Strata 5. Assumptions about the human need for holy books and why such things are central to religions.
Why are holy books so central to religions? They help to suppress any variation of thought and codify the rules of the community that believes them. One can judge an outsider by whether they conform to the ideas within the book or not. It is way of dividing between Us and Them and negating the Other.
What is written is supposed be a closed canon which the author does not intend to be added to by another. However this is not what actually happens. For example, texts were added to original Hindu Vedas which modified previous beliefs such as the Bhagavad Gita.
The same has happened in the development of Christianity. We have a graduation of new books added as new ideas develop:
A - 10 commandments
add
B - The Law
which is modified and / or explained by
C- The Prophets
which is again modified and / or explained by
D - Paul's lettters
which is again modified and / or explained by
E - Mark's gospel
which is again modified and / or explained by
F - Matthew and Luke's gospels
which is again modified and / or explained by
G - John's gospel
which is again modified and / or explained by
H - The NT forgeries
which is again modified and / or explained by
H - Revelation (new idea about Jesus)
which is again modified and / or explained by
I - The Book of Mormon and / or the Qu'ran
There is another problem that every step above has also been edited and changed by others. The editors have also helped to modify and explain and have left their footprints in the texts. Some books are also forgeries written by people pretending to be famous bible characters. Others are anonymous works. Therefore every verse and or phrase in these books must be looked at on its own merit as the demarcation between the original author and / or the editors and/ or the forgers is not always clear.
At each step the previous written document is seen as replaced or better explained by the new one written or the new edited version.
At each step value judgements are made as to the whether the documents, phrases, sentences and ideas are true or false and authentic or inauthentic.
Readers who are evangelical Christians you probably already made a value judgement with the Book of Mormon, yet there are those people who call themselves Christian and Mormons who value it. They have have probably likewise already made a value judgement with the Qu'ran but there are Muslims that value it. If all claims are subjective and of equal value then their claim to the value of the Book of Mormon and / or Qu'ran must be accepted as equal to any Christian claim to the contrary. That is, of course, unless there is some objective criteria that is used to negate either as a book to be valued. However, the same objective criteria must also be used on every other step in the progession.
Christians like to think that their "new" testament has replaced the "old" testament. However Jews don't view it that way at all and see no need for a new testament as there was nothing wrong witgh the old testament that Jesus followed. They have made a value judgement on the New Testamemt scriptures. As Jesus was a Jew who followed Judaism and all his friends and apostles were likewise Jews who followed Judaism, why have Jews rejected Jesus' Judaism ? Or is it not Jesus' Judaism that they have rejected but the Gentile misinterpretation of Jesus' Judaism that has become modern Christainity that differs completely with Jesus' Judaism?
By what criteria is each modifcation or explanation valued as correct? How can it be verified by primary historical evidence (uncontested first hand material written or, next best, by an uncontested eyewitness) and archeological evidence apart from the bible and / or by scientific evidence?
