My book report pt1

[pocaracas]

"the god of the bible"... There were religions before the bible... what god was this, back then?
The god of the torah? There were religions before the torah... what god was this, back then?
The god of Abraham? There were religions before Abraham... (What century is this guy supposed to have lived on?) what god was this, back then?

All of these titles describe the same God.

And yet, many disagree on the details... makes it all look man-made.
Why don't christians/jews/muslims get their stories straight?

So, it seems, at that time, either people really wanted to worship whatever god they came up with... or the one true god was popping up all over the place and being misrepresented by the people... or a mix of the two options.
I lean to the first option.

-Or a viable 3rd option was in the instances you just listed the 'people' were just being faithful to the understanding of God given to them. Which is all god requires of us.

How foolish is it to think any one of us has a complete understanding of God. All we are ever given is a picture and all we can ever to is be faithful to the picture(s) we are given.

Well, if I have such a picture, it is absent of any god... and works pretty well.. perhaps this is what the new pope referred to recently?

Aren't you the one who said that god is the alpha and omega, as if this god is everything.

Alpha and Omega mean beginning and end to everything. Meaning He has final say on what happens, and the power and authority to carry out whatever he wants done.

Is god the bible?... apparently, yes.

Uh, no. The bible is just a book that describes God and contains His law and the Gospel.

Is the bible god? just a piece of the guy, no?

No, The bible is an instruction manual. If your car it's owners manual? or is your owners manual your car? no the owners manual is just the book that tells you how to properly interact with your car.

god seems to be so much more than the bible, as we can see so much more than the bible around us.

So again would it not stand to then reason God is not the bible, and the bible is not God?

So the guy is only the start and the end, but nothing in between?
How did it manage to contact anyone in this between? And have those people write about it.... and many others write about the same, but differently.... and then others chose what's in accordance to some view and compile it in a book...
It seems the guy is in between a lot... or rather, was!
Sort of makes it sound a lot like those people made it up....
Twice in one post!

If you look at the bible's NT as an accurate representation of the events (as many do) then you arrive at Bart's conclusion.

how so?

If you take all of it literally... like Bart claims to have done in his youth.

If you look at the bible's NT as a work of fiction, even if based on some real elements, then you couldn't care less that the differences are irreconcilable... it's fiction, written by several authors, it's expected... Ask any fiction writer, specially those who write several books to cover one story, like Harry Potter, or the Song of Fire and Ice... it's a nightmare making everything fit together nicely.
I'd be very surprised if no differences were to be found in such a huge tome.

but these are not the objections Bart brings up.

Of course not. He is working under the assumption that the text is a "reliable" (?) account of the events.... with multiple accounts of the same event by multiple authors.
Given the importance of the message, he'd expect it to be pretty darn consistent and self-attesting...
My "if", on the other hand, assumes it is a work of fiction right off the bat.

His primary reasoning centers around that each book was written in such a way as to be completely oblivious to anything else written, which is why there are continuity issues.
However the only way this all works is if you assume as he does the writters all had the same modern understanding as to how to write a unified account, and simply failed at coming up with a consistent story.

He assumes they all had witnessed the events or had access to reliable witness accounts...

But what if.... what if they all shared the same backstory, like we do with star wars, and made up a few details here and there to make it fit, in their own minds. They then wrote it down, according to their understanding of the events.

Now you're just adding to the cannon. I have to admit, it does make sense!
See how easily it can be done?

So, you are saying my reconciliation of Bart's book "makes sense?"

Yes, some things do make sense, within the context of the story.
The problem we have is that your mind attributes this context to our reality... while being absent of any hints of such a connection, except for a few episodes which can be explained as psychological or random in nature.
And, as such, it isn't credible as a means of connecting the story with reality.