Farkel, you wrote:
Of course, you haven't presented the very real possibility that IF that story was concocted decades or more later, it would be EASY to make those events fit the time frame that looks very difficult to be not a coincidence.
You missed my very point, Farkel. I was specifically addressing the argument of skeptics who suggest the Gospels were written after the fact to make the story fit the prophecies. If so, they missed a very significant point that I discovered in my own study?that Jesus was resurrected on the day of the Festival of First Fruits. That coincidence(?) would have been a very impressive point for after-the-fact writers to bring out. But none of the Bible writers caught that point, regardless of when they may have written about the life of Jesus. There is indication that Paul noted it, but he didn?t mention it in connection with the occasion on which Jesus rose. It was a very important festival in Jewish tradition. A very significant point the Bible writers missed imo.
Jesus never wrote a word that has been presevered. His followers wrote their personal experiences of their times with Jesus. (I didn't know that fishermen who have a rather lowly profession could be literate back then, while carpenters (a rather lowly position, too) could be illiterate, especially when they happen to have the Ace of Spades: they are the offspring of GOD himself.
Whoa. I wouldn?t contend the Bible teaches that, other than it might be said we all are. We don?t know how literate Matthew, Mark and John were. Luke, of course, was a physician and probably a Gentile?granted, not an eye witness. (If Luke was a Gentile, he is the only non-Jew writer of record in the Bible).
We also don?t know how educated people were in general in the upper Galilee where Jesus was raised. Capernaum was very near the main trade route (Via Maris) for merchants from Mesapotamia and Egypt, so it was fairly affluent. Recent excavations of another affluent city, Sepphoris, was very near Nazereth. Many Bible scholars, including Fundamentalist scholars (e.g., Oral Roberts University professors) who are drawn, as I am, to Judeo-Christian scholarship, conclude that Jesus was, in fact, truly a Jewish Rabbi. I?ve forgotten all the indications of that, but some are the incident of him being taken and left with the temple priests in Jerusalem at age 12. Rabbi?s had to be taught a trade. And there is something about his apparel ("the hem of his garment") that indicates a Rabbi?not to mention that he taught in the Synagogues.
Example: When he emerged from the wilderness, the first thing he did was begin teaching in the Synagogues: ?And He began teaching in their synagogues and was paised by all.??Luke 4:15
That is where it goes on say that he quoted Is.61:1,2 and announced that ?Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.? Herein lies another point that Bible writers failed to explain. You can only get this from studying something about the Jewish religion. Rabbi?s took turns reading in the Synagogue, and there is a program of reading scriptures in sequence on the Sabbaths. It would be by coincidence(?) that this particular text would fall on the day that it was Rabbi Jesus? turn to stand up and read in the Synagogue.
Don't you wonder why Joseph and Mary (knowing what they did about their son and his unique relationship to God) didn't bother to get him educated enough to read and write? And if they did do this, why he never wrote a dang word that has survived? The Bible would have some serious credibility if the very son of God wrote some words that were preserved. Yet he didn't.
I don?t wonder about it because there is absolutely no way of knowing. However my speculation is that Joseph and Mary probably had the same perception about it as the rest of the population?that God was going to send Israel a deliverer?in the lineage of David?to free Israel from captivity to Rome and reestablish the throne of David. We don?t know how educated Jesus was, but indications are that he was educated, as the males were, in the synagogues, particularly by the Rabbis. What does seem evident from the Bible account is that astute Jews were expecting the messiah to be forthcoming at that time, and he would have to be in the lineage of David. (Clue: Matt.1:17)
Oh and by the way, another indication that God did not just deal with Jews is by the account of the astrologers who came from the east (region of Babylonia) looking for the baby Jesus. Why were foreigners (the real meaning of "pagan") looking for their savior to come from an Israelite? It must have been something in their religious teachings. (Just an aside point here.)
Furthermore, he NEVER told his apostles or disciples to write down ANYTHING that he said.
We don?t really have any way of knowing that, but it?s pretty well known that the main mode of communication in that day was verbal (i.e., preaching). They didn?t have books and a postal service, and most probably could not read anyway. :^)
In fact, I cannot think of any example in the Bible (except Revelation) where God actually commanded people to write down stuff in what would become the "Holy Bible." Almost ALL Bible books claim no authorship. Why? Were they ashamed, humble, or liars? According to the Bible, that is. Here is this book that is the absolute guide to man's redemption and here is this man who is the absolute son of GOD himself who never said, "write the stuff that I say down so that everyone can hear my words:"
Well I agree that God did not command people to compose a book. To me it doesn't matter what method of communication was used. I agree, God did not command the writing of the book, the Bible. (A quick search on the word "write" at BibleGateway.comdoes produce some OT commands to write, however.)
Yet, what IS in the Bible are sily stories like this:A prophet is walking about and ANGEL appears to him carrying a sword. The prophet is obviously terrified, and he asks the ANGEL if that ANGEL is going to mess him up. The ANGEL says basically, "no, I'm not going to mess you up." The prophet says, "well, then, what do you want?" The ANGEL replies, "take off your shoes, for you are standing on holy(tm) ground." This ends that utterly ridiculous and stupid story. What the heck does THAT mean, considering the fact that THAT idiocy got into the Bible and not ONE word that Jesus himself wrote made it in there.
Are you referring to where God told Moses to remove his sandals because it was sacred ground? I?m not sure which story.
In any case, I agree that the OT has a lot of story-telling that does not seem to have any particular significance to its theme. It mainly reveals the history and the culture of the Israelites. But here is what amazes me: The Bible was compiled from incomplete records, bits and pieces (particularly the OT), mainly Jewish scrolls and secular fragments, written from the Jewish perspective, into a collection that Catholic scholars decided to selectively make into a book. Fundamentalists again decided to discard some of those chapters but otherwise accept the book. They decided to bunch all of Moses' stuff into one section, all the historical stuff into another section, all the poetic stuff in yet another, and the ?major prophets? together and the ?minor prophets into another, without regard for chronological order. It is filled with stories that seem like religious superstition and fanaticism, historical fact and imagery, trechery, hypocrisy and infidelity, and yet:
When it?s all bunched together, there underlying it all is a story in the best tradition of great literature (at least the way I was taught in English Composition)---a story with an introduction, theme, climax, and conclusion that ties right back to the beginning (Revelation ties right back to Genesis) in ways beyond what appears to me were intended by the writers or the people who compiled it. But the story is not in what is actually written, it is behind it. Like fables and parables?it is not what is actually said or written, the point of the story is underlying.
BibleGod(tm) has a LOT of explaining to do. That's all I can say. Peace to you ros and all those who share your faith. I have no problem with your beliefs, and in fact, I'm happy you have them, simply because you don't crusade them. My faith is based on the wonderment I see around me, and I do not have to defend it. Everyone can see it, and it is fact.
Atheists disagree. :^))
As a bit of an epilogue: I printed this entire thread, and made notes about how to respond to "hooberus" and "paduan." Not "little toe," though. I don't mess with the Scotts. No matter what they do or do not say. Don't ask me why. I don't know why.
"hooberus" is a moron, and only responded by quoting scripture that amounted to a huge pile of red herrings and ad hominems. I kind of want to respond, but why? That person is incapable of rational thought.
Paduan responded with a boatload of strawman arguments and then accused ME of making the same arguments! I'm more inclined to wrap up this thread with my counter-arguments to him/her.
"Little Toe" is a Scottsman as I've said. Some things are just sacrosanct!
Are you Scottish, Farkel?
If so, I rest my case. ;-)))))
~Ros
