I don't mean to be rude Vicky, but it appears you are just seeing what you want to see.

You talk of this meta narrative as if it was a clever intention, and I have no idea why you would think that, or how you could conclude it.

It seems like you're admitting the text is less than reliable, but it somehow still allows some truth to shine through the cracks. I think you are too forgiving of the utter nonsense the bible becomes when analyzed critically.

Most important are the supernatural claims. Without them, it's just a bunch of silly stories and dubious history. And there is no possible way to show there's even a fighting chance any of that happened. It's contrary to everything we know, and totally consistent with what you would expect people of that era to write. Including incorporating mythology popular at the time. To expect them to be all true but somehow mimic "made up" previous stories so closely is pushing beyond any reasonable limit in my opinion.

And as I keep bringing up, the best a textual account can show is what people believed happened, not what actually happened. When it comes to supernatural claims, you wouldn't believe people making them today, so why believe these guys? And that's before the text got corrupted over and over.

I assume you are a Christian, and I would take a good guess that if you didn't already have a sold belief in this stuff that you'd dismiss it as easily as you presumably dismiss other religious texts. Apologies if this is wrong, my iPad doesn't tell me the religous bit for some reason.

---

On the other hand, you are far more reasonable than most theists who I've given up on ever having anything worthwhile to say.

(December 16, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Discard the OT? Absolutely not! It's an essential part of Christianity.

Sorry if I misunderstood. That seemed to me to be what you were saying.

Quote:Perhaps some form of summary might help here. The Bible has a meta-narrative of 'Sin, exile, forgiveness, restoration'. Thus we have the story of Adam (the Hebrew word for humanity), gone wrong. We have a creation gone wrong. We have a nation, Israel, charged with sorting out the problems of humanity (the promise to Abraham), but also they kept going wrong.

The whole idea of sin entering the world because of a choice of rebellion is the theme of the story. At what point in our evolution was that choice made.

Tell you what, let that go. Never mind. If sin entered the world with "humanity", for which Adam and Eve are symbolic representations, how did even the early stages of humanity evolve. Remember we have to go back to single cell organisms here. Evolution doesn't work without death and death didn't enter the world until sin but sin requires choice and choice requires a brain capable of understanding and making choice and that doesn't exist with single cell organisms which operate according to stimulus-response.

And so it still falls apart.

Quote:And then you have Jesus. As Israel's Messiah, he accomplished Israel's rescue from it's own plight. As Israel-in-person he completed Israel's vocation to rescue humanity. As the truly human one, he re-established God's rule over the cosmos. Three stories, one meta-narrative.

Fail on all counts.

Jesus was most assuredly not the Messiah to the Jews. That's why there are Jews in the world today. The Messiah they expected, the one they prophesied, was a warlord (not even necessarily divine) who would lead Israel to glory over her enemies, not some hippy preaching peace and love to all of humanity.

The first writings about Jesus reflected this expectation better than the Gospels. I refer to the first book of the NT that was written: Revelation. This Jesus has little in common with the gentle carpenter we think of. This Jesus is more the messianic warlord who was born in Heaven and would come to rule on earth, as opposed to born on earth and would rule in Heaven. More to the point, this Jesus was to bring pain and devastation to Israel's Roman oppressors.

When the expected invasion of angels failed to materialize, the followers of Jesus apparently decided that the promised kingdom, part of the pact between Yahweh and David, must exist in a higher realm. Jesus was reworked and you can see the progress if you read the books of the NT in the order in which they were written: Revelation, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and finally John.

Jesus certainly failed to rescue Israel, since Israel was utterly wiped off the map during the Bar Kochba revolution. Their temple was destroyed and their people scattered.

Israel had no such vocation to rescue humanity. The idea of a lamb of god come to rescue all of humanity from sin and be the intercessor between us and the divine is utterly foreign to the original Jewish faith. The entire Christian scheme of salvation is more rooted in pagan influences. Search the OT in vein for the word "Hell". You won't find it except for mistranslated words for "Sheol", which just means "the grave". Satan gets a makeover in Christianity, from the punisher and tempter working for Yahweh in the OT (see Job) to the mortal enemy of Yahweh in the NT.

Most notable of all is how utterly blasphemous Christianity's core idea of an intercessor with the divine is. The Jews had a direct relationship with Yahweh, a god that tolerated no distractions and delegated the role of judge and savior to no one. They neither required an intercessor nor did their god allow for it.

Where the OT forbids an intercessor the NT requires it.

I'm not sure how Yahweh has restored his rule over the cosmos. You'll need to elaborate on that one further.

Quote:There's history there, some of it is just plain accurate, but best not to use it uncritically.

Fine, we'll put Acts aside.

Quote:There's plenty of room for such a census (if Rome wanted one, a wave of a sword would have done the trick).

I could conduct a Roman census in Judea prior to 6 CE for you right now.

Roman Citizens in Judea prior to 6 CE: None.

There you go. By definition, citizens of Judea were Judeans. Judea was an ally of Rome, not a province. Ergo, a census would be rather moot.

But let that go. Rome had no motive to order such a census in an ally kingdom but maybe they just did it for craps and giggles. But then we run into the "governorship of Quirinius" problem.

Perhaps there were two governorships of Quirinius. That would be unheard of in Roman custom but hey, maybe they made an exception for good old Quirinius. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right?

The earlier census was 9-8 BCE. Whoops, we know where Quirinius was at that time and it was a governor of a province in modern day Turkey.

OK, forget Quirinius! Maybe Luke meant to say "the census BEFORE Quirinius was governor of Syria". There's no reason to think so but we're having fun with ad hoc hypotheses to try to salvage the historicity of the Gospels, right?

Now Jesus is born at the latest at 7 BC. This makes him too old to be "about 30" at the time that John the Baptist was arrested. According to Luke, JtB didn't even get started until 28 CE at the earliest. JtB was arrested and put into prison before Jesus got started in preaching his gospel. Given other historical landmarks, such as Herod Antipas' marriage to Herodius and war with Aratas, we can maybe push JtB's arrest as early as 34 CE. A Jesus born in 7 BCE is too old to be "about 30".

Quote:The questions of history supporting Xianity and NT accuracy would require very long answers. My new years resolution for 2014 was to do shorter posts; and while there's still time...

I probably need to make a similar resolution.

Quote:Absolutely not! It's an essential part of Christianity.

There are no essential parts of jesusism. It's all a crock.

(December 16, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Perhaps some form of summary might help here. The Bible has a meta-narrative of 'Sin, exile, forgiveness, restoration'. Thus we have the story of Adam (the Hebrew word for humanity), gone wrong.

Is it more than just a story? Nobody needs to be saved from the sins of a character who never physically existed.

If the story of Adam is not literal truth, then Jesus and his salvation are a total fraud.

Why is Mohamoud a pedophile? It was common 1500 YEARS AGO to marry a girl off before she hit puberty its still common in rural parts of the world. 50 years ago it was common for ww2 soldiers in the USA TOO COME HOME AND TAKE 13 YEAR OLD BRIDES when they were in their mid twenties.

You might be surprised too find out some of americas favorite women country singers were married before 15 too men 10 years their elder

---

By the way, Mohamoud never existed he wasn't a real person the quran as well as the bible, is a work of fiction

(December 16, 2014 at 9:04 pm)simplemoss Wrote: Why is Mohamoud a pedophile? It was common 1500 YEARS AGO to marry a girl off before she hit puberty its still common in rural parts of the world. 50 years ago it was common for ww2 soldiers in the USA TOO COME HOME AND TAKE 13 YEAR OLD BRIDES when they were in their mid twenties.

You might be surprised too find out some of americas favorite women country singers were married before 15 too men 10 years their elder

---

By the way, Mohamoud never existed he wasn't a real person the quran as well as the bible, is a work of fiction

1500 years ago slavery was okay, too. In fact it's also promoted by the various "holy" books.

Does that mean it's still okay in this day and age?

For hundreds of years it was tradition for Egyptian Pharaohs to marry their sisters. It was also common in other groups before and after.

Does that make incest acceptable in this day and age?

People judge by the culture and time they live in.

I call Joseph Smith and many elders in the Mormon "church" paedophiles too, up to and including those who facilitate old men marrying young girls.

I call many Muslims who marry young girls paedophiles too, up to and including those who facilitate old men marrying young girls.

Should we accept it because it's their culture?

I'd also like to see citation about your other claims, please.

Yeah by American Puritan neo-liberal standards Mohammed would/could be arrested for pedophilia

But why not reffer to George Washington as a slave owning child molester?

---

What claims would you like sources for?

(December 16, 2014 at 9:31 pm)simplemoss Wrote: Yeah by American Puritan neo-liberal standards Mohammed would/could be arrested for pedophilia

But why not reffer to George Washington as a slave owning child molester?

---

What claims would you like sources for?

Go ahead.

That's your choice.

You have freedom of speech. Something that very few have in many Muslim majority countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi

Edit: The claim you capitalised.

Yeah because they're poor I'm not arguing Muslim nations have more right wing laws than white chritian societies

I just think its unfair too reffer too a fictional character from 1500 years ago as pedophile considering 99.9 % of people alive back then where too same exact same degree pedos

(December 16, 2014 at 10:00 pm)simplemoss Wrote: Yeah because they're poor I'm not arguing Muslim nations have more right wing laws than white chritian societies

I just think its unfair too reffer too a fictional character from 1500 years ago as pedophile considering 99.9 % of people alive back then where too same exact same degree pedos

Well, I don't think Mohammed was fictional. I think there's enough evidence for his existence.

Of course many people back then would count as paedophiles these days. But very few of them are held up today by billions of people as the perfect man who seek to emulate him.

Look at the Taliban and ISIS, and other conservative Muslims who still think it's okay to force pre-pubescent girls to marry old men.

No, it's not the majority of Muslims, these are the extremists or conservatives among the billions. Just as the conservatives who are young Earth creationists among the Christians are a minority.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out against them.