A Question for those who have trust in the Bible/Jesus..

by The Quiet One 94 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • cofty
    cofty
    The simple fact is that these "issues' with the NT and with Jesus of Nazareth are NOT new and have been answered over and over and that IF people really wanted to have a serious discussion about them, they would research them what as much "gusto" as they put into "finding" this "new issues".

    Psacremento - Bible scholars have been aware of historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible for a very long time. Only in the rarified world of evangelical christianity - a minority view - does anybody bother to perform mental gymnastics to try to "resolve" them.

    Just two examples - the genealogies are impossibly contradictory as are the birth narratives. I have read many efforts to resolve these issues. They all depend on the same sort of intellectual dishonesty and special pleading we used to use to defend our JW doctrines.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Psac-- I wanted to try to understand why it is that so many people believe in the Biblical Jesus (him being the Messiah) and yet very few in the absolute inerrancy of the book that contains the only historical documents, that I know of, giving an account of his miracles and resurrection. Especially when the accounts need to be excused as to things such as people like John, who got to the tomb first, not being mentioned.. But, some good points have been made. And I certainly accept that the disciples believed that they saw Jesus after he had died. By the way, how do you feel about the ending of Mark, verse 9 onwards, that was likely added on? And do you view the Gospels as seperate from the Bible canon as to being trustworthy, as in to be taken literally when other books are not? We'll forget the Mark 16:9 contradiction, I'm guessing that some would argue that only Mary was mentioned due to prominence, or that Mark's account ended abruptly for some reason..

    I am NOT a bible inerrant, I do NOT believe that the writers of the bible being inspired to write = error free writing per say and I certaibly don't think the copyists and editors were perfect either.

    I don't think that all of the bible is to be take literally AND concretely or that ALL of the bible was inspired anyways.

    I think that we must take into account the genre of writing, who was writing, who it was written for and why it was written.

    It is up to the individual person to decide in what way the view the bible.

    Personaly I think that Mark proper ended where it ends because the full ending was lost and that what was added later was a "surving ending" that later editor felt fit in at the end of Mark.

    There are some great books tha shed some light on these things, a good one that probably will answer most questions is:

    The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg ( Paperback - Oct 18, 2007)

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Psacremento - Bible scholars have been aware of historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the bible for a very long time. Only in the rarified world of evangelical christianity - a minority view - does anybody bother to perform mental gymnastics to try to "resolve" them.

    Agreed.

    Just two examples - the genealogies are impossibly contradictory as are the birth narratives. I have read many efforts to resolve these issues. They all depend on the same sort of intellectual dishonesty and special pleading we used to use to defend our JW doctrines.

    Do you mean the two genealogies of Christ? one as per Joe and that other as per Mary?

  • ShadesofGrey
    ShadesofGrey

    You can find evidence for the Biblical accounts in secular writings. Celsus, a Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity ends up confirming much of the accounts, including Jesus' work of miracles.

    I remember the Watchtower had a quote from a letter written by a Pharisee who was complaining about Jesus, "the magic man". I remember looking that up and posting it on a forum or facebook group, but now I can't find it.

    Look at this with an open mind, do a google search for secular evidence of Jesus miracles and refer to the sources. Do the work. I did.

    http://christiancadre.org/topics/historicaljesus.html#non

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus) by Robert E. Van Voorst ( Paperback - Mar 1, 2000) The above is a good book that shows the evidence ofr Jesus OUTSIDE the NT writings and doesn't try to make them more than they are and even states the most common critiques of those sources.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Do you mean the two genealogies of Christ? one as per Joe and that other as per Mary?

    Yes. The gospels don't leave that as an option. Even if we allow it as a get-out, it doesn't work.

    My own writing copied and pasted from a thread on JWS forum...

    Matthew’s list contains 28 names including David and (step-dad) Joseph. Luke’s contains 42 names including David and Joseph and apart from these two individuals only two more names match in these lists.

    Some biblical apologists have attempted to reconcile these lists by claiming that neither list actually attempts to give full accounts. The terms “son of” and “begat” don’t mean a direct father-son relationship but if we put the overlapping lists together we get a fuller genealogy of Jesus. In other words Luke mentions people not mentioned in Matthew and vice-versa.

    OK let’s take a closer look at this and see if it works. David lived in the 10th C. BC giving us about 1000 years between David and Jesus. As we said above Matthew gives us 28 names and Luke gives us 42. This works out at an average of 35 years per generation according to Matthew and only 23 years according to Luke. If we combine them and are careful not to count the names that appear in both lists twice that gives us a minimum of 67 generations and a time span of only 14 years per generation. This also assumes the unlikely factor of every one being a first-born and that there are no other names that both Matthew and Luke forgot to include. This is an impossible explanation.

    However Matthew does not actually allow us this generous explanation. He says emphatically…

    “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ". Matt 1:17

    So according to Matthew there were only 28 generations between David and Jesus. So even allowing for the possibility of some individuals having more than one name Luke’s 42 generations cannot be reconciled with this plain statement of Matthew.

    2 Sam 7:12 said “When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.”

    Paul wrote in Romans1:3 concerning “…his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,”

    And yet as we observed above there was no fleshly link at all between David and Jesus if we are to take the virgin birth story literally.

    Other apologists have proposed that one list traces the genealogy through Joseph and one through Mary. This is flatly contradicted by both gospels.

    “..and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” – Matt 1:16

    “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,” – Luke 3:23

    Notice by the way that they can’t even agree on the name of Joseph’s dad, typically Matthew wants to make an OT parallel and so of course Joseph has to be the son of Jacob!

    The two names that do correspond in the list also rule against this idea. If the two lists are the separate genealogies of two people they don’t get to merge at random points in this way.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Cofty, obviously those that collected those books saw that different genealogies, why do you think they didn't view them as such a big deal or do you think they didn't notice them?

  • cofty
    cofty

    I doubt they gave it a lot of thought when deciding on the cannon. Provenance was more important than content, the 3 synoptics had been in circulation for a long time so they all made it into the book complete with their contradictions. Who was going to argue about it anyway? Dogma was imposed by the educated elite and heretics were not tolerated.

    The bible shows no evidence at all of any supernatural input.

  • bohm
    bohm

    in addition, religions which are not christianity independently confirm believers are willing to accept very contradictive elements of their religion.

    That early christians did the same in ancient times is therefore not an argument for why we should do the same.

  • The Quiet One
    The Quiet One

    Cofty said: " Notice by the way that they can’t even agree on the name of Joseph’s dad, typically Matthew wants to make an OT parallel and so of course Joseph has to be the son of Jacob! " -- Luke's was likely the genealogy of Mary, tracing the physical line of descent.. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Joseph-Ahaziah.htm

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit