Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

domer76 said:
Not only does the crucifixion story have its contradictions, the birth story and even the concept of virgin birth do, too.

The two gospels that even mention birth can’t even get the decade right. One even tries to reconcile Joseph’s lineage to David to agree with OT bullshit about the messiah. WTF difference does THAT make if he’s not even the biological father? “Young woman” was then changed to “virgin” in translations to invent the deity of Christ. They can’t even get straight why Bethlehem when they were really from Nazareth. Oh, that’s right. Changed to agree with prophecy, not because it actually happened.
Click to expand...

The fact that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies tells me there was no grand conspiracy of men who sat around a table and fabricated a story about Jesus. If they had, they would have gotten their stories straight.

The inconsistencies tell me that the books of the NT were independently written by different authors who didn't necessarily know each other, and who were summarizing existing oral tradition, or were using written sources about Jesus that no longer exist.

I don't have any doubt the miracles and the resurrection are embellishments. But Jesus, John the Baptist, James, Pontius Pilate were certainly historical people. And the ministry, sermons, and parables of Jesus seem to have an underlying ring of authenticity to them.
 
Cypress said:
The fact that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies tells me there was no grand conspiracy of men who sat around a table and fabricated a story about Jesus. If they had, they would have gotten their stories straight.

The inconsistencies tell me that the books of the NT were independently written by different authors who didn't necessarily know each other, and who were summarizing existing oral tradition, or were using written sources about Jesus that no longer exist.

I don't have any doubt the miracles and the resurrection are embellishments. But Jesus, John the Baptist, James, Pontius Pilate were certainly historical people. And the ministry, sermons, and parables of Jesus seem to have an underlying ring of authenticity to them.
Click to expand...

What discrepancies?
 
Yakuda said:
Prove it
Click to expand...

You only have to examine the multitude of contradictions, including wildly different perceptions of God as a being.

And it's pretty obvious: a timeless, omniscient being (which I believe in, btw), wouldn't be mercurial, insecure, quick to anger, vengeful & a general baby.

The Bible has some good stuff in it, and I think some of Christ's messaging made it through the thousands of translations okay. But as a society, we'll be better off when we stop treating that book as gospel, no pun intended.
 
ZenMode said:
I agree. Mark is referring to the day of preparation for the Sabbath.
Click to expand...
Yes, and so is John.

ZenMode said:
So, in Mark, it's not the day before the Passover meal was eaten but the day before Sabbath.
Click to expand...
Correct. "Day of Preparation" is in reference to the day before a Sabbath. All preparations were taken care of on that day since no work was allowed to be performed on a Sabbath.

ZenMode said:
In Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John, Jesus doesn't eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. John does not make claim to any "different crucifixion day" (there is no contradiction in the gospel accounts, as I've already explained).

Why does John make note that Jesus was crucified on the "day of preparation of passover"? Because Jesus himself was THE sacrificial lamb being killed for the sins of mankind. Thus, the precise timing of Jesus' crucifixion, in accordance with him being THE sacrificial lamb, isn't coincidental.
 
BartenderElite said:
You only have to examine the multitude of contradictions, including wildly different perceptions of God as a being.

And it's pretty obvious: a timeless, omniscient being (which I believe in, btw), wouldn't be mercurial, insecure, quick to anger, vengeful & a general baby.

The Bible has some good stuff in it, and I think some of Christ's messaging made it through the thousands of translations okay. But as a society, we'll be better off when we stop treating that book as gospel, no pun intended.
Click to expand...

So it's your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
 
Cypress said:
The fact that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies tells me there was no grand conspiracy of men who sat around a table and fabricated a story about Jesus. If they had, they would have gotten their stories straight.

The inconsistencies tell me that the books of the NT were independently written by different authors who didn't necessarily know each other, and who were summarizing existing oral tradition, or were using written sources about Jesus that no longer exist.

I don't have any doubt the miracles and the resurrection are embellishments. But Jesus, John the Baptist, James, Pontius Pilate were certainly historical people. And the ministry, sermons, and parables of Jesus seem to have an underlying ring of authenticity to them.
Click to expand...

No, no grand conspiracies. Other than perhaps the Council of Nicaea a few centuries later.

What the literalists either don’t know, don’t wish to know or choose to ignore is that the NT is nothing more than hand-me-down stories, written by authors who added their own personal touch to oral tradition. John, for instance, for whatever reason, needed to make a claim for the divinity of Jesus. Putting words in his mouth that were not found even once in the synoptic gospels that preceded it. One would think that if Jesus went around claiming he was God, Mark, Matthew or Luke would have noticed it. They didn’t.

Jesus could have been one of any number of apocalyptic prophets of the time. Apparently, one could not swing a stick without hitting one.
 
domer76 said:
Not only does the crucifixion story have its contradictions, the birth story and even the concept of virgin birth do, too.

The two gospels that even mention birth can’t even get the decade right. One even tries to reconcile Joseph’s lineage to David to agree with OT bullshit about the messiah. WTF difference does THAT make if he’s not even the biological father? “Young woman” was then changed to “virgin” in translations to invent the deity of Christ. They can’t even get straight why Bethlehem when they were really from Nazareth. Oh, that’s right. Changed to agree with prophecy, not because it actually happened.
Click to expand...
Lovely.
 
Yakuda said:
So it's your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
Click to expand...

Did Jesus, Mary and Joseph go to Egypt after the birth, or not?
Were they in Bethlehem for the census, or not?
Was the rock of the tomb rolled away before or during the visit?
Did the disciples stay in Jerusalem or return to Galilee?
After the crucifixion, who saw Jesus and when?
Did the women tell of what they saw or keep it quiet?
Did Jesus ever claim he was God or the Son of God?
Was Mary a “young girl” or actually a virgin.
Was Christ’s divinity at birth, at his baptism or at his resurrection?

Answer?

It depends on which NT book you read. Those are called discrepancies and contradictions.
 
domer76 said:
No, no grand conspiracies. Other than perhaps the Council of Nicaea a few centuries later.

What the literalists either don’t know, don’t wish to know or choose to ignore is that the NT is nothing more than hand-me-down stories, written by authors who added their own personal touch to oral tradition. John, for instance, for whatever reason, needed to make a claim for the divinity of Jesus. Putting words in his mouth that were not found even once in the synoptic gospels that preceded it. One would think that if Jesus went around claiming he was God, Mark, Matthew or Luke would have noticed it. They didn’t.

Jesus could have been one of any number of apocalyptic prophets of the time. Apparently, one could not swing a stick without hitting one.
Click to expand...


Between the common-ness of Jewish apocalyptic preachers at the time and the rapid Hellenization of the region a new religion springs up and, with the help of many authors and Paul it takes hold. It's an interesting evolution to read.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Between the common-ness of Jewish apocalyptic preachers at the time and the rapid Hellenization of the region a new religion springs up and, with the help of many authors and Paul it takes hold. It's an interesting evolution to read.
Click to expand...

I agree. It’s damn interesting. And I get the message of Jesus and agree with it. Pretty radical for the times.

Too bad it’s been so distorted by his so-called followers.
 
BidenPresident said:
Paul established the norms of church going. Nothing to do with Jesus.
Click to expand...

But arguably Paul established Christianity as an international faith and even went so far as to establish much of the doctrine of the faith.

I'll agree that Paul disagreed with some of the disciples over the nature of Jesus' ministry but in no small way his "version" of the faith is the reason it has expanded from a small apocalyptic jewish sect in a backwater colony of the Roman Empire.

What does a version of Christianity look like without Paul? I'm genuinely curious. I wonder if it even would have survived a generation if it had remained a strictly Jewish apocalyptic sect.
 
Obtenebrator said:
But arguably Paul established Christianity as an international faith and even went so far as to establish much of the doctrine of the faith.

I'll agree that Paul disagreed with some of the disciples over the nature of Jesus' ministry but in no small way his "version" of the faith is the reason it has expanded from a small apocalyptic jewish sect in a backwater colony of the Roman Empire.

What does a version of Christianity look like without Paul? I'm genuinely curious. I wonder if it even would have survived a generation if it had remained a strictly Jewish apocalyptic sect.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Paul wanted a Christian Church. Nothing about Jesus talks about establishing an institution.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, and so is John.


Correct. "Day of Preparation" is in reference to the day before a Sabbath. All preparations were taken care of on that day since no work was allowed to be performed on a Sabbath.


Incorrect. John does not make claim to any "different crucifixion day" (there is no contradiction in the gospel accounts, as I've already explained).

Why does John make note that Jesus was crucified on the "day of preparation of passover"? Because Jesus himself was THE sacrificial lamb being killed for the sins of mankind. Thus, the precise timing of Jesus' crucifixion, in accordance with him being THE sacrificial lamb, isn't coincidental.
Click to expand...

It's likely that John chose that date for the symbolism. That doesn't fix the contradiction with Mark's version of the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top