justbehappy
Active Member
I really like the point that it is supposed to be protected but yet there are many versions. Thanks for bringing that up; I haven't heard that before
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why believe the Bible?
- Thread starter xxclaro
- Start date
The gospels are not copies of each other but often compliment each other.
Luke 4:29 does Not say villagers.
Luke 1:26; 2:4, 39 refers to Nazareth as a 'city'.
Nazareth has been associated with: En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee.
There is a rocky cliff some 40 feet high located SW of the city.
That could have been the brow that the people wanted to hurl Jesus off.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
No, Nazareth is located at Nazareth. We know where Nazareth is. There really is no distinction here. There is no cliff, there was no synagogue, and it can only be termed a city in a very loose way (as it only had two to four hundred people at most.
And yes, the gospels are somewhat copies of each other. There is no debate here really. Any credible study shows that Luke and Matthew are based off of Mark. There really is no scholarly debate here.
Finally, the Gospels do not compliment each other. They outright contradict each other. Just look at the birth stories. They do not compliment each other, but tell two very different stories. For example, look the genealogies. They both differ quite a bit. That is just one example.
Petriebird
Member
Why do I believe the bible is true?
Because while I was dead I picked up a bible and held onto it for many many years while enduring the worst this world has to offer.... and it was with me the whole time and it delievered me into a life I love where all hope had previously been lost. Through following what this book has to offer I have completely rebuilt my life and find that I am a person that I love... where as I was once a man trying to fit in I am now someone that I love for who I am. the bible has made me a better person so there is no doubt whatsoever in it.
The bible isn't protected to this day? I wasn't aware of that
In the end christianity isn't about scrutinity.... it isn't about being right.... it isn't even about being wrong.... it's about loving those around you and it tells you how best to do it.
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
So the early church executed and/or repressed scientists why?
Those who endorsed a heliocentric universe, early Evolutionists, and medical researchers who used cadavers are all examples of people put to death or jailed for not taking the bible literally.
Ever wonder why the highest degrees attainable at a university are Ph D'S? Only medicine, theosophy, and math were considered "real science". Unless the universities called everything else philosophy, the church would shut them down.
Literalism today is what is left over from the early church, not some modern development.
Last edited:
Interesting post. I can agree with the last sentence, I think it sums things up pretty well. However, not everyone would have the same experience you had in the same situation. Also, others would likley have similar stories that varied only in the religion or text they used to bring about the changes in their life.
When I was younger, I teetered for a long time on the brink of insanity trying to understand and follow the very book you credit with your salvation. Who's experience should be taken as representative of the power or truth of the Bible?
Poet-Troll
Member
Your point can be summarized as stating that Luke 16:4 is anachronistic because it assumes Nazareth to have a synagogue in the first half of the first century and Jesus to have been literate.
You go too far in reference to Nazareth at the time. The remains of the time are too meagre to draw conclusions. You go too far in drawing the conclusion that the synagogue institution did not have an affect on literacy at the time. You go too far in drawing the conclusion that the Roman class system was perfectly reflected in Jewish society, with consequent implications for literacy. We have already discussed all of these points.
Your reference to the Targum tradition of reading in itself suggests a level of literacy among Jews not to be found in the Roman provinces generally. It is in itself enough to make your premise questionable. But even three per cent literacy is enough to make the account in Luke acceptable. The social status reported for Jesus is ambiguous in any case, and certainly does not preclude literacy.
Your argument for home education along with the synagogue institution rather speaks against your argument than for it.
As a scholar, I find your assumptions too many and based on too weak evidence to draw the conclusion that Jesus, if he existed, must have been illiterate. That is simply overstated. We can only say that he may have been illiterate, or at most that it is likely that he was illiterate.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
No. Those were just supporting comments. The actual argument is more based on what Luke was trying to portray through his two volume set. I explained it in more detail before, so I do not see a reason to reiterate that point.
I go too far because I use historical data in order to reinforce my ideas? The remains are not too meagre. We can form logical conclusions from what we have already uncovered both at the physical location, and literary remarks, or the lack of. Also, I do not believe that I go too far about what I had to say about the synagogue and literacy rates. The fact was that the synagogue institution you are speaking of is from a later time. The synagogue was different during the first century C.E. then the second century and so forth.
Also, I am not drawing any conclusion about the Roman class system as a whole. I am speaking directly about the Jewish homeland. Yes, Roman society has an effect on it, but I have not been talking about the Roman class system as a whole. I have been focusing on the area that Jesus would have known, and what would have had an actual effect on understanding who he was.
I am not the only one who shares the conclusions that I have made though. A more in depth study can be seen in John Dominic Crossan's and Jonathan L Reed's book Excavating Jesus. Both are authorities on their own subject, Crossan's being the historical Jesus (and he is considered the premier scholar on the subject). So my ideas are not unfounded, especially that there is the evidence (as discovered by other scholars and researchers as well) that would support my conclusions. There is a chance that I am wrong, and I will admit that if it is shown to be; but as of now, I do not see that to be the case.
Poet-Troll
Member
There is also a change you are right. However, this middle of the road stance appears weak to me from a scholarly point of view. Yet you are correct that many scholars take that stand, I believe because they are influenced in their scholarship by their faith. I think the view that with the exception of the book of Revelation the New Testament is a production of the first half of the second century has much to be said for it. By the same token, the theory that the personage described in the New Testament is a composite of as many as three historical people along with legendary elements seems to me to be as reasonable as the assumption of the historical Jesus. The longer the debate on the historical Jesus, the more it seems like beating a dead donkey.
The story of the Massacre of the Innocents doesn't appear again until the Gospel of James which is believed to have been written in the mid Second century. To say that it couldn't have happened because of the lack of historical record is an argument from silence and not a good one. It actually strengthens the case for a historical Jesus. If Christians had invented a Messiah, similar to the Roman god Mithras, both Jews and Romans would have reason to prove that Jesus was not a real person. Christians took verses from the OT and applied them to Jesus; both verses about a Messiah and verses about Yahweh. With the possible exception of Luke, the authors of the New Testament were Orthodox Jews and some of what they wrote would have been blasphemy. If first century Jews and Romans wanted to prove that Jesus was not a real person then there should be some historical document from the first century with an attempted refutation of the Massacre of the Innocents but there isn't any.
This is Leviticus 11:13-20 in the KJV:
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
The KJV was written about 400 years ago and the English has changed since then. For instance Song of Solomon 2:12 in the KJV says "The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;" Turtle was synonomous with turtle dove at that time. Philippians 4:14 says "Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction."
Many Christians believe that the KJV is the best translation and some believe it's the only one to use to which I would ask them to explain Luke 23:15 in the KJV: "No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him."
Jesus was the one on trial, not the guards and Pharisees.
The Hebrew word translated as fowl in the KJV is `owph and is translated as bird, fowl, flying, flying insects, winged and winged creature. Jesus spoke of Jonah as being in the belly of the "big fish" but the Israelites didn't use our current taxonomy and had not classified animals to the point where they distingushed between whales and mammals or bats and mammals. God didn't have to identify bats as mammals and the Israelites probably wouldn't have understood it and while they used `owph for bats they may not have used it for penguins or ostriches. 'Uwph, the root word for 'owph, means to to fly, fly about or fly away.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Actually, it is a pretty good argument.
If there was a "Massacre of Innocents," it would have been of historical significance, unlike the historical Jesus.
If the massacre is not in Josephus's History of Palestine or history of Herod, it probably didn't happen.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
But not if they thought that Jesus was historically or religiously insignificant. Jesus lived and died and the Jews and Romans merrily went on with their lives, ignoring the insignificant "Christ" movement.
Christianity was not an historically significant force until the late third century, when Christian dogma and organization were finally taking shape.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I would say that the "Massacre of Innocents" is just about the worst evidence one can muster for the historical Jesus.
It's a horrible argument. As I pointed out both Romans and Jews would have ample motivation to prove that Jesus of Nazareth never existed and the Massacre of the Innocence would have been a perfect opportunity for them to prove Christianity was based on a copy-cat Christ. But, there is no attempt from either the Jews or Romans of the first century to refute the historicity of the event. It is a poorly thought out argument from silence which doesn't support what skeptics wish it did but refutes the very point they try to make. I've read that Josephus relied heavily on the Greek historian Nicolaus of Damascus when writing about King Herod. Nicolaus was a friend of Herod's and Herod would have little reason to volunteer this information since it had to do with the murder of innocent children which he had ordered.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
It also has been translated in the most beautiful way. Even the Atheist Hitchens is a fan of the poetry of the King James Bible.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Actually, it is a very logical argument. The Jews had no motivation to defame Jesus in the first century. The Romans had no reason either, as it simply would not have made a difference, and they would have much more to worry about.
During that time period, the first century, Christianity was still just developing. The Gospels were produced at the end of that time period and did not become overly popular until the second century. Even then though, the main individuals who were refuting the religion were pagans.
Christianity, in the first century, was not opposed to Judaism. Actually, many considered it just another branch, and it existed within the Jewish community at the same time that it was being spread among the gentiles. For instance, we know that there was an influential Jewish-Christian group located in Jerusalem that was led by James (the supposed brother of Jesus).
So really, there would not have been an overly attack during the first century because the religion was just beginning to form.
As for the massacre of the innocents, there simply is no evidence at all. There is no literary evidence, nor was there any historical evidence. With an atrocity such as killing all males 2 years and younger would have certainly caused a serious revolt. Yet, we have no evidence of any resistance to such a decree. Even John the Baptist, who would have only been about six months older than Jesus, was never killed.
Also, there is only one account of the massacre in the Gospels. First, we know that Matthew and Luke were based on Mark. Mark doesn't even have a birth story, so the story had to come from somewhere else. Yet, such a major event did not even appear in the story from Luke. Luke does not even seem to be aware that anything of the such happened. Certainly, if it did, there is no way that Luke could have ignored it and carried on with his birth story in the way that he did, as Jesus would have certainly been slain.
Finally, looking at the birth story in Matthew, one can begin to see a very distinct similarity to the story of Moses. Which would be a more logical explanation of why that incident is included at all, that Matthew was basing his birth story off of the birth story of Moses. The reason would be to show how Jesus was important, so much so that he is lifted above Moses.
On a side note, the entire birth story was probably, and most likely, a complete creation of Luke and Matthew. Looking at those who did attack Christianity never stated that it was impossible for a virgin birth. They accepted that fact that it was not unique as figures such as Augustus even had a similar birth. So it was not uncommon to create a story such that someone who was deemed important would have an important birth. However, as with the case of Augustus, it was simply a creation that was later superimposed into the tradition. We ignore the birth story of Augustus, Buddha, Alexander the Great, etc, so it is only logical to do the same with Jesus.
Zadok
Zadok
The Bible is a collection of ancient sacred texts that have not really been translated but is offered in our time as a single representation and interpretation of a vast variety of the dispersed remaining copies. What I have found is that there is a great difference between reading the Bible and studying ancient sacred texts.
As a student of the Bible and someone interested in ancient civilizations I find what is offered from the ancients to be most interesting when applied to our obviously much more advanced (sic) modern civilization. To be honest I am amazed with the wisdom of the ancients and at the same time I am dumfounded by the incredibly stupid doctrines that have resulted from the legacy of the ancients and found light in our generation.
I am convinced that those that criticize The Bible, as I often do, are not really criticizing the Bible but those that interpret the bible as a means to justify their religious dogmas, to prove particular doctrines and blast anyone that does not see eye to eye in with them while displaying varying degrees of ignorance of such things as love, compassion, honor and justice to anyone outside their circle. This is not unique to Traditional Christians but is found, developed and a favored ideology among many varieties of believers or non-believers of all kinds of things on this forum.
It is interesting to me that whenever something really intelligent and worthwhile comes along that there are so many individuals and groups that attempt to hijack anything they can to make money, control masses of the ignorant or obtain some advantage or power over their lesser counter parts. In other words those that seek wealth, fame and power will always scoff at transcendent spiritual intelligence, light and truth and then mourn the loss of love and compassion in the society they created. It is also interesting how few seek to be enlightened by anything whatsoever.
Zadok
As a student of the Bible and someone interested in ancient civilizations I find what is offered from the ancients to be most interesting when applied to our obviously much more advanced (sic) modern civilization. To be honest I am amazed with the wisdom of the ancients and at the same time I am dumfounded by the incredibly stupid doctrines that have resulted from the legacy of the ancients and found light in our generation.
I am convinced that those that criticize The Bible, as I often do, are not really criticizing the Bible but those that interpret the bible as a means to justify their religious dogmas, to prove particular doctrines and blast anyone that does not see eye to eye in with them while displaying varying degrees of ignorance of such things as love, compassion, honor and justice to anyone outside their circle. This is not unique to Traditional Christians but is found, developed and a favored ideology among many varieties of believers or non-believers of all kinds of things on this forum.
It is interesting to me that whenever something really intelligent and worthwhile comes along that there are so many individuals and groups that attempt to hijack anything they can to make money, control masses of the ignorant or obtain some advantage or power over their lesser counter parts. In other words those that seek wealth, fame and power will always scoff at transcendent spiritual intelligence, light and truth and then mourn the loss of love and compassion in the society they created. It is also interesting how few seek to be enlightened by anything whatsoever.
Zadok
Zadok
Zadok
I wanted to comment on this bit of reference to history. Anyone that has studied the attitude of the Roman Empire on the populations outside of their privilege citizen class realize that brutality of innocence was common and even part of the entertainments of the era. Outside of the entertainments and conquests of the military for wealth there was no record of the small stuff that took place in remote insignificant places like Bethlehem.
As to John the Baptist it is the tradition of some texts that remain that his father knew what was about to happen and this is why John the Baptist was sent in his infancy with his mother into the wilderness. According to traditions, Zacharias was confronted that same day when he went to his duties at the temple (thinking to not draw suspicion) concerning his son and wife was executed on the steps of the temple because he claimed to not know where his son and wife had gone.
Zadok
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Lets assume that is correct. One problem does arise. The birth story in Luke never mentions such an event. Now, I think we both can agree that Luke would not have been able to ignore an event that would have been deemed quite important (as in life or death). The lack of any mention from Luke should be considered significant.
However, I believe that what I previously said is quite accurate. Especially when we consider that the Jewish population had revolted for less (Romans killing all of your male babies is quite severe), and we have records of the revolts that did occur.