Explanation Sought for Bible Story

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:23 am

I have a dilemma regarding one of the main stories in the Bible and I'm hoping that we can reach a consensus one way or another.

I suppose this thread is a spin off from Science Will Never Prove God and especially Pappy's last post there - here is the scenario :-

Given the story of the nativity it is reasonable to expect the records of the Romans, who were the bureaucrats of the day, to show that there had been a census during the reign of King Herod.

That no such records have been found and, worse, given that such mass migrations were not the normal way in which the Romans would have carried out a census, it is a big black mark against the historic nature of the Bible.

On the other hand, this is a basic plank of the religion without which the prophecies would not have been fulfilled. It is unthinkable that it would have been added at a much later date.

This gives us a problem, a new religion trying to gain adherents cannot have an obvious falsehood at its heart and the people would have remembered or been told stories of the upheaval - a core of oldsters calling BS, I was there and it didn't happen would have stopped the Disciples in their tracks, the Pharisees would have made sure of that.

Any ideas?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:43 am

Bryn Mawr;1389826 wrote: I have a dilemma regarding one of the main stories in the Bible and I'm hoping that we can reach a consensus one way or another.

I suppose this thread is a spin off from Science Will Never Prove God and especially Pappy's last post there - here is the scenario :-

Given the story of the nativity it is reasonable to expect the records of the Romans, who were the bureaucrats of the day, to show that there had been a census during the reign of King Herod.

That no such records have been found and, worse, given that such mass migrations were not the normal way in which the Romans would have carried out a census, it is a big black mark against the historic nature of the Bible.

On the other hand, this is a basic plank of the religion without which the prophecies would not have been fulfilled. It is unthinkable that it would have been added at a much later date.

This gives us a problem, a new religion trying to gain adherents cannot have an obvious falsehood at its heart and the people would have remembered or been told stories of the upheaval - a core of oldsters calling BS, I was there and it didn't happen would have stopped the Disciples in their tracks, the Pharisees would have made sure of that.

Any ideas?

Just have a look at how the bible was systematically edited to suit the church of the time in their grasp for power, which books were left out and why makes fascinating reading. The schisms in the church and the violence inflicted on those who would not conform are also interesting. I have trouble understanding how anyone familiar with that history can believe it is the unchanged word of god through all the translations and deliberate rewritings. It's a black mark against the historical nature of the story of Jesus and therefore as to whether he was indeed the son of god. Make of it what you will, at least nowadays you won't be burned as a heretic

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:02 am

How do you know christian disciples weren't told that none of it happened by people back then? Obvious falsehoods, even in today's world of technology, are still spread and take hold by a great many people. I'd go as far as guessing it may be worse today than it's ever been.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:43 am

gmc;1389839 wrote: Just have a look at how the bible was systematically edited to suit the church of the time in their grasp for power, which books were left out and why makes fascinating reading. The schisms in the church and the violence inflicted on those who would not conform are also interesting. I have trouble understanding how anyone familiar with that history can believe it is the unchanged word of god through all the translations and deliberate rewritings. It's a black mark against the historical nature of the story of Jesus and therefore as to whether he was indeed the son of god. Make of it what you will, at least nowadays you won't be burned as a heretic

But that's what I'm saying - the nativity is too fundamental to the justification of Jesus as the messiah for it to have been added three hundred years later, it must have been part of the story from the days of His ministry. Even if it was not added in until the Gospels were written down that was close enough to the events for people to call liar.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:47 am

Ahso!;1389842 wrote: How do you know christian disciples weren't told that none of it happened by people back then? Obvious falsehoods, even in today's world of technology, are still spread and take hold by a great many people. I'd go as far as guessing it may be worse today than it's ever been.

If the story was based on such an obvious lie and if the Disciples spreading the word were being told that none of it happened then how could they have made converts?

The spread of Christianity was started within Judea, the people who accepted the story as truth were exactly those who would have known if the great census never took place.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:25 am

The OT prophesies had to eventually be fulfilled if the religion of the Jews was to continue to survive. That's why it was important that Christianity was an extension of Judaism. Reality is what we create out of myth, so to me it's no surprise Christianity flourished.

There is no more obvious lie than that of the existence of a living God, yet look at how many intelligent people have a hard time acknowledging that fact. Agnosticism, anyone?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:51 am

Bryn Mawr;1389849 wrote: If the story was based on such an obvious lie and if the Disciples spreading the word were being told that none of it happened then how could they have made converts?

The spread of Christianity was started within Judea, the people who accepted the story as truth were exactly those who would have known if the great census never took place.

That's why I suggest you look at how the bible as we know and in particular the new testament came to be written and what happened to the heretics. The early schisms that led to the systematic working out of what was going to be the true version and what was not. You are assuming that someone pointing out that something was untrue would get a hearing.

Schism (religion) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:39 am

gmc;1389863 wrote: That's why I suggest you look at how the bible as we know and in particular the new testament came to be written and what happened to the heretics. The early schisms that led to the systematic working out of what was going to be the true version and what was not. You are assuming that someone pointing out that something was untrue would get a hearing.

Schism (religion) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know the story of the politics behind the formulation of the Bible text, however, it is only relevant if you are suggesting that the nativity was not part of Christianity before that time?

I am not assuming that politics could not have turned the Bible on its head, that is a given, but I am assuming that someone who knows that he is being told a pack of lies will not give up his current religion and convert to a minority, persecuted, sect.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:52 am

Bryn Mawr;1389881 wrote: I know the story of the politics behind the formulation of the Bible text, however, it is only relevant if you are suggesting that the nativity was not part of Christianity before that time?

I am not assuming that politics could not have turned the Bible on its head, that is a given, but I am assuming that someone who knows that he is being told a pack of lies will not give up his current religion and convert to a minority, persecuted, sect.But that's not what happened, is it? Christianity continued to have a very small following until it was taken outside to the gentiles. Wasn't it the story of Nimrod and his mother that morphed into catholicism that took the christian message and ran with it?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:24 am

Ahso!;1389884 wrote: But that's not what happened, is it? Christianity continued to have a very small following until it was taken outside to the gentiles. Wasn't it the story of Nimrod and his mother that morphed into catholicism that took the christian message and ran with it?

The initial spread of Christianity over the first eighty years appears to have been restricted to Judea before jumping to Antioch and then western Turkey (Ephesus and the surrounding areas).

Post by **spot** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:37 am

First off, on a point of information, if I remember right the story of the census and the return to Bethlehem only appear in one Gospel, that of Matthew? Is what you're including in this thread in fact restricted to that single gospel?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:41 am

Bryn Mawr;1389890 wrote: The initial spread of Christianity over the first eighty years appears to have been restricted to Judea before jumping to Antioch and then western Turkey (Ephesus and the surrounding areas).Okay, but wasn't it pretty shaky for that first eighty years? Believers would often abandon their dedication pretty quickly, didn't they?

Post by **spot** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:52 am

Ahso!;1389896 wrote: Okay, but wasn't it pretty shaky for that first eighty years? Believers would often abandon their dedication pretty quickly, didn't they?

I doubt your eighty years. The Gospel of Matthew was written to convert exile Jews after the fall of Jerusalem but before 100AD, so a date of 80-90AD is reasonable and can't be far out. Nobody under 70 could by then remember the ministry or death of Jesus, assuming there was an actual ministry and death about which I have no great interest since it's completely impossible to confirm or deny. Nobody alive in 80AD could have remembered a census between 6BC and 3AD.

There's a reasonable argument that the nativity stories and virgin birth were originally attached to the tradition which ended up as the stories of Myriam in the Koran. They're so different that they can't be based on Christian tradition but they're so alike that they can't have been invented independently.

I've seen it convincingly suggested that the Koran version is a more faithful text, being less influenced by a need to fulfill OT prophesy, than that of the Gospel of Matthew, and that both stem from pre-Muslim pre-Christian religious myth dating from hundreds of years before either was written.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:00 am

spot;1389894 wrote: First off, on a point of information, if I remember right the story of the census and the return to Bethlehem only appear in one Gospel, that of Matthew? Is what you're including in this thread in fact restricted to that single gospel?

And Luke but they place the events ten years apart.

Post by **spot** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:12 am

Bryn Mawr;1389903 wrote: And Luke but they place the events ten years apart.
I should have looked before I posted. Luke has a census, Matthew doesn't mention one at all as far as I can see, which still means the census-in-the-Gospels is down to a single post-72AD source. Matthew has the holy family settling in Nazareth to avoid attention after the flight to Egypt from where they originally lived, Bethlehem.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:24 am

spot;1389899 wrote: I doubt your eighty years. The Gospel of Matthew was written to convert exile Jews after the fall of Jerusalem but before 100AD, so a date of 80-90AD is reasonable and can't be far out. Nobody under 70 could by then remember the ministry or death of Jesus, assuming there was an actual ministry and death about which I have no great interest since it's completely impossible to confirm or deny. Nobody alive in 80AD could have remembered a census between 6BC and 3AD.

There's a reasonable argument that the nativity stories and virgin birth were originally attached to the tradition which ended up as the stories of Myriam in the Koran. They're so different that they can't be based on Christian tradition but they're so alike that they can't have been invented independently.

I've seen it convincingly suggested that the Koran version is a more faithful text, being less influenced by a need to fulfill OT prophesy, than that of the Gospel of Matthew, and that both stem from pre-Muslim pre-Christian religious myth dating from hundreds of years before either was written.

The eighty years was the time in which I was suggesting that the majority of conversion was restricted to Judea with, towards the end of that period, a spread to Antioch and Ephesus.

Given a date of 30-33AD for the Ministry and dates from 70AD for the writing of Luke and given that it was from and existing oral tradition there would be a clear memory of events but that's hardly the point. Either the claim was made at the time of the Ministry in which case the massacre of the innocents thirty years before would have been well remembered or it was an invention of the Gospel in which case the cries of "where the 'eck did that come from" would have rung loud and clear. For it to have been added into the oral tradition in the intervening years still leads to problems with memory of the events - not just the upheaval of a mass migration "in my father's time" but of the massacre that followed.

Post by **spot** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:40 am

Any confirming memories from the ministry would need someone aged 20 in 30AD confirming matters after publication in 80AD. That's where the 70 year old comes into it.

I imagine most of the few old-timers, hearing about the role of the census in the nativity for the first time in 80AD, would have said fancy that, I never knew that bit.

I'm not convinced every one of these convoluted OT claims were made during the ministry, I can see some being worked out later. What I see during the approach to Easter is a manic potential messiah trying to force God to trigger the end-times by ticking off as many messiah predictions as he could find, right down to suicidally forcing the courts to crucify him.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:58 am

spot;1389918 wrote: Any confirming memories from the ministry would need someone aged 20 in 30AD confirming matters after publication in 80AD. That's where the 70 year old comes into it.

I imagine most of the few old-timers, hearing about the role of the census in the nativity for the first time in 80AD, would have said fancy that, I never knew that bit.

I'm not convinced every one of these convoluted OT claims were made during the ministry, I can see some being worked out later. What I see during the approach to Easter is a manic potential messiah trying to force God to trigger the end-times by ticking off as many messiah predictions as he could find, right down to suicidally forcing the courts to crucify him.

Hows about addressing the point made instead of skipping on by :-

Bryn Mawr;1389911 wrote: Either the claim was made at the time of the Ministry in which case the massacre of the innocents thirty years before would have been well remembered or it was an invention of the Gospel in which case the cries of "where the 'eck did that come from" would have rung loud and clear. For it to have been added into the oral tradition in the intervening years still leads to problems with memory of the events - not just the upheaval of a mass migration "in my father's time" but of the massacre that followed.

No need for anyone to remember back from publication to the census (although an event of that magnitude would still be remembered by the sons and grandsons of those involved well beyond that timescale), just from the census to the Ministry or from what was said last week to what is being said this week.

Cor blimey - I've been waiting to say that for a long time

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:49 pm

It's a bit like the stories about world war two - people know vaguely what happened and unless they get interested don't bother checking up on the facts and we live in an age when information is freely available in a few minutes on-line search. How about the Korean war. How many people even know there was such a thing or the vietnam war - how many in the UK under the age of fifty know when and between whom it was fought, even many americans can't tell you what it was about.

This gives us a problem, a new religion trying to gain adherents cannot have an obvious falsehood at its heart and the people would have remembered or been told stories of the upheaval - a core of oldsters calling BS, I was there and it didn't happen would have stopped the Disciples in their tracks, the Pharisees would have made sure of that.

Eh, Scientology for example or how about mormonism. Hubbard was quite open about the fact he was making up a religion yet he has followers who take it seriously. Make up your own mind about Joseph mith and whtehr you believe him or not. To follow a religion you must believe all you are told - to question is to show a lack of faith. Logic and reason are a hindrance to religious faith.

I have no difficulty understanding how a story that there was a census can be accepted as fact especially when propagated by someone seen as being a truthful person - like a priest. Not believing it or doubting the gospels was downright dangerous once things really kicked off. The early church had to work out a way to explain the very obvious fact that the romans crucified Jesus, blaming the jews was a useful device - we do know what pontius pilate was like that the poor soul washed his hands of the matter is a bit hard to believe. The census story is just part of the same fairy tale. They needed a plausible reason for a pregnant woman to be on the road with her husband so the magi could find them. If you decide it is completely untrue will you also come to the same conclusion about the divinity of Jesus christ? I'm not a christian so I don't believe I will go to hell for doubting.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:32 pm

gmc;1389940 wrote: It's a bit like the stories about world war two - people know vaguely what happened and unless they get interested don't bother checking up on the facts and we live in an age when information is freely available in a few minutes on-line search. How about the Korean war. How many people even know there was such a thing or the vietnam war - how many in the UK under the age of fifty know when and between whom it was fought, even many americans can't tell you what it was about.

Eh, Scientology for example or how about mormonism. Hubbard was quite open about the fact he was making up a religion yet he has followers who take it seriously. Make up your own mind about Joseph mith and whtehr you believe him or not. To follow a religion you must believe all you are told - to question is to show a lack of faith. Logic and reason are a hindrance to religious faith.

I have no difficulty understanding how a story that there was a census can be accepted as fact especially when propagated by someone seen as being a truthful person - like a priest. Not believing it or doubting the gospels was downright dangerous once things really kicked off. The early church had to work out a way to explain the very obvious fact that the romans crucified Jesus, blaming the jews was a useful device - we do know what pontius pilate was like that the poor soul washed his hands of the matter is a bit hard to believe. The census story is just part of the same fairy tale. They needed a plausible reason for a pregnant woman to be on the road with her husband so the magi could find them. If you decide it is completely untrue will you also come to the same conclusion about the divinity of Jesus christ? I'm not a christian so I don't believe I will go to hell for doubting.

Certainly see where you're coming from with the last bit but not sure about the first.

This was not a war half a world away, this was great uncle Issac's newborn brother that was dragged outside by the soldiers and butchered - such a traumatic event would be remembered for generations.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:11 pm

I confess that I seldom give much thought to all the stuff from the gospels like the virgin birth, and the details of the events like this.

It was quite common to come up with tales about notable people in those days. Hell, it still is.

Paul Bunyan, Davey Crockett, Jim Bowie, John Henry to name a few.

It never seemed important whether Crockett actually killed a bear when he was three years old, or whether George Washington actually threw a dollar across the Potomac. I do not think denying these events would prove whether the persons in question actually existed or not.

Many great people of the ancient days were reported to be born of a virgin, yet we never doubt that they actually inhabited the Earth.

The story of Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem to get Taxed, and the whole manger scene, and many other tall tales seem irrelevant to the word Jesus brought to the people of his day.

There are, of course, legions of 'believers' who will claim that my unbelief in the minutia of the religion discount my title of Christian. I don't hold much to their opinion, either.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:12 pm

Bryn Mawr;1389960 wrote: Certainly see where you're coming from with the last bit but not sure about the first.

This was not a war half a world away, this was great uncle Issac's newborn brother that was dragged outside by the soldiers and butchered - such a traumatic event would be remembered for generations.

After a few years it would only be remembered in the vaguest terms unless there was some way to keep it alive. Look at ww1, a war that almost destroyed a generation, we remember it but to many it is just a story from the past with no real relevance and who believes men would charge in to machine guns knowing they were likely to get killed. How plausible is that? A census is even less interesting if someone said it happened why would people question it? Stories told by grandparents aren't always taken seriously. How often did you hear war stories as a child only to appreciate much later what was being talked about. People don't believe the holocaust happened and there are newsreels taken at the time about it and nazi records to check.

The bible story is believed because of the way it is used and taught in the churches - you are not supposed to question it or what you are told and many do not do so. It's a made up story - questioning the veracity will only prove it is a made up story. If you are a believer that causes you problems. To me large parts are so obviously "edited" I wonder some do not question.

People did question it and point out at the time that stories were being made up and were called heretics for their trouble and suffered the consequences of arguing with the church authority. The bishops sat down and decided what was true and what was not. There is no conspiracy about it you can look up the dates.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:30 pm

gmc;1389981 wrote: After a few years it would only be remembered in the vaguest terms unless there was some way to keep it alive. Look at ww1, a war that almost destroyed a generation, we remember it but to many it is just a story from the past with no real relevance and who believes men would charge in to machine guns knowing they were likely to get killed. How plausible is that? A census is even less interesting if someone said it happened why would people question it? Stories told by grandparents aren't always taken seriously. How often did you hear war stories as a child only to appreciate much later what was being talked about. People don't believe the holocaust happened and there are newsreels taken at the time about it and nazi records to check.

The bible story is believed because of the way it is used and taught in the churches - you are not supposed to question it or what you are told and many do not do so. It's a made up story - questioning the veracity will only prove it is a made up story. If you are a believer that causes you problems. To me large parts are so obviously "edited" I wonder some do not question.

People did question it and point out at the time that stories were being made up and were called heretics for their trouble and suffered the consequences of arguing with the church authority. The bishops sat down and decided what was true and what was not. There is no conspiracy about it you can look up the dates.

Instead of comparing it with the forgetfulness of today's information overload where people are battered day after day with fiction and the kids can hardly tell story from reality, I'd compare it to other societies with a strong oral tradition where a hundred years up the line they can recite the kings and major events of each years since.

People could only be heretics when the religion was entrenched and "the Church" had the level of authority to enforce their view. Whilst the people trying to convert the unbelievers we those who had been there and seen it, talking to people who had lived through those times, threats of excommunication and burning at the stake would not work. Three hundred years up the line it might but not then.

How do you convert an unbeliever to your new religion by teaching them of the massacre of the innocents if they'd lived in the next village all their lives and never heard of it and prided themselves on knowing every major event over the past hundred years?

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:44 pm

Bryn Mawr;1389826 wrote: I have a dilemma regarding one of the main stories in the Bible and I'm hoping that we can reach a consensus one way or another.

I suppose this thread is a spin off from Science Will Never Prove God and especially Pappy's last post there - here is the scenario :-

Given the story of the nativity it is reasonable to expect the records of the Romans, who were the bureaucrats of the day, to show that there had been a census during the reign of King Herod.

That no such records have been found and, worse, given that such mass migrations were not the normal way in which the Romans would have carried out a census, it is a big black mark against the historic nature of the Bible.

On the other hand, this is a basic plank of the religion without which the prophecies would not have been fulfilled. It is unthinkable that it would have been added at a much later date.

This gives us a problem, a new religion trying to gain adherents cannot have an obvious falsehood at its heart and the people would have remembered or been told stories of the upheaval - a core of oldsters calling BS, I was there and it didn't happen would have stopped the Disciples in their tracks, the Pharisees would have made sure of that.

Any ideas?

There was no census....no where else in the NT is this census spoke of except in the book of Luke which is odd considering this writer who ever he was admitted to never having seen a jesus Luke 1 1-4.

Luke’s description of the census is difficult for three reasons. First, there is no record of a singular, empire-wide census instituted by Augustus.7 Second, a Roman census would have required Joseph to register not at his ancestral home in Bethlehem but in the principal city of his “taxation district,”8 presumably somewhere in Galilee. (Not to mention, Mary would not have been obliged to go with him.9) Third, Roman censuses were not administered in client kingdoms, such as Herod’s was.10

Once More: Quirinius's Census

Further, Quirinius’s involvement with such a census is difficult for two reasons. First, Luke describes Jesus’ birth and this census as taking place during Herod the Great’s reign (1:5; cf. Matt 2:1)—a reign11 ended by Herod’s death in March/April of 4 B.C. Second, Luke describes both events as also taking place during the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria. The juxtaposition of these two details “has caused,” as Schürer notes, “the greatest difficulties even to the defenders of Luke,”12 for Syrian gubernatorial records indicate that Quirinius was not governor during this time.13

Once More: Quirinius's Census

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:18 pm

Pappy;1390002 wrote: There was no census....no where else in the NT is this census spoke of except in the book of Luke which is odd considering this writer who ever he was admitted to never having seen a jesus Luke 1 1-4.

Once More: Quirinius's Census

Once More: Quirinius's Census

Certainly there are problems with Luke's description, especially the dating where he was trying to tie the dates of Jesus's birth with that of John's ten years earlier but the existence of a census in 6 - 7 AD is testified outside of the Bible, notably by Josephus. This is only proof that there was no census if you insist on an Inerrant Bible - sure, the author mixed his dates up, it happens.

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:36 pm

Bryn Mawr;1390036 wrote: Certainly there are problems with Luke's description, especially the dating where he was trying to tie the dates of Jesus's birth with that of John's ten years earlier but the existence of a census in 6 - 7 AD is testified outside of the Bible, notably by Josephus. This is only proof that there was no census if you insist on an Inerrant Bible - sure, the author mixed his dates up, it happens.

Depends on if you believe this myth existed which I don't...

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 pm

Well, it only becomes important if someone discounts everything that Jesus said, due to Luke being confused about the time-line.

IMHO.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:25 pm

Bryn Mawr;1389826 wrote: I have a dilemma regarding one of the main stories in the Bible and I'm hoping that we can reach a consensus one way or another.

I suppose this thread is a spin off from Science Will Never Prove God and especially Pappy's last post there - here is the scenario :-

Given the story of the nativity it is reasonable to expect the records of the Romans, who were the bureaucrats of the day, to show that there had been a census during the reign of King Herod.

That no such records have been found and, worse, given that such mass migrations were not the normal way in which the Romans would have carried out a census, it is a big black mark against the historic nature of the Bible.

On the other hand, this is a basic plank of the religion without which the prophecies would not have been fulfilled. It is unthinkable that it would have been added at a much later date.

This gives us a problem, a new religion trying to gain adherents cannot have an obvious falsehood at its heart and the people would have remembered or been told stories of the upheaval - a core of oldsters calling BS, I was there and it didn't happen would have stopped the Disciples in their tracks, the Pharisees would have made sure of that.

Any ideas?

It did not happen ( rapture day ) I quoted Mccoy`s post he made ( see post no. 20 ) in the thread entitled " sculpted dolls ". When it was time to go the quote ( a grave mistake ) although only a spot was the glitch disabling the craft that would have taken them all those who believed back to God.

sculpted dolls - A Place for Paramahansa Yogananda Devotees

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:27 pm

LarsMac;1390063 wrote: Well, it only becomes important if someone discounts everything that Jesus said, due to Luke being confused about the time-line.

IMHO.

I give up...........................

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:04 pm

Pappy;1390067 wrote: I give up...........................

Hi, Popsy wuzzy!

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:16 pm

Howdy..how you? Me? Fine as frog hair thank you.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:30 pm

LarsMac;1390063 wrote: Well, it only becomes important if someone discounts everything that Jesus said, due to Luke being confused about the time-line.

IMHO.Which parts are you referring to? Where Jesus said he came to destroy families by setting mothers against fathers and brothers against sisters (or however it was phrased)? Jesus did a lot of mumbo-jumbo talking as well - the parables. Then there's the sermon on the mount where Jesus sells his religion to poor folk.

The stuff that Jesus supposedly talked about was in reference to the Jewish traditions of that time and is irrelevant today.

There have been many people other than Jesus who've talked about peace and love - John Lennon is one, but we don't create a religion around them.

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:42 pm

Ahso!;1390073 wrote: Which parts are you referring to? Where Jesus said he came to destroy families by setting mothers against fathers and brothers against sisters (or however it was phrased)? Jesus did a lot of mumbo-jumbo talking as well - the parables. Then there's the sermon on the mount where Jesus sells his religion to poor folk.

The stuff that Jesus supposedly talked about was in reference to the Jewish traditions of that time and is irrelevant today.

There have been many people other than Jesus who've talked about peace and love - John Lennon is one, but we don't create a religion around them.

And who says that this jesus ever spoke a word? Who heard him? Could not have been the NT authors since they were some 40 to 130 years after the fact. So other than the NT what evidence is there that this character spoke anything? Does myth sound strange?

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:35 am

Bryn Mawr;1389927 wrote: Hows about addressing the point made instead of skipping on by :-

No need for anyone to remember back from publication to the census (although an event of that magnitude would still be remembered by the sons and grandsons of those involved well beyond that timescale), just from the census to the Ministry or from what was said last week to what is being said this week.

Cor blimey - I've been waiting to say that for a long time

This wasn't book publishing. There might have been ten or twenty copies of each Gospel for the first fifty years of their existence, people were converted by promises face to face. I'd suggest that the proportion of Christians by 200AD who'd heard the nativity stories was a small minority.

Equally, those who said it couldn't be so had no channel to make their comment permanent. Those few may well have said it. Some scratched heads and shrugged shoulders resulted.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:41 am

Pappy;1390002 wrote: There was no census....no where else in the NT is this census spoke of except in the book of Luke which is odd considering this writer who ever he was admitted to never having seen a jesus Luke 1 1-4.

There was a Roman census in 6-7AD across Judea though, and it led to riots. It's not the same date as Herod the Great, and it can't have involved mass returns to ancestral villages, but it's a feasible date and it's a historical census. Your "Third, Roman censuses were not administered in client kingdoms" ignores the reality of this one. Josephus describes its consequences and dates it.

Pappy · Post by **Pappy** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:53 am

spot;1390086 wrote: There was a Roman census in 6-7AD across Judea though, and it led to riots. It's not the same date as Herod the Great, and it can't have involved mass returns to ancestral villages, but it's a feasible date and it's a historical census. Your "Third, Roman censuses were not administered in client kingdoms" ignores the reality of this one. Josephus describes its consequences and dates it.

A Roman census of any kind would not have required the entire family to return. Anyway its just another bit of truth mixed in with all the myth.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:33 am

Ahso!;1390073 wrote: Which parts are you referring to? Where Jesus said he came to destroy families by setting mothers against fathers and brothers against sisters (or however it was phrased)? Jesus did a lot of mumbo-jumbo talking as well - the parables. Then there's the sermon on the mount where Jesus sells his religion to poor folk.

The stuff that Jesus supposedly talked about was in reference to the Jewish traditions of that time and is irrelevant today.

There have been many people other than Jesus who've talked about peace and love - John Lennon is one, but we don't create a religion around them.

Give him another few centuries.

Yes, most of what Jesus said was directed at the Jewish people of the day.

Much of what he said goes against the standards of the day, and was quite revolutionary.

Much of what he said still applies, and is still quite revolutionary.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:55 am

He had his turn (if this person actually existed - which I don't believe) and it's over. My guess is that as time moves forward Jesus and religious influence will slowly diminish to zero. This has already begun and as it continues the faithful will notice one-by-one just how silly their dogma sounds. For those who die in their belief, somewhere along their future lineage it will change.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:38 am

Ahso!;1390114 wrote: He had his turn (if this person actually existed - which I don't believe) and it's over. My guess is that as time moves forward Jesus and religious influence will slowly diminish to zero. This has already begun and as it continues the faithful will notice one-by-one just how silly their dogma sounds. For those who die in their belief, somewhere along their future lineage it will change.

I don't go in much for all the dogma, but I have no doubt that the man existed.

I also have no doubt that he was inspired by God.

Separating all the tall tales from the real person is a bit of a chore.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:45 am

LarsMac;1390122 wrote: I don't go in much for all the dogma, but I have no doubt that the man existed.

I also have no doubt that he was inspired by God.

Separating all the tall tales from the real person is a bit of a chore.Lots of people have existed who have been inspired by their God.

You believe the Jesus of the New testament existed? The one who raised dead people, actually walked on water, calmed seas, turned water into wine, rose from the dead himself and now sits at the right hand of God and intercedes on the behalf of those who are willing to call him the son of god? The person of the Godhead who created his own arch enemy, the devil, only to defeat him? That's what some here refer to as an Aunt Sally, isn't it?

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:11 am

Ahso!;1390125 wrote: Lots of people have existed who have been inspired by their God.

You believe the Jesus of the New testament existed? The one who raised dead people, actually walked on water, calmed seas, turned water into wine, rose from the dead himself and now sits at the right hand of God and interceded on the behalf of those who are willing to call him the son of god? The person of the Godhead who created his own arch enemy, the devil, only to defeat him? That's what some here refer to as an Aunt Sally, isn't it?

Try to look at this way.Do you believe in what US PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA says? The answer is it depends on whose side, Republican or Democratic, you belong to. IF US PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA says he is the Voice of the American people do you believe that? No one is forcing you to believe what US PRES OBAMA says. If he says OSAMA BIN LADEN is dead, do you believe that? Do you have proof the mastermind of 911 is dead? & again the answer is it depends. NOW, the question: Do I believe in what the Bible says? My answer is IT depends on what side of coin I belong to. The issue is not whether Science or whatever has proof or has not proven Jesus is Lord. Even if you know Jesus is GOD yet you continue denying his existence & authority simply because you do not love the Jesus of Nazareth..

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:25 am

rajakrsna;1390131 wrote: You just do not like GOD.
That's a very ethical position to take though. God, if he exists, is bad. God, if he exists, allows bad things to happen even though he could prevent them. If God exists then I most definitely don't like him in the slightest.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:36 am

spot;1390136 wrote: That's a very ethical position to take though. God, if he exists, is bad. God, if he exists, allows bad things to happen even though he could prevent them. If God exists then I most definitely don't like him in the slightest.

I believe in democracy. So if that`s your view then so be it. & you should do the same thing I did to you if I tell you I love Jesus.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:39 am

rajakrsna;1390139 wrote: I believe in democracy. So if that`s your view then so be it. & should do the same thing if I tell you I love Jesus.

We were discussing God, not Jesus, and questions of fact have nothing to do with democracy or points of view. God, if he exists, behaves badly. That's not an opinion, it's a description of natural disasters which any competent God could easily prevent.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:45 am

spot;1390141 wrote: We were discussing God, not Jesus, and questions of fact have nothing to do with democracy or points of view. God, if he exists, behaves badly. That's not an opinion, it's a description of natural disasters which any competent God could easily prevent.

Can God prevent mother nature if she whips back at you with earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons etc because we have destroyed God`s Garden, hoarded God` supply of oil, the richest among the rich or whatever have not solved poverty, slaughter of cows, etc. Don`t blame God blame your selves for not taking good care of mother nature.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:51 am

My my, you do make him out to be a vindictive bugger don't you.

The hundreds of thousands of individuals killed by the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004 included babes in arms and peasants who'd never left their villages. Do you hold them responsible for not taking good care of mother nature? And if not, what justice is there in refusing to save their lives when the ability to do so was there, if this God exists. Do the innocent have to suffer because others are guilty? What kind of a God is it that you believe in, if it's capable of such monstrous behavior.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:05 am

spot;1390145 wrote: My my, you do make him out to be a vindictive bugger don't you.

The hundreds of thousands of individuals killed by the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004 included babes in arms and peasants who'd never left their villages. Do you hold them responsible for not taking good care of mother nature? And if not, what justice is there in refusing to save their lives when the ability to do so was there, if this God exists. Do the innocent have to suffer because others are guilty? What kind of a God is it that you believe in, if it's capable of such monstrous behavior.

Those who are killed are resurrected & are given material bodies according their respective KARMA in the next life. God can annihilate the world even including the innocents without ado because he knows we are not killed if our material bodies are killed by tsunamis, earthquakes etc. He who knows the Truth do not fear death. Because he knows he is an immortal. The soul-YOU can not be killed only your material body.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:06 am

Pappy;1390052 wrote: Depends on if you believe this myth existed which I don't...

Before dismissing something as myth I like to examine the possibilities - like is there any external evidence to support it. This thread is part of my attempt to do that.

Given that you have come to a definite conclusion I presume that you have proof that none of it is true? Would you care to share that rather than repeatedly stating that it is not true with no evidence to back your opinion up?

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:15 am

rajakrsna;1390151 wrote: Those who are killed are resurrected & are given material bodies according their respective KARMA in the next life. God can annihilate the world even including the innocents without ado because he knows we are not killed if our material bodies are killed by tsunamis, earthquakes etc. He who knows the Truth do not fear death. Because he knows he is an immortal. The soul-YOU can not be killed only your material body.

If I behaved like that I'd be pretty vile. Anyone judging me had better have clean hands. This God you describe, if he exists, is drenched in blood.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:18 am

LarsMac;1390063 wrote: Well, it only becomes important if someone discounts everything that Jesus said, due to Luke being confused about the time-line.

IMHO.

To discount the entire Bible because of a single contradiction only makes sense if you insist that the Bible is inerrant - otherwise it is a judgement call that says more about the person making it than it does about the Bible.

Any document of significant length will contain errors and discrepancies, it is the number and seriousness of these that give you an assessment of the reliability of the document but, even in an unreliable document, there can be elements of truth.

To dismiss a document as a work of fiction requires a more considered approach.