scspkr99 wrote:I'd appreciate if anyone who takes a literal view of the bible could explain why Jesus has two genealogies according to the gospels Luke and Matthew. Also the death of Judas is dealt with differently in Matthew and Acts. I understand that different churches maintain that it's their interpretation of the bible that is true but I don't know how inerrantists resolve the questions of the bibles inherent contradictions.
I don't know that Leave Blank is a literalist so this isn't directed specifically towards him
I don't think you're likely to find a rational, intelligent bible literalist to answer that as you'd have to be pretty moronic to take all of the bible literally.
Like any work of literature, the bible uses a bunch of literary tropes and conventions. As a result, there will be parts of the bible that are allegorical, metaphorical etc. Even Jesus spoke in parable.
However, there is an extent to which, I can answer that question. Matthew's gospel is not, in terms of events, names and places; the most accurate however, it makes sense when you consider the culture Matthew was writing into. Matthew has a tendency to group events and names together thematically as opposed to chronologically (for example, Matthew groups most of Jesus' teachings that follow a particular theme into one event in his gospel, the sermon on the mount whereas, all other gospels refer to the same teachings happening at different times, some scholars even claim there was no single, "sermon on the mount"). So, Matthew's gospel exists to speak in to a very particular eastern cultural context whereas, Dr. Luke's gospel was much more meticulous in terms of chronology for the same reasons as Matthew's wasn't, namely culture. Luke's gospel written to a bureaucratic Roman friend serves as an early form of apologetics and, therefore, needs to remain as accurate historically as possible. It is for this reading that you find the odd contradiction.
As an aside, it is precisely because these gospels contain contradictions that gives them their credibility as witness accounts to Jesus' life. Imagine you are on the jury in court and you have four guys charged with a robbery. Each guy comes out, one at a time and gives their account of the events and you soon notice that all four accounts are 100% flawless in their correlation with the other accounts. It would quickly become apparent something fishy was going on as, in the heat of the moment, it is perfectly natural for one person's perception of events to differ slightly from the other's. In fact, this simple bit of knowledge is used today in the justice system as a means to detect collaborative lies.
I hope this resolves those conflicts for you.
Also they were all written at different times with a range of the earliest possible being Mark at 30 years after the alleged death of jesus to the latest estimate of John being 70 years after the alleged death of jesus. What always got me was the non biblical scholars mentioning of jesus.
Scholars like Pliny the elder, who would have been alive during the alleged lifetime of jesus and didn't die until 49 years after the alleged death of jesus never mentions jesus once. This seems odd as if we are to believe the gospels some of the stuff that happened with jesus was quite a big deal and likely would have been noticed by a historian.
In contrast we have Tacitus who was born 26 years after the alleged death and lived until 87 years after the alleged death. He does mention jesus and is somewhat consistent with the gospels when describing the alleged death.
So Tacitus lived during a time when the roman empire was actively persecuting christians and had reason to try and cover it up, and yet he describes essentially what the gospels have to say. Pliny who lived when there was no such threat from the cult of christianity and the stuff was actually supposed to be happening never mentions it once.
I think it makes more sense that there never was any jesus and that christian mythology borrows heavily from earlier less remembered mythologies while ensuring the new stories fit with the jewish prophecies of a messiah. The writers of the gospels would have had access to all of that, Alexandria wasn't that far away.
Theres plenty more evidence to suggest this like the complete lack of any archeological evidence supporting there having been a jesus and the wildly varying opinions on what jesus even was by different christians sects before the council of nicea.
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:40 pm
by Eat Bass
I believe strictly in Noah's Ark.
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:01 am
by kingGhost
just posting in this thread
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:18 am
by lovelydivot
I'm going to tell you what I learned about Jesus from a documentary...
In the time of Jesus - Jesus of Nazareth - a real person...
There was a band of rogue jews who were angry at the leaders of the temple...
Because the Rabbis had made a deal with the Romans to co-operate...
They worked with the Roamans - Romans allowed them to continue worship - as a non-threatening entity etc
Well this rouge band of jews - started assassinating their own Rabbis because the didn't agree -
Thought they were selling out the people...
this assassinating of people - was not appreciated by the Romans or the Jewish people...so they were all on the outs
hence why they were wandering around hungry...
and they said that - although there was no indication that Jesus was involved in the real sinister stuff -
to the contrary - he was know as very positive and upstanding
One of the "real" reasons he was crucified - is because of the company he kept.
Now reconsider the last supper - how he died for "your sins" - and all the talk about forgiveness
More of an ancient message to a rogue faction...
Who can say what is true though?
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:51 am
by d-T-r
thou shout always rememberith to forget the bullshit comentary,misconstruction's,mis-interpretatuins that followeth any idea-th and be the source of the idea of ideas it's self
Jesus dont give a fuck about the cross. Buddha don't want no statue of himself to look at
silence is golden.
you are Jesus, you are budha, you are krishna you are shiva, you are lucifer , you are the source of it all and source of nothing, you are everything everyone has ever thought and has yet to think. you are every saint, every sinner, every atomic bomb, every flower, every dying child , every child being born. every person you hate, every person you love.
you are every religous person, every atheist, every 'ism' and that makes me/you/us happy
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:40 am
by Terpit
There are more important things to worry about like 'how am I gonna eat all this bread before it goes off'
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:20 pm
by Maccaveli
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:52 pm
by Leave Blank
d-T-r wrote:
thou shout always rememberith to forget the bullshit comentary,misconstruction's,mis-interpretatuins that followeth any idea-th and be the source of the idea of ideas it's self
Jesus dont give a fuck about the cross. Buddha don't want no statue of himself to look at
silence is golden.
you are Jesus, you are budha, you are krishna you are shiva, you are lucifer , you are the source of it all and source of nothing, you are everything everyone has ever thought and has yet to think. you are every saint, every sinner, every atomic bomb, every flower, every dying child , every child being born. every person you hate, every person you love.
you are every religous person, every atheist, every 'ism' and that makes me/you/us happy
Resurrecting this thread to chuck a bit of a rebuttal out there.
The point of view you are advocating g here is akin to the following arrogorical anecdote:
There are four blind men. They are each led into an enclosure with an elephant inside. Each man is asked to describe what he is in the room with. The first bling man says, 'it is a long flexible tube that has a rough texture'. The second blind man interjects by saying, ' that's not at all what it is, it's a huge sturdy structure with a tough texture'. It transpires that each man is correct to an extent in describing the particular part of the elephant they come into contact with.
This is similar to claiming that all religious views hint towards truth and all religions have attributes to be admired.
The problem is this, there is an assumed perspective in both the analogy and the actual thing, the perspective is that of someone who can see the bigger picture, someone outside looking in with clearer vision.
The arrogance of this position is well hidden but evident when uncovered.
Don't claim that they're all equally right and all equally wrong because, you are assuming the moral high ground belongs to you. This view is equally as assertive as assuming lay one view is right.
There's no superiority here, we all claim to have the exclusive right answer!
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:10 am
by m8son666
the only thing i worship is my intellect
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:20 am
by Leave Blank
don't watch the poor grammar/spelling, it's 20 past midnight at the end of a 60 hour working week, fully tired!
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:31 am
by cloaked_up
not into christians
they are suspisoucious and generally low IQ
derp house reliouse
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 2:05 am
by nowaysj
m8son wrote:the only thing i worship is my intellect
nowaysjeezy wrote:There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason...
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:07 am
by ehbes
m8son wrote:the only thing i worship is my intellect
If this was anyone but mason if belabor gut the hiessdt fedora ever
Re: Is anyone on here 'deeply' religious?
Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:12 am
by wolf89
m8son wrote:the only thing i worship is my intellect
