| That Guy said: 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? |
ThatGuy,
As long as I have convinced you at the very least that there is a very large field of debate, and that Biblical claims can not be taken just at face value, I would be happy. As you could probably see from the Wikipedia page, there is massive debate back and forth on if this census took place, and if so when it did. You would find me on the side that it did not take place (not the one the bible says occured anyway). This is by no means an opinion that comes from nowhere, but is a real debate inside the world of biblical criticism. In fact I see this story and others as part of an overall pattern within the bible.
If you want more examples, you could look at the creation myth in Genesis. The world is created in two different ways. First the animals are created, then man. In the second story man is created, then the animals. In the Exodus story, we are told that 600,000 men, we can assume about the same number of women (600,000-400,000) and some children are wandering out of Egypt, but that they only took 2 servants along with them. 2 for over one million people? There are some who doubt the entire Exodus story. Why does the story of Lazarus, a very signifigant story, appear only in the book of John (the latest gospel written)? This would seem to be a story that the other writers would probably have told if they had known about it, and the books being written closer to the time of Jesus one would assume would have more uncorrupted information to work with. If I bring up more, it will just bog up the conversation, and i dont think it will be very productive so Ill stop here.
Enough of that, on to your question. First we are not exactly sure who wrote the Gospels of the bible. However without a doubt, it was not Jesus disiples. (as I'm sure you know) We dont know exactly what these authors faced in their world, or how they acted. What we can guess is that these stories were passed on by word of mouth before they got to the ears of the writers themselves. And as anyone knows stories passed on by word of mouth change very fast and very easy. Stories get mixed together, parts fogotten, parts "remembered", and things not relavent may get thrown in. That can all happen easily in just 5 years, but think about the effect of 50 years passing. You would be surprised how many gods have similar stories attached to them. Anyway, what I am saying is that perhaps many errors can be accounted for in this way. Some errors seem more logical and deliberate. It sounds like they started with the conclusion "Jesus is God" and went in search of any story or tidbit they could prove it to others. (Using the Old Testament, of course) However I dont doubt for a minute that they really belived that Jesus was God.
@rickthestick2
You said: "My"Christianity is by the book, common sense, ethics, morality, and human thought all which God gave me. I don't want you to be my enemy please understand. But you come in posting about the contraversies and misconceptions in the Bible and go on about how there is all things wrong riddled in the Bible. It's more like you come in looking for a fight. "
Writing a critique of the bible does not at all mean that I want a fight. In fact I think that it means that I take the bible very seriously, perhaps more than most. When it says something I would like to know if it is true or not. There is no reason to feel threatened if the Bible is "attacked", if it is true then you should have no fears. If it is false, then its time to take out our erasers and red pens. However it is impossible to be "by the book" about the bible as you state. The book itself has different messages and is very hard even for scholars to interpret. The bible will always be your interpretation of it, mixed with how much context and facts surrounding it you understand. You obviously dont believe in old testament morality, and much of the other regular insanity that the ancient Jews engaged in. Again let me say, a literal interpretation of the bible is not very helpful or productive. But as you said, enough of this.
On the question of "Is there a god?" you stated:
I understand what you're saying. But know this, the word of God doesn't come through the book alone (at least according to Christianity). Anyways, "if" God exists, first you have to understand that just because you're Christian that doesn't mean that you are given eternal life. The Bible teaches us that the people who will be brought into heaven are from ALL walks of life, great or small, and from ALL levels of Faith, great or small. People may not be devout Christians but they may be shown the Mercy of God simply because God loves them all. Ok, so basically what i'm saying is that it's not about choosing the right book out of a bunch, God doesn't work that way. If a man (or women) really thinks deep inside they'll find God simply because that is how God works. He's not going to make getting into heaven difficult for someone, he actually wants people in heaven.
The question we must ask is not "What is the word of God?" but the question we must ask is "What is God?/ What is God like?" Because the Word of God isn't just a book, the Word of God is God himself. (see John Chapter 1) "
Although I am sympathetic to your opinion, I believe church doctrine is that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. You dont seem to believe that (judging from your statements) but its what the church repeats daily. I would more like the god you described.
However concider this; the core of Christianity is the resurrection. Suppose that you discover a god but this god will not raise you from the dead, will not create a heaven or a hell, but just sits and watches strange sacks of mostly water debate on what books he wrote all day long. When you die, you are dead. However it is a very loving god and loves all humanity. How compelling would this god be? I would think not very to a great deal of people. In our vision of the world, God is compelling because he commands and promises. This we find in our books. These promises cannot be intuited alone.
However I will repeat, God or No God, it makes no difference if we dont have anything more to go on than just that. It would be nice to assume that we can get in touch with god just by being good, but we dont really know that either do we? At least not without some kind of authority or philosophy to tell us why this should be so. In fact all evidence suggests that we really have a hard time getting in contact with this being or it helping us know what to do all by ourselves. This is evidenced by the fact that the world is 95% suffering, 3%boredom, and 2%Happiness. Or perhaps this is evidence that we are in touch with our creator, its just that our creator was actually cruel and evil. Why assume that god wants life and goodness? It could easily want death and immorality. Gnostics thought that an evil being made the world...
@moe nl
You stated:
when its stated that God is all made up by some drunk or stoned people long long long ago there will be 87% of poeple unhappy because they believe and their believe and hope is basically broken like throwing a brick on a glass wall.
87% of the people is around 5.75 billion people.
so for the world (and it sounds weird for someone who doesnt believe at all) it would be better that God would be real. bcasue 5.7 billion people going crazy is more worse then 660 million people (altho alot to).
That is far too utilitarian for me. I cant travel down that road with you :) Sometimes dispair can be just as "useful" as happiness.
