Schopenhauer said:
First let me say again that you are right in your statement that "the old testament records a lot of history, most of which has been confirmed by secular souces." Although I know a few people that would argue with the "most" part of that, I will grant that many incidents in the bible do have some secular confirmation. (Unlike the Mormon books which have literally nothing) How about the example of the resurrection of Jesus? Compare all the accounts of when the followers went to Jesus tomb. Who went to Jesus tomb? How many people went? What did they see? Who did they meet? See Matthew and Luke. The disciples in Matthew are told "Go to Galilee and meet Jesus" and they go and meet Jesus. In Luke they are told "Dont leave Jerusalem" and they meet Jesus there. Which is it? As for historical accuracy, ill give a few examples off the top of my head: The Census Just how do we know what happened during the trial of Jesus? His followers were not there. It is not as though the Pilate or the two priests gave accounts afterwards. Pilate most likely did not give an interview afterwards. So what we have of the conversations between Jesus and Pilate are most likely made up afterwards. Its kind of like the story you hear about the man who dreamed he was killed and then he died in real life at the same time. With the passage of time the bible places more and more blame on the Jews for the death of Jesus. In the earliest gospel, Mark, Pilate only askes the crowds once if he should release Jesus and then has him killed. Next is Luke. Pilate this time says Jesus is innocent but the Jews still want him killed. Matthew is next. Pilate again says Jesus is innocent, and even washes his hands of the blood of Jesus, and the crowd cries out "His blood be upon us and our children". Mind you this verse is only in Matthew. In John, the last and oldest gospel, Pilate tries 3 times to stop the execution, but the crowds would not have it. So Pilate actually gives him over to the crowds and they kill him. Each book has its own aim and purpose. One book stresses one thing, while another stresses something else. Each has its own account, which sometimes steps on or changes the story a little. (On a side note: You dont really think a star actually led the three wise men do you? And that it stopped above a house to show them where Jesus was? How does a star do that exactly?) Next you mentioned the prophecies:
The problem is that the story was written to make sure the prophacies were fullfilled and not the other way around. That is why the story of the census had to be made up to cover for the fact that Jesus was most probably from Nazareth. The same is true I believe with the geneology of Jesus in the Bible. It is changed so that it conformes to the Old Testament. I dont have as much of my sources on hand about this as I would like, but I guess I may have to dig them out later depending on how this goes. A literal reading of the bible is not very productive. I suggest that when you are challenged by Atheists, you dont pick up your science and history books, but instead pick up your Kierkegaard. |
I will welcome the challenge. If you want me to research the subjects and show you what I come up with, then so be it.
The roman census is the first subject that interested me, as I never questioned it in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
Apparently there was a census, and there has been some debate as to when it actually occured. But the fact that it was recorded by the historian Josephus adds to the credibility that something like a census existed at the time.
I'll do more research and get to the other ones when I get more free time.
One question though:
If these men who lived in the 1st century made all these things up, why would they go through so much trouble being persecuted and even dying for what they knew was a fake?
