Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My take on the bible is most uncommon as compared with most Christians...My reasoning is 'if religion will lie and manufacture, why can it not be suspected that science would also?'
That is why we have ongoing challenge, peer - review and testing, so that false claims will be shown up. That is why the scientifically validated corpus of data is the most reliable that we can devise.
Quote:
...I have come to the point in my life that I hold everyone suspect that says, 'Ahah, I have found the answer, trust me'....When I read ancient manuscripts I question why would this person write this was he crazy or did these things truly occur?...What could have possibly been his agenda to waste his time if there were no truth to what he was writing?....Unlike most Christians I do not see the NT as scripture but rather commentaries pointing one to The Scriptures...Commentaries written by fallible humans....
You are right to be suspicious. I have read plenty of Lives of Jesus that all claim to have sussed out the problem. I could be yet another one. All wot I ask is that the Gospels be looked at in detail - ALL of it, not just some cherry - picked quotes in support of some pet theory - and the text compared and the internal evidence of how the gospels were constructed taken as a clue to what was done with them, why it was done and thus by whom it was done and in the end why the gospels were written, what purpose they served and thus the purposes of the persons who wrote them
I also argue that it can be discovered what was fiddled, invented and derived from OT text, often amending the older text to make it 'fit' the new (1). Thus one can discover why alteration was needed, what needed to be added and thus, what was not there in the first place and what needed to be covered up, changed and added to to make it fit the agenda.
Thus one can discover a lot about the original story (such as it was) that the Gospel -writers had to work with. This is of course totally up for challenge. I think I have cracked it, but then I would. It is for others to follow the argument and come to their conclusions.
(1) The Judas' death prophecies are touchstone examples.
That is why we have ongoing challenge, peer - review and testing, so that false claims will be shown up. That is why the scientifically validated corpus of data is the most reliable that we can devise.
You are right to be suspicious. I have read plenty of Lives of Jesus that all claim to have sussed out the problem. I could be yet another one. All wot I ask is that the Gospels be looked at in detail - ALL of it, not just some cherry - picked quotes in support of some pet theory - and the text compared and the internal evidence of how the gospels were constructed taken as a clue to what was done with them, why it was done and thus by whom it was done and in the end why the gospels were written, what purpose they served and thus the purposes of the persons who wrote them
I also argue that it can be discovered what was fiddled, invented and derived from OT text, often amending the older text to make it 'fit' the new (1). Thus one can discover why alteration was needed, what needed to be added and thus, what was not there in the first place and what needed to be covered up, changed and added to to make it fit the agenda.
Thus one can discover a lot about the original story (such as it was) that the Gospel -writers had to work with. This is of course totally up for challenge. I think I have cracked it, but then I would. It is for others to follow the argument and come to their conclusions.
(1) The Judas' death prophecies are touchstone examples.
I would, but then, how would you ever be able to parachute in on the crucifixion? Assuming that it ever happened, I doubt that the year, date (I don't believe it was on the passover) or even location can be sure (though my money's on Olivet), and even if we did arrive to see a crucifixion, how could we be sure it was his? Nope - no spear thrust, according to Luke.
And I wouldn't even consider trying to be present at the nativity. From what I gather, Bethlehem was pretty much uninhabited at the time.
I would, but then, how would you ever be able to parachute in on the crucifixion? Assuming that it ever happened, I doubt that the year, date (I don't believe it was on the passover) or even location can be sure (though my money's on Olivet), and even if we did arrive to see a crucifixion, how could we be sure it was his? Nope - no spear thrust, according to Luke.
And I wouldn't even consider trying to be present at the nativity. From what I gather, Bethlehem was pretty much uninhabited at the time.
Yes, but as I say, it might require a well -organized undercover operation from about 30 -35 AD to try to track Jesus down and I'm not sure he would even be recognizable.
Yes, but as I say, it might require a well -organized undercover operation from about 30 -35 AD to try to track Jesus down and I'm not sure he would even be recognizable.
Not if we go by the written descriptions. We don't even know what race he is if we go by the written descriptions. Although since the race is not mentioned it is probably reasonable to assume he would be Heebrew. That would cut it down to a few hundred thousand possibles at the time.
Paul is an interesting fellow, we're studying him right now in my Classical Literature class. The contradictions can be easily explained...some of those letters supposedly written by Paul are either forgeries or were actually wrote by one of his followers. There are seven "undisputed" letters which most Biblical scholars agree to be written by Paul, they are 1 & 2 Cor, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thess, Romans and Galatians. When I read through them, I found they had a pretty consistent writing style and themes.
Now as for the others, Acts is dubious because it was written by Luke decades after Paul and it does contradict what Paul writes in his undisputed letters at several points. Timothy/Colossians/etc etc are either outright forgeries or were written by a follower of Paul using his name.
As for Paul, no one really knows what kind of "experience" he had to go from a zealous Pharisee who persecuted Christians to one of its leading advocates. But in the undisputed letters, it's pretty clear his theology was of the Apocalyptic variety, he really did seem to believe it was the end times and the world would end sometime within his lifetime. For that he was willing play any role required to save souls, etc etc because to him salvation was only achieved through faith in Christ.
Jesus is sentenced and crucified by the Romans. We are told this is because the Jews were forbidden to carry out capital punishment - right?
Acts follows John in the narrative and we find Stephen being martyred
4 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
What changed in the short time between the crucifiction and now this Stephen fella with regard to Roman laws?
Jesus is sentenced and crucified by the Romans. We are told this is because the Jews were forbidden to carry out capital punishment - right?
Acts follows John in the narrative and we find Stephen being martyred
4 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
What changed in the short time between the crucifiction and now this Stephen fella with regard to Roman laws?
The Romans allowed conquered subjects some autonomy such as the administration of justice according to local customs. However, apparently the death sentence could only be used under Roman law.
I doubt anything changed in terms of Roman law between the execution of Jesus and the stoning of Stephen
Some Jews had earlier attempted to stone Jesus.
The Romans and the Jewish leaders were most interested in not having riots occur as this would not be in the best interest of either party. Stephen may very well have been a target in which the Jewish establishment saw little chance of a riot occurring with his stoning and little chance of repercussions by the Roman authorities.
Jesus is sentenced and crucified by the Romans. We are told this is because the Jews were forbidden to carry out capital punishment - right?
Acts follows John in the narrative and we find Stephen being martyred
4 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
What changed in the short time between the crucifiction and now this Stephen fella with regard to Roman laws?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
The Romans allowed conquered subjects some autonomy such as the administration of justice according to local customs. However, apparently the death sentence could only be used under Roman law.
I doubt anything changed in terms of Roman law between the execution of Jesus and the stoning of Stephen
Some Jews had earlier attempted to stone Jesus.
The Romans and the Jewish leaders were most interested in not having riots occur as this would not be in the best interest of either party. Stephen may very well have been a target in which the Jewish establishment saw little chance of a riot occurring with his stoning and little chance of repercussions by the Roman authorities.
I think you are going to have to do better than that. Where did you dig up that assertion? Was stoning to death not a capital punishment?
You have the same council of folk killing Stephen yet a huge fabricated court case wrt Jesus
I do not believe any of this is historical but see a definite setup for the Paulines to exonerate the Romans and lay blame at the feet of the Jews. You need to read up this whole thread and see just how created the religion is. If any of it is to be takes as gospel, Stephen did exactly as was claimed Jesus did concerning the supposed Jewish traditions of the time. Read from Acts 6 if you need more context.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
