How true is the Bible?

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Not to go too far into my wider beliefs on the matter, I think there is much to be derived from it that makes sense in forming a good life, but as far as how true the events claimed are and the things within are stated to be, I'd say I am extremely skeptical by and large. I think it can be a good guide, but I wouldn't even consider it a guideline for the truth of things beyond what humans can see and comprehend, as a written work compiled and processed and judged by man. There are things that likely happened to some extent and possibly great extents within I am certain, but again, I don't think it is, to use a figure of speech, the bible for what is in fact reality. But to further elaborate on this I'd have to comment on how I approach religion in general and spout on about worldview beyond the scope of what was asked.

mikamcha,

What does that mean?

A figure of speech to indicate you missed the point. In this case, the post you replied to was completely tongue in cheek, and taking it seriously will not result in anything coming of it.

Of course it's not just ability. When people already concluded, due to Ideological Indoctrination, that it is a bad read or a waste of time to read, before starting to read it, obviously they are self sabotaging anything of value that can be extracted.

The reverse of this is also ideological indoctrination, where people are predisposed to consider it true despite potentially weak reasons for doing so, because they simply have faith and do not register things based on their own observations but based on a more convenient picture of the world to believe, or from other influences that the bible is simply true and does not merit the same scrutiny that other works may receive when desiring to identify and verify the details.

The pendulum swings both ways.

[fkizz]

The reverse of this is also ideological indoctrination, where people are predisposed to consider it true despite potentially weak reasons for doing so, because they simply have faith and do not register things based on their own observations but based on a more convenient picture of the world to believe, or from other influences that the bible is simply true and does not merit the same scrutiny that other works may receive when desiring to identify and verify the details.

The pendulum swings both ways.

Point being, the Bible has 73 books for catholics, 66 books for protestants (KJV bible) and the average of 1,200 pages is due to massive letter shrinkening done under King James so everyone could buy a pocket Bible, rather than lack of content.

When you see someone so surely saying that the compilation of those 73 books is so bad, without showing knowledge of whatever those 73 books talk about, then you know it's mostly bluff and they are just parroting ideological indoctrination.

However even if someone was conditioned to see the Bible as a good thing as you say, pre-conditioned on opposite side, there is an incredibly time consuming 73 books ahead before you can make a final conclusion, which is long enough to eventually wear out your initial conditioning.

Perhaps one day when I do I will actually read the whole thing.

Well there's some humility at least. Also did you know Lucius Senneca and St. Paul exchanged letters, claiming to find each other philosophies points in common?

[Abdülmecid I]

Not much, considering how often the Bible contradicts himself, like, for example, in the different descriptions of Jesus' birth and genealogy, as given by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke. The Old Testament is also full of boasting and a rather sanguinary attitude, which is very common in the "literary" tradition of the Antiquity, from the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs to the hyperbolic account of Herodotus about Xerxes' campaign. That being said, if examined critically and, under the condition that its claims are at least partially confirmed by secondary sources, material or textual, then it could give some light to certain otherwise obscure events of the Near Eastern history.

Also did you know Lucius Senneca and St. Paul exchanged letters, claiming to find each other philosophies points in common?

Their correspondence is considered to be forged, since the beginning of the modern era. It's a collection of rhetorical excercises written around the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

[fkizz]

Their correspondence is considered to be forged, since the beginning of the modern era. It's a collection of rhetorical excercises written around the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

Well Stoicism and Christianity have a huge lot in common, so contact between Stoics and Christians is not unlikely, mainly given they were contemporaries.

Plus Senneca was in charge of educating future Emperors, and was overall a character connected to the upper echelons of Rome. Wouldn't St. Paul be interested in converting such people?

St Paul being a Roman Citizen and a Christian would make sense to try to convert the upper classes related to the Emperor so that one day Rome could have a Christian Emperor that stops Christian persecution..
Which was what happened, sooner or later, with Emperor Constantine making Christianity the Empire official religion. So the degree of forgery of the letters is disputeable. Even Tertullian accepts Senneca as "one of ours", albeit not completly.

In fact it's in the interests of the some members of the Church (not others/all of them) to claim that such contact between Christians and Upper Class Romans (By the way, Stoicism often appeared in Roman aristocracy) didn't happen, because it would mean admiting the influence of pagan religion on Christianity.

Which is nothing special, it's basically the same as admiting that ideas of past civilizations leave influence on the following ones.

The most interesting point is that even when assuming your scenario of forgery, the possibility of Roman Christians and Roman Stoics from the Upper Classes interacting and influencing each other is hugely likely, given what happened with Emperor Constantine later on.

And such mutual influence happened before Council of Nicea was established.

So forgery or not, highly likely the scenario of christians and stoics influencing each other, given stoicism as a more spiritual movement (rather than just philosophy) was contemporary of early christianity, and often found in upper classes.

For the highly prideful church members pointing/admiting this is "scandalous", but being honest is very tame and even normal considering how historical cycles go, and doesn't violate any dogma.

From your source,

This correspondence, consistent of eight letters from Seneca and six from Paul, is not especially interesting and contains nothing more than an exchange of polite greetings. Even though it makes rather disappointing reading, it enjoyed a certain fame subsequently." (Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature, vol. 1, p. 405)

Can confirm. Having read the letters, it's nothing special and is more about formalities and polite greetings than whatever else. Nothing remotely controversial.

You say it's "rethorical exercises", if there's an exercise, is just about politeness without going in depth about anything in particular. There is not enough related content for a "rethorical exercise".

[Abdülmecid I]

It's not my scenario, fkizz, but a unanimously accepted opinion firstly formed since the first time the fictitious correspondence was mentioned, in late 4th century. Jerome himself did not take the authenticity of the letters very seriously, presumably because of how little the poor Latin of the correspondence resembled Seneca's style. Not to mention the fact that Paul was probably not able to speak or write in Latin. Your arguments about the interest Paul would have in converting the imperial dynasty to Christianity are not very convincing either. There's quite a distance between wishful thinking and actual reality, which means that an appeal at common sense can be easily reversed: Suggesting that Seneca, the tutor of the emperor, would ever come in contact with a random preacher of a marginal sect inside the generally ignored religion of Judaism seems rather preposterous. The effort of later Christian apologists to establish a supposed strong relationship between Christianity and Roman-Greek philosophy, in order to legitimise and increase the prestige of the former, are nice rhetorical excercises, but they severely lack in evidence and objectivity.

[fkizz]

Not to mention the fact that Paul was probably not able to speak or write in Latin.

Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?

I know you can do better than this. Put minimal effort at least.

Your arguments about the interest Paul would have in converting the imperial dynasty to Christianity are not very convincing either.

But the Roman Emperor converting to Christianity was literally what happened.

Unless you consider Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Empire a tale based on "forgeries" too?

For that (Christianism among the Imperial Echelons) to happen would require for Christians to interact with Stoics and vice versa. Austere Stoics had more in common with Austere Christians than hedonists had with Austere Christians.
Stoicism in some cases is even more Spartan and austere than Christianity. Of course such austere minded people would have more in common with christians, who try to be austere as well, than with the ones doing the infamous roman orgies.

Possibly some christians turned to stoicism spiritual movement, and some stoics turned to christians, but what history shows in the end of what the Imperial echelons had to say in relations to Christianity as State Religion is extremely clear.

The effort of later Christian apologists to establish a supposed strong relationship between Christianity and Roman-Greek philosophy, in order to legitimise and increase the prestige of the former, are nice rhetorical excercises, but they severely lack in evidence and objectivity.

The letters are mostly just greetings and acknowledgement of having spent time considering/reading each other's theories. In the end, neither of them converted the other, but they maintained politeness. The letters do not contain "rethoric exercises" or "dialectic" that you speak of, it's mostly just formalities.

This exchange does not classify as a "rethorical exercise". Did you even read the letters?

There are are also some in the modernism setting interested in hiding the mutual influences between Stoicism and Christianity.

It's also sort of needless heavy to consider "forgery" letters of two contemporaries mostly greeting each other, and that's it - a sort of an "using the cannons to try to kill a fly" applying the portuguese proverb.

Your point in your post does not command much authority.

[conon394]

Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?

I know you can do better than this. Put minimal effort at least.

But the Roman Emperor converting to Christianity was literally what happened.

Unless you consider Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Empire a tale based on "forgeries" too?

For that (Christianism among the Imperial Echelons) to happen would require for Christians to interact with Stoics and vice versa. Austere Stoics had more in common with Austere Christians than hedonists had with Austere Christians.
Stoicism in some cases is even more Spartan and austere than Christianity. Of course such austere minded people would have more in common with christians, who try to be austere as well, than with the ones doing the infamous roman orgies.

Possibly some christians turned to stoicism spiritual movement, and some stoics turned to christians, but what history shows in the end of what the Imperial echelons had to say in relations to Christianity as State Religion is extremely clear.




The letters are mostly just greetings and acknowledgement of having spent time considering/reading each other's theories. In the end, neither of them converted the other, but they maintained politeness. The letters do not contain "rethoric exercises" or "dialectic" that you speak of, it's mostly just formalities.

This exchange does not classify as a "rethorical exercise". Did you even read the letters?

There are are also some in the modernism setting interested in hiding the mutual influences between Stoicism and Christianity.

It's also sort of needless heavy to consider "forgery" letters of two contemporaries mostly greeting each other, and that's it - a sort of an "using the cannons to try to kill a fly" applying the portuguese proverb.

Your point in your post does not command much authority.

The basic problem is the letters don't conform well the valid writing norms of either man. There is a reason they have been deemed The Apocryphal Correspondence between Seneca and Paul for quite a while now. They say a lot more about efforts to link Christianity (now the state religion) with older traditions a than some pen pal fest in Nero's day.

Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?

Probably a Greek speaker with a bit a of Latin. The Koine was still the dominate language in the east.

This exchange does not classify as a "rethorical exercise". Did you even read the letters?

Actually a fairly common thing to do write a letter like Plato or Demosthenes or Cicero write a dialogue etc. There a little scarps of them about in papyrus and clear indications it was a teaching method. Beyond that making crap up was not uncommon. Especially when both were likely long dead when the supposed correspondence was written.

You might find this a good read

Paul and Seneca in Dialogue edited by Joey Dodson, David Brion

But point made twice in the intro and first chapter - letters a fraud but they make an interesting compare and contrast.

[Abdülmecid I]

Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?

Conon already explained why the correspondence is obviously fake, as they do not match Seneca's skills, include several inaccuracies and why forged letters like these were a common teaching method in the education of the late empire. Emperors were indeed converted to Christianity, but the context of the early 4th century, when Christianity was considerably more propagated and various usurpers desperately needed supporters, in order to reinforce their fragile position, was completely different to that of the 1st century, when Christianity was nothing but a minor sect that almost nobody had heard of. Paul's knowledge of Latin is a debatable subject, but, as Conon mentioned, the most probable scenario is an elementary comprehension of the language and certainly not a very confident command of it. I'm not sure how his efforts to convert the Romans strengthens your argument, given that the Epistle to the Romans, exactly like the rest of the New Testament, was written in Greek, not in Latin. Greek was the lingua franca of the east and of Rome's educated classes, not Latin.

[Cyclops]

Paul was a Roman Citizen who traveled through Rome.
You think a Roman Citizen who bothered to travel through Rome seeking converts with a Latin speaking population likely does not speak Latin? Where's the coherence in that?

There was a majority of Koine-speakers in the Roman Empire at the time of Paul's mission, and educated Romans learned various forms of Hellenic. Can you show us the source that says learning Latin was a requirement for Roman citizenship?

I know you can do better than this. Put minimal effort at least.

Thats a needlessly insulting comment especially considering the poor quality of your own post as demonstrated below.

But the Roman Emperor converting to Christianity was literally what happened.

Unless you consider Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the Empire a tale based on "forgeries" too?

Constantine the Great did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman state. You have confused him with Theodosius.

For that (Christianism among the Imperial Echelons) to happen would require for Christians to interact with Stoics and vice versa. Austere Stoics had more in common with Austere Christians than hedonists had with Austere Christians.
Stoicism in some cases is even more Spartan and austere than Christianity. Of course such austere minded people would have more in common with christians, who try to be austere as well, than with the ones doing the infamous roman orgies.

This is a bizarre excursis. Judaism from the period 300 BCE onwards, and Christianity both show the clear imprint of Hellenistic thought as we would expect following Alexander's conquests. I don't know of a single Judaic or Christian element in Hellenistic thought until imposed by Christians.

Possibly some christians turned to stoicism spiritual movement, and some stoics turned to christians, but what history shows in the end of what the Imperial echelons had to say in relations to Christianity as State Religion is extremely clear.

This point makes no sense. Stoicism is not a spiritual movement, its a philosophical and ethical approach to life, and is generally agnostic about the life and afterlife of the spirit.

The letters are mostly just greetings and acknowledgement of having spent time considering/reading each other's theories. In the end, neither of them converted the other, but they maintained politeness. The letters do not contain "rethoric exercises" or "dialectic" that you speak of, it's mostly just formalities.

The OED define "rhetoric" as The art of using language effectively so as to persuade or influence others, esp.the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques to this end; the study of principles and rules to be followed by a speaker or writer striving for eloquence, esp. as formulated by ancient Greek and Roman writers.

.

This exchange does not classify as a "rethorical exercise". Did you even read the letters?

These letters are by definition rhetorical exercises. Your point here is utterly wrong.

There are are also some in the modernism setting interested in hiding the mutual influences between Stoicism and Christianity.

Are you suggesting a conspiracy? Veyr hard to ta=ke this poitn seriously given the garbage mistakes you've made in earlier points.

It's also sort of needless heavy to consider "forgery" letters of two contemporaries mostly greeting each other, and that's it - a sort of an "using the cannons to try to kill a fly" applying the portuguese proverb.

If your rubbish theory reminds you of a fly, and the proof against so overwhelming it seems like a cannon maybe is a sign you're completely wrong?

Your point in your post does not command much authority.

Actually Abdulmecid's posts do command respect among people who have studied the subjects he discusses at a tertiary level. Your spelling errors, ignoance and weird ranting rob your post of any authority.