(quote)
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.
(/quote)
I'm not going to quote the whole thing, as you can look like 3 posts up and read everything. If you want me to do research, I can and will dig up information that will support my stand as well. It is by no credulity that I believe the things that I do. I'm fine with the fact that there is a lot of dialogue about the things in Biblical history. Some things can get cleared up as time goes by and we unearth more information.
Just because there are some perceived contradictions doesn't mean that there lacks a explanation that reconciles the perceived contradiction.
For example, up until 100 years ago, no one thought that there was ever a King Belshazzar of Babylon in history, so they thought the Daniel account was totally made up (or written later in history). But then archeologists unearthed the Nabonidus Cylinder that confirmed the existence of his son, Belshazzar.
And what you see in the Gospels (it sounds that you have had some classes or some sort of education on the history of the Bible), the typical view is that Mark wrote the first book (because it was the shortest and most concise) and then the others used Mark as a base and further embellished upon it.
On the other hand, I see it more like accounts of 4 witnesses with 4 different points of view. Matthew, a tax collector, for example, would have paid more more attention to the exact amounts of money or whatever. Luke, a doctor, would have picked up medical conditions and such. For example, Matthew and Mark say that Peter's mother in law had a fever, whereas Luke said she had a *high fever,* which was a more precise diagnosis. It doesn't mean that Luke was wrong, or Matthew and Mark were wrong, but when we look at all four accounts, it gives us a bigger picture of what really happened.
For the example you mentioned about Mary at Jesus tomb, one gospel lists Mary, one of the others lists Mary and Mary Magdelene and Simone, and another one lists the two marys and Joanne. That just shows that there were other women that were perhaps not mentioned in the account. In the culture at the time, women weren't mentioned too often by name. What was Peter's wife's name? Jesus had "sisters" but what were their names and how many of them were there? Its not mentioned, but we can safely assume they existed (the answer to the sisters is at least 2, as "sisters" is plural).
Matthew was an apostle, John was an apostle, Mark was said to get most of his information from Peter, and Luke accompanied compiled together eye witness accounts when he was with Paul.
This would be as if a doctor, a mechanic, and a chinese person were to witness a crime scene. The doctor may have noticed some details about the victim, the mechanic would probably have a better recollection of what the escape vehicle looked like, and the chinese person would be able to tell if they were speaking in a chinese dialect (cantonese or mandarin). All together, they could flesh out a pretty good picture of whatever went on.
As for when these things were written, something huge would be easily recalled. Go ask a WWII veteran what they were doing during Pearl Harbor. Can you remember what you did during 9/11? Or you can ask what your parents were doing when Kennedy was shot. You would think if you hung out with the Son of God for 3 years, you would be able to recall it pretty quickly.
That Guy's two cents:
I don't know why so many people readily believe in the crazy string theories and cosmological conjectures that cosmologists come up with. If we actually looked at what evidence (sometimes suprisingly little evidence) they had to work with, we probably wouldn't be coming to the same conclusions they did (nor would we have the insane knowledge of math to make any sense of it). Instead, we usually take whatever they say for truth and we believe whatever's trendy in the scientific community. In reality, there are hundreds of dead, disproven grand unified theories, and I'm pretty sure there are dozens more that are being debated. In fact, science is a living breathing thing. Its not set in stone and things change as we observe more and get to know more about the universe.
History (and more specifically, Bible history) too is a living, breathing thing. We also put insane amounts of faith in what archeologists and historians say, but if we looked at the artifacts and what they had to work with, you'd be suprised at how little *stuff* there is sometimes. There are plenty of uncertainties in history, and like in the field of science, historians and scholars work with little they have. As more evidence is collected, they can paint a clearer picture of what *really* happened.
I urge everyone to challenge what they know; that's the only way we can all grow as intellectuals and as adults. If we blindly accept everything we hear, then we are no different than parrots, repeating whatever we are taught. This applies to science and math as much as it does religion. Even the apostle John instructs us to "test every inspired expression" to see if they are true.
sorry for the long post.
