only God can have, to the faith that his disciples and many others had in him calling him Lord and God. Thomas literally called Jesus "My Lord, My God!"

His divinity is so clear it blows my mind that anyone would think otherwise... it's literally from the start to the end of the Bible, and somehow, you don't see it?

It was actually going to college that made me religious. The more math, physics, and biology that I took, the more I felt there was an underlying structure to the universe that could only have been designed. Science is fantastically beautiful.

i have a question aswell, im a protestant but i was curious whats Zoroastrianism pol?

Don't read anything from Paul(he is the wofl in sheeps clothing, the Benjamite) that contradicts everything that Jesus and God ever said.

Go to blessyahowah.com they have info that comes from the oldest extant sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Oldest Greek Mauscripts.

All of your modern translations are bastardized at levels beyond comprehension

There if far more to the evidence for Exodus' fiction than that. If you're interested, you may read of it, as it is quite a lot to post on Sup Forums.

>Nihilism "argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value."
Which is exactly Christian dogma:
"The mortal world is nothing before the spiritual world."

To Christians, life itself has no value, only pleasing their deity does, and they only care for life because they believe their deity does.

It is objective nihilism, for their reason for action is "the afterlife", NOT "mortal life".

Stirner is far more entertaining than Nietzsche, as a point.

Because he is an atheist who worships at the altar of Bart D. Ehrman (an atheist) and thinks "Jesus interrupted" is gospel.

You're simply wrong, and you appealed to authority just as much as I did, so don't play with me.

If you're interested, watch the videos I posted, and better yet send Dr. Craig a question and he will write you an answer longer than you could imagine explaining exactly why you're wrong.

The mainstream academia is against you. I've heard even Atheist historians making fun of people who claim Jesus didn't exist or the Bible is not historical, so goodluck with that.

Atheists don't need to read the Bible.

Just make some shit up. When someone disagrees say "Have you read the Bible? Because I have."

It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be atheist. Atheist is the highest truth.

Also Matthew and John are the only Gospels worth a damn because they were the only ones that were with Jesus. Mark and Luke are all secondhand information

>that could only have been designed
Which is a cart before the horse fallacy, obviously.

Because you evolved to be able to design things in an undesigned world, you invert your perception.

Humans get things backwards a lot, the problem is that they become arrogant ("religious") about it.

ESV Study Bible is good. Not too pricey, has a textual commentary and introductory notes to some of the textual issues being discussed here. The ESV itself is more literal, aims for some literacy quality. So less wordy and 'gender-inclusive' than the NIV. It's an updated RSV (descendent from the venerable KJV) using the latest found manuscripts. Get a reading plan to help you commit to rading it in a year, like the M'Cheyne Reading Plan.

an ancient meme that atheist intellectuals like to pretend christianity draws from

many such cases!

>You're simply wrong
Not an argument.

>Atheist historians making fun of people who claim Jesus didn't exist or the Bible is not historical
Are you here claiming that "atheist" historians believe the Bible is literal complete fact?

By what method would they call themselves "atheists" then?

Well, my advice would be to find a Bible with built-in exegeses. Objectively, the Orthodox Churches are very good at that.

I always find these threads horrifying because they get instantly filled with things so incorrect that they aren't even worth responding to

it might be better to ignore everything here and ask God himself for guidance

They deny the supernatural aspects of the Bible obviously, but not things like the crucifixion of Jesus or the fact that his disciples believed him to be God.

The point is, your views are not supported by any serious historian or academic.

You can disagree with me, that's fine, but I highly suggest you do some more research, because you're standing alone.

>The point is, your views are not supported by any serious historian or academic.
I have provided proof in this thread that such a claim is incorrect.

You have cherry picked Christian academics which agree with you, as anyone can.

Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing? WHAT?

No bro, no.... just no...

>there used to be absolutely nothing
>suddenly, a big bang
>in the middle of nothing
>it just went bang
>the nothingness did

It's unfortunately true that many religious people are arrogant.

Ultimately, there's no way of proving one way or the other if our world was designed or not, and it doesn't even matter. Not being able to understand nature is a weak reason for religion.

>>The point is, your views are not supported by any serious historian or academic.
>I have provided proof in this thread that such a claim is incorrect.
Here, I will casually provide yet more proof of your facetiousness:

>A common view in modern scholarship is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the importance of what they saw as a theologically significant event. Burton Mack describes it as a fabrication by the author of the Gospel of Mark,[44] while G. B. Caird and Joseph Fitzmyer conclude that the author did not intend the description to be taken literally.[45][46] W. D. Davies and Dale Allison similarly conclude "It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".[47]

So please, enough appeals to authority, and attempts at "you're alone" ad hominem fallaciousness.

We simply don't know yet why the universe is as it is. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Just as humanity once did not know why lightning struck.

You don't know either, you just take the intellectually dishonest approach of saying "some guy made it, we're done here".

Quoting a Wikipedia article on the "Gospel of Thomas" to support your Satanic (Gnostic) view of Christianity is not proof. You've been deceived, and are deceiving others.

I've given you the name of an academic who has studied these subjects for years, and has spoken to countless historians who have been researching the historicity of the Bible for more than you have been alive on these earth. Go ask them, if you don't trust me.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
(Galatians 6:7)

that atheist cringe again

I cringe when i remember how much of an edgy aethiest i was.

As a 6 year old would understand it, yeah.

>is a weak reason
The issue is the argument of "it's beautiful, therefore Yahweh made it", which is flatly ridiculous.

It's an appeal to emotion, which has no reason for it beyond "humans design things".