The Bible makes complete sense

stashlazarus wrote:

Now that the world is about to end the truth can be told. In fact, this revelation of the truth will cause Armageddon.

Wait, so this post is going to cause Armageddon to start?



I think we need a stricter screening process for our members, like "Are you planning on triggering Armageddon"?

This battle between Michael and Satan is not a physical battle, it is more of a debate or a battle of words…a battle over the spirit, intent and letter of the Law. What would trigger such a debate? Why, after all this time, did Michael and Satan suddenly have something to fight about?

Some scholars contend that Revelation is not a "book of prophecy" but rather a literary depiction of the chaos that was going on at the time it was composed.

The two ideas I presented do make it possible to reconcile verses in the Bible that contradict each other concerning Heaven and how we get there, so that no verse needs to be discarded or redefined. It doesn't deal with alleged contradictions concerning other subjects, nor does it attempt to explain any verses that deals with prophecy. I believe an idea that can explain (let's say) 40% of the Bible should not be rejected based on the fact that it does not explain 100% of the Bible (unless it contradicts with something in that other 60%). I don't claim to have authority, but I am merely a student of the Bible. I do try to look "outside the box"

stashlazarus wrote:

The two ideas I presented do make it possible to reconcile verses in the Bible that contradict each other concerning Heaven and how we get there, so that no verse needs to be discarded or redefined. It doesn't deal with alleged contradictions concerning other subjects, nor does it attempt to explain any verses that deals with prophecy. I believe an idea that can explain (let's say) 40% of the Bible should not be rejected based on the fact that it does not explain 100% of the Bible (unless it contradicts with something in that other 60%). I don't claim to have authority, but I am merely a student of the Bible. I do try to look "outside the box"

You have missed the point entirely. Many of the more strict adherents of Christianity claim that ever word of the bible is divinely inspired and inerrant. That claim is beggared by any contradiction which can be shown. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the contradiction which was first brought up (the creation account) is one which you care to deal with or not. The fact that there would be any contradiction in scripture is sufficient to cast doubt on the accuracy of the entire body of scripture. If any part of scripture is false, then we are left unable to assert that any part of scripture is true. This extends to the entire Jesus fairy tale as well, which begins with an allegation that a census was held to count people who were not Roman citizens--something the Romans never did, it defies the very definition of census in Roman usage--and that a census was held for which there is no record, and we have a record of Caesar Augustus telling of each census and each lustrum which he conducted after your boy Jesus is alleged to have been born.

The fact that there are internal contradictions in scripture, and that scripture makes claims which cannot be supported historically, is sufficient to cast into doubt any authority which you or anyone else might wish to claim for scripture.

Some scholars contend that Revelation is not a "book of prophecy" but rather a literary depiction of the chaos that was going on at the time it was composed.

When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were cunted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens.

Actually, it is claimed that the Romans were collecting a tax. This was written and distributed at a time when the Roman Empire still existed. People who lived in the Roman Empire didn't have a problem with this story, but some people today will say that this is not the way the Romans did things.

Romans did not collect capitations (head taxes, which means a tax based upon a population). Within their own polity, they collected a hearth tax, but that depended upon the number of households, and not the actual numbers of people living within the polity. Iudeaea was a district within the province of Syria. The Legate of Syria was responsible for remitting a certain amount of money based on the excise--which means a tax on commerce and commercial goods. No one actually gave a rat's ass how many Jews there were, so long as the excise was collected and remitted.

If you are going to make horseshit claims like that, try to provide some evidence. You're going to have a problem, though, because Octavian, a.k.a. Caesar Augustus, conducted three censii, and none of them take place on the relevant dates, leaving aside the fact that no census counted anyone who was not a Roman citizen. This is really a case of put up or shut up--if you can't provide your evidence, then you shouldn't make such claims. From the Deeds of the Divine Augustus:

Quote:

When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were **** 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens.

Note that not only do none of the dates coincide with the dates alleged for the birth of the putative Jesus, but note that Augustus only concerns himself with the number of Roman citizens, and your boy Joseph was not a Roman citizen, nor was his teenaged, unwed mother Mary.

It's fine with me that you or anyone else does "believe in the bible." It is also fine with me to point out when they are peddling bullshit based of poor to no logic and a devout desire to "believe in the bible" despite evidence which contradicts their song and dance.

... and what do you mean by, 'distributed'?

JPB wrote:

... and what do you mean by, 'distributed'?

The Roman Empire was converted to Christianty. By that point, if not before then, all the gospels would be available throughout much of the empire.