Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How did the Christians change the scriptures through to make them fit the new story? This is the issue I had when growing and being taught that Christians or Paul or whoever changes the gospels to create a story that Jesus was a) divine b) spoke like he was divine C) died on the cross d) was ressurected and seen by the disciples
Paul does not change the OT as far as I know, but then he does not quote it too often. When he does, he takes relevant parts for his revealed theology, but I do not recall him changing the actual text he quotes.
He does tell us that his Jesus is revealed in the OT scripture or seen in visions, and says Jesus was a divine being, an angel who took human form and was crucified, and that Jesus appeared to the apostles (not disciples) as he had to Paul, which infers they also saw visions of Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by let455_
As muslims we are told he was just a prophet who had disciples and he was given a book and that he didn't say anything close to like he did in the gospels at least not the direct divine statements such as, "if you do not believe I am he you will die in your sin" or others such as, "he who has seen me has seen the father". Etc.
I never really understood or completely believed it. Where is the evidence they did so? Some people say they have (mostly Muslims) and then some say they haven't (mostly Christians) though new testament scholars like Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace claim the NT stories have been preserved. One a Christian (Daniel) and the other atheist (Bart). They are a few I've listened to and read a bit.
Then to Judaism as I've never given it much thought as i always thought it was wrong just on the belief that either of the other two were right. But yeah this is on topic. Circle of blame. Which passages did Christians change to fit their story if you can give examples it would be great.
It is not that the Christians changed the texts, it is that they invented the gospel narratives out of passages from the Septuagint, a Greek version of the OT. But the translation was not perfect.
The most obvious example is Jesus riding into Jerusalem with cloaks on both a donkey and a colt, which is taken from the Septuagint. They even quote the OT passage (Zech 9:9). I do not read Hebrew, so I had to look at the Jewish text using Biblehub.com, which talks about one animal - "... and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey". I believe this double mention is a Jewish method to emphasize, it is not referring to two animals.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 09-22-2020 at 03:02 AM..
Jews don't get roasted for all eternity, and only those branches of Christians who like that idea do. Actually, they don't roast themselves, of course, they just enjoy the thought of others roasting.
A problem here is that Christian beliefs evolved out of other theologies, and the burning in hell idea may have come from a Jewish sect from over 2000 years ago that no longer exists. I am not an expert on Judaism from that time, but I do know there were many different Jewish sects with many different ideas. Temple / anti-Temple; resurrection / no resurrection; Sheol a resting place for the dead / Sheol were the dead people were punished or rewarded; or the different ideas about Gehenna.
Regardless of the history of the idea of Hell, I find the idea of eternal damnation an evil idea.
A classic example of this biblical revisionism can be found in Romans 10:8 where Paul proclaims that he is quoting directly from Scripture as he records the words of Deuteronomy 30:14. Yet as he approaches the last portion of this verse, he carefully stops short of the Torah’s vital conclusion and expunges the remaining segment of this crucial verse. In Romans Paul writes,
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart†(that is, the word of faith which we preach).
(Romans 10:8)
Predictably, the last words of Deuteronomy 30:14, “that you may do it,†were meticulously deleted by Paul. Bear in mind that he had good reason for removing this clause – the powerful message conveyed in these closing words rendered all that Paul was preaching as heresy.
This startling misquote in the Book of Romans stands out as a remarkable illustration of Paul’s ability to shape Scriptures in order to create the illusion that his theological message conformed to the principles of the Torah. By removing the final segment of this verse, Paul succeeded in convincing his unlettered gentile readers that his Christian teachings were supported by the principles of the Hebrew Bible. - https://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/
Read the rest at the link, there is a lot more to consider....
Except Paul is not changing the passage, he is taking the relevant part for his revealed theology. “That you may do it,†would have been irrelevant because Paul is talking about what Christians should or should not say.
I agree this. In Romans particularly, I have seen several examples of Paul manipulating and quotemining out of context OT quotes (Torah, I should say) to fit his argument. There was one were Paul was arguing how God had (excuse me) turned from the Jews because they did not behave righteously, quoting about sacrificing in gardens on altars of brick. But that is referring to Gentiles, not to Jews.
Even if one argued that it was just an illustration, not evidential support, Paul is being very crafty.
It was normal to view the OT texts on different levels, so Paul (and the Dead Sea scroll authors) were not deliberately manipulating the OT texts, they were highlighting their theology revealed in those texts. While Paul was crafty in some areas such as where he got his gospel from, he appears to have been too emotional and full of fervor for his beliefs to have been deliberately manipulative. Paul takes the relevant part of scripture for his revealed theology because he is more religious than he is a con artist.
Very cool read. Thank you. I read Romans 10 again and I have to say, I am still trying to understand how that one clause could make such a difference to the meaning of the text or how its removal supports an inclination to sin.
Paul was talking about what Christians should or should not say and demonstrating this through revealed scripture. That clause was simply irrelevant because it is about doing, not speaking.
Paul was talking about what Christians should or should not say and demonstrating this through revealed scripture. That clause was simply irrelevant because it is about doing, not speaking.
Thank you, Harry. My feeling was that the author wants us to believe that Paul is unreliable because he left out a key part of a text and used specific quotes out of context for his purposes.
This brings another question to mind which is not limited to religion. When you quote another text, should a person take the context of the original text into consideration? If we did, we would continue to follow their line of thinking, or we would be forced to continue the line of thinking of those who claim authority over the interpretation of the text.
I do think religious text is imprecise in the sense that the relationship between words and sentences can be interpreted in different ways. And that is just being nice. When I read Romans, at times, I felt that there was no relationship between sentences. When placing those sentences together, the author made an assumption I am not fully aware of. Anyway, those are just my ramblings. I have to reread Romans again so that I can get an example. I may not have read carefully.
Thank you, Harry. My feeling was that the author wants us to believe that Paul is unreliable because he left out a key part of a text and used specific quotes out of context for his purposes.
This brings another question to mind which is not limited to religion. When you quote another text, should a person take the context of the original text into consideration? If we did, we would continue to follow their line of thinking, or we would be forced to continue the line of thinking of those who claim authority over the interpretation of the text.
I do think religious text is imprecise in the sense that the relationship between words and sentences can be interpreted in different ways. And that is just being nice. When I read Romans, at times, I felt that there was no relationship between sentences. When placing those sentences together, the author made an assumption I am not fully aware of. Anyway, those are just my ramblings. I have to reread Romans again so that I can get an example. I may not have read carefully.
yuppers. "That's a bad set of wheels you got there dog." How would that be translated? let alone followed by something talking about the chick sitting in it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
