BIBLE CONSPIRACY

neologist wrote:

maporsche wrote:
neologist wrote:
maporsche wrote:
neologist wrote:
The Eastern religions seemed too mystical to me.

Seemed?

Your quick answer to his question was "No", but I'm curious how you came to think the the eastern religions are more mystical than western religions.
One creation story:
http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/Y7/2-2Hinduism/hindu_creation_story.htm

Another:
http://www.univie.ac.at/Voelkerkunde/apsis/aufi/folk/folk-n01.htm

With all due respect - somewhat fanciful - and mystical

Hindus believe that there is One Supreme Spirit of the universe. This Spirit is God.

Christians believe the same thing. OK

Hindus also believe that God can be seen in many different ways, so for Hindus God can take on the shape of different gods and goddesses.

Christians think the same thing (father, son, holy spirit, virgin birth, devils, demons)Trinity not supported by the bible.

There are several creation stories in Hinduism. Here is one of the creation stories from Hindu mythology.

Christians think the same thing (young earth creation, intelligent design, universe in 7 days, 7 days = 15 billion years, Adam/Eve, etc)
Minor point, but the universe not included in the seven days

Before this time began, there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of the night.A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. !! He was watched over by the mighty serpent.
Only one creation story in the bible and the serpent had nothing to do with it. LOL then who talked eve into eating the apple? oh, that was a few paragraphs later, my bad.

There were snakes in the garden of eden, a mystical place where man/beast lived happily ever after. Nothing mystical about a garden.

I could keep going, but my point is that the Christian myths only make sense to you because you've been raised with them. When viewed objectivaly, or by someone not of Judeo-Christian descent, they are just as mystical.
(Green stuff mine.) When viewed side by side they are quite different.

i have to disagree with 1 thing in particular..

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

. . . LOL then who talked eve into eating the apple? oh, that was a few paragraphs later, my bad. i have to disagree with 1 thing in particular..

Who said it was an apple? You did read it, right? That Satan took the appearance of a serpent in the Garden of Eden in order to deceive Eve is a somewhat different story than the earth being created in the coils of a snake. But thanks for bringing us back to topic. Whether the Bhagavad Gita has internal consistency is a topic for another poster to consider.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

neologist wrote:
Set. We are in disagreement on the dates of Quirinius' service in Syria as well as the date of Jesus' birth (2 B.C.E.). We also disagree on the issue of head tax. And, apparently on the number of registrations mentioned under Quirinius.

So, this is about par for us.

From this source on Publius Sulpicius Qurinius:

Quote:
Unfortunately, the young man was wounded and died on his return to the west (3 CE). Augustus now selected his stepson Tiberius as successor.

Almost immediately, Quirinius was appointed as governor of Syria, one of the most important provinces of the empire, garrisoned with no less than four legions (III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, XII Fulminata). The area to the south, Judaea, was unquiet. Its leader, Herod Archelaus, had made big mess of his realm, and in 6, Augustus sent him into exile in Gaul.

Judaea now became an autonomous part of the Roman province Syria, ruled by a prefect. Quirinius was ordered to organize the taxation of the new prefecture.

This places his governorship no earlier than 3 CE, and probably later. Nevertheless, it places the census he conducted precisely at 6 CE. Your boy Luke writes:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (King James Version)

But more significantly:

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (New International Version)

So no matter what goofy source your provide for the governorship of Syria by Quirinius (and you have provided no source, simply saying that you believe a thing is sufficient to establish a fact), you have the problem that Luke claims that the Emperor Augustus ordered a census of the "entire Roman world," and that is simply not supported by any documentation outside of Luke. Furthermore, it is contradicted by the documentary record of the censii which were ordered by Augustus.

I simply said that Roman citizens weren't subject to a head tax, i did not deny, and in fact pointed out, that local authorities might tax their people as they saw fit, so long as they didn't attempt to tax Roman citizens.

I also recommend to you this discussion of the alleged census from Butler University.

Come up with a reliable source for your claim, Neo, or you have no argument.

No matter how you quibble about when P. Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria, and whether or not the intention of his census was to lay a head tax on those who were not Roman citizens, it doesn't change the fact that no such census was ordered by the Emperor in any year which can reasonably be established as the year in which your putative Jesus was born; it does not change the fact that the Emperor only ever conducted a census to count Roman citizens; it doesn't change the fact that Luke's gospels contains a glaring historical lie. He may have been naive enough not to have known that he was making a false statement, but it throws the "divinely-inspired" crapola right out the window--because it is patently wrong.

Thanks for your specificity, Set. I'll get back to you. We are talking about two registrations of Quirinius, right? And we are considering that there was no zero year, right?

BTW, Have you considered telling me which of the early Greek manuscripts of Luke does not contain the word enomizeto (supposed)?

0 Replies

You didn't provide linked sources, Neo, so why should i meet a standard that you don't meet?

Whether or not you leave that parenthetical entry in the scripture, you still have failed to provide evidence that the alleged genealogy was for the descent of the alleged Mary. So splitting hairs is not helping your case.

As for whether or not P. Sulpicius Quirinius was governor in Syria and conducted a census once, more than once, or fifty times, and whether or not any of them coincided with the alleged birth of the putative Jesus--you still have the problem of Luke retailing a lie, because there was no such census ordered by Augustus.

That's your burden of proof. If you can't prove that August ordered a census, and one which counted everyone, and not just Roman citizens, and that it required everyone in the Roman Empire to return to the place of their birth--then you fail to remove the charge of a lie against Luke.

That failure entails evidence that your bible is not divinely inspired, because it contains a glaring falsehood.

0 Replies

Linked sources for what? Greek manuscripts? A good source for comparing several may be found here: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index2.htm

I thought it made sense that Quirinius would act in Augustus' name.

If the early church fathers and countless other historians have been deluded into believing that Luke's genealogy was meant to represent that of Mary, why fault me for being equally naive?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I thought it made sense that Quirinius would act in Augustus' name.

The text doesn't say that--it says that Augustus ordered a census of the entire Roman world. You lose.

Quote:

If the early church fathers and countless other historians have been deluded into believing that Luke's genealogy was meant to represent that of Mary, why fault me for being equally naive?

It is not early church fathers nor is it historians who have been deluded--it is christian apologists who attempted to peddle that nonsense only long after it was written, because the glaring contradiction was pointed out to them.

Once again, you lose--your entire thesis is predicated upon the assumption that the scripture is divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant. The Luke census claim alone shoots that theory down.

0 Replies

By the way, your liked source for transcriptions of the Greek are all based on later texts than the texts which were alleged to have been the originals:

Quote:

The discovery of the 4th century Uncials (manuscripts written in upper case -- all capitals -- with no spaces between words) contributed to the controversy... they were different enough to get scholars wondering if they represented a text closer to the original 'autographs'. As a result of the discovery of these manuscripts, and the birth of the science of Textual Criticism, the idea was pushed long and hard that our 'Received' text, and the King James Bible that was translated from it, are full of verses that are additions to the original Greek of the NT, added by overzealous ecclesiastical editing by the Church over the centuries. With the dissatisfaction spawned by these events, a flood of new revisions and translations of the Bible began.

Source, wherein the author who created the web site you linked explains why he has used the "majority of readings" sources.

So, although i have not provided you evidence that the parenthetical entry does not appear in the earliest copies, your sources doesn't prove that it does. Stalemate.

0 Replies

Language is full of examples where a decree or edict of a lesser government official or entity such as a bureaucracy or senate is attributed to the power in charge. Just one example:
State Sales tax- "Time to pay the governor"

The bible was written by men who wrote in a language and style to be understood by people of their time.

I'm not buying your nitpicking objection to the mention of Augustus.

Nevertheless, you have raised enough objections to send me to study hall. You rat, I had plans for the holiday.

Well, I could always postpone research.

0 Replies

At this site, you can read the objection to the majority text versions:

Quote:

The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about "Alexandrian" deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text.

Your source is presenting a view of the Greek sources of the bible which is not universally agreed to.

0 Replies

You are the one who is picking nits, Neo.

The text doesn't say that Quirinius was ordering a census in the name of the Emperor. It says that the Emperor ordered a census, and that at that time Quirinius was governor in Syria. Quirinius was governor in Syria in 6 CE--that does not correspond to the alleged birth of putative Jesus, nor does it correspond to the record which Augustus left of when he conducted a census.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

By the way, your liked source for transcriptions of the Greek are all based on later texts than the texts which were alleged to have been the originals:

Quote:
The discovery of the 4th century Uncials (manuscripts written in upper case -- all capitals -- with no spaces between words) contributed to the controversy... they were different enough to get scholars wondering if they represented a text closer to the original 'autographs'. As a result of the discovery of these manuscripts, and the birth of the science of Textual Criticism, the idea was pushed long and hard that our 'Received' text, and the King James Bible that was translated from it, are full of verses that are additions to the original Greek of the NT, added by overzealous ecclesiastical editing by the Church over the centuries. With the dissatisfaction spawned by these events, a flood of new revisions and translations of the Bible began.

Source, wherein the author who created the web site you linked explains why he has used the "majority of readings" sources.

So, although i have not provided you evidence that the parenthetical entry does not appear in the earliest copies, your sources doesn't prove that it does. Stalemate.

You're right.

Bible translators have to do a lot of figuring out. I remember some discussion about the lack of a definite article when applied to Joseph's connection to Heli, but can't remember where I saw it or its relevance. I am not a scholar of any language and only a marginal student of English.

So, if you are saying that all who do not possess photocopies of Luke's originals and a working knowledge of the historical language are unable to know the truth, your point is worthy of consideration. But to that I would answer (with my pat answer) that, if God exists, he would see to it that modern translations are sufficient to justify Paul's words at 2Timothy 3:16 that 'all scripture is inspired . . ."

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
If I remember correctly, you stated that only one Faith could be true. Seeing as how there are so many, do you think you just got lucky?
It sure wasn't on my own merits. I had given up looking and was well settled in my disbelief and the permission I had given myself to set my own standards.

If that's true then why did you start looking again?
I was blind sided by one of those pesky JWs knockin' at my door and askin' me to think.

Come on, neo. You mean it took a visit from some evangelical missionaries to get you to start thinking? I wonder where you'd be if Mormons had come a knockin', instead.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
If I remember correctly, you stated that only one Faith could be true. Seeing as how there are so many, do you think you just got lucky?
It sure wasn't on my own merits. I had given up looking and was well settled in my disbelief and the permission I had given myself to set my own standards.

If that's true then why did you start looking again?
I was blind sided by one of those pesky JWs knockin' at my door and askin' me to think.

Come on, neo. You mean it took a visit from some evangelical missionaries to get you to start thinking? I wonder where you'd be if Mormons had come a knockin', instead.

I did to him like I did the Mormons; I was a total but head. Every point he made, I answered with a but. Not only was he unflustered, but I had to admit he was making some sense. Nevertheless, I would keep saying to myself "why am I learning these things from THESE folks? Yeek! Then I would say "well, all this would be well and good, except for this issue or that issue." It went on like that for a few months. I had to resolve all of my objections. It took time.

0 Replies

So, what was your first objection?
I think mine would be that I have no reason to seriously consider that a god (or gods) might really exist.

0 Replies

If I were to assume that all this "stuff" had to have been created then I would have a reason to wonder about a "Creator". As it is, I find no reason to make any such assumption.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

So, what was your first objection?
I think mine would be that I have no reason to seriously consider that a god (or gods) might really exist.

I would have to say evolution. That is not to say I bought the idea of creation as has often been discussed on this forum. I generally stay out of the evolution debate.

What most would call creationist theory is simply a restatement of the teleological argument. In the minds of most, it has never satisfactorily demonstrated the existence of God or disproved evolution. The stance I arrived at originated with my speculation on what sort of language and explanation God would use to recount how this all came about to folks who were simple farmers and craftsmen. I reasoned that if he is the creator, then he is also the creator of the natural laws which govern our universe and would have used those natural laws in ways we may yet not understand in order to bring about creation.

I deemed it sufficient that Moses was able to describe the general order of appearance of species, the role and hope of mankind and the reason for our human condition. All this was accomplished in just 3 chapters of the bible, along with God's promise for a cure. In the end, I am satisfied that God told us all we need to know about our genesis.

As far as evolution is concerned, I am familiar with what is commonly called micro evolution, but wonder about the mechanisms proposed to explain the so called macro evolution. I don't think scientists agree on the answer; and perhaps they do not have the answer.

But speculation on scientific theory will not cast any light on the intent and message of the bible. The bible was not meant as a scientific treatise. It is a simple message explaining to the least sophisticated of us why we have war and crime and sickness and death and what God intends to do about it.

And it is the bible's simplicity that brings about the scorn of some intellectuals who insist that God explain himself to them on their terms. Like the Pharisees who kept asking Jesus for a sign, they ignore the signs already given.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

. . . And it is the bible's simplicity that brings about the scorn of some intellectuals who insist that God explain himself to them on their terms. Like the Pharisees who kept asking Jesus for a sign, they ignore the signs already given.

But it is useless to try to accept an explanation that does not meet your terms. If an answer does not satisfy a person's own conditions for "truth", then to ignore that fact and nevertheless claim to believe it anyway, that person would only be lying to himself.
What would you recommend to someone who finds himself in such a situation?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

. . . it is useless to try to accept an explanation that does not meet your terms. If an answer does not satisfy a person's own conditions for "truth", then to ignore that fact and nevertheless claim to believe it anyway, that person would only be lying to himself.
What would you recommend to someone who finds himself in such a situation?

This interesting exchange reportedly took place between Jesus and Pilate and is recorded at John 18:37-38: "Therefore Pilate said to him: "Well, then, are you a king?" Jesus answered: "You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice." 38 Pilate said to him: "What is truth?"

So, what is truth? Here is a question, that in spite of its seeming simplicity, has been bantered around for centuries. In fact I would have to admit, that apart from Descartes Cognito, very little has been added.

Then the question becomes 'how can we know the truth about the existence of God?' Or, more specifically, 'is the bible really God's word?' I believe it needs to be said that the bible was written for the unsophisticated and ordinary among us so it could be understood without the interpretation of a clergy class. As such, one can not expect to find recondite scientific certainty.

What can be found is a simple theme that runs through the entire 66 books:

Humans were created perfect with the prospect of living forever on earth.

They were given a perfect conscience which they rejected when they chose to learn for themselves the difference between good and bad.

The punishment for their disobedience was loss of perfection and eventual death.

At that time, God had every right to destroy them and the rebel Satan, but additional issues had been raised. Consider: By timing his rebellion before Adam and Eve were able to bear children, Satan posed a conundrum to God. If God was loving, would he allow Adam and Eve to continue living despite their sin? That would make him a liar, since he had told them they would die. On the other hand, if God did destroy the rebels on the spot, that would require him to abandon his purpose for creating humans and would leave unanswered the question of whether we would, indeed, BE better off setting our own standards for good and bad. God's power was never in question, only the integrity of his creation and his right to set standards.

So (we're only up to the 3rd chapter of Genesis so far) God promised a seed who would eventually destroy Satan and redeem mankind.

Satan was given the entire world in order to prove his point.

The remainder of the bible explains how God would bring about this result.

The nation of Israel was created and "kept seperate' from the world as an example and a touchstone for the identification of the promised seed.

All along the Jews showed that the inherited tendency of humans was to fall short of God's standards.

When Jesus reportedly kept those standards, he was rejected, in part because the Jews were hoping for a political or military messiah to free them from the Roman yoke.

After fulfilling the law, Jesus established a new covenant based on a much simpler law (Love God, Love your neighbor).

Time was granted for the continued outworking of God's purpose, giving ample time for Satan to prove himself right.

The lengthy time may seem like overkill to us. But we don't know all the factors God may be taking into consideration. And there are many who still believe man will somehow prevail in bringing about a peaceful earth.

At the end of it all, all those who have died never knowing about God will be resurrected and have a chance to regain the promise Adam and Eve lost.

I have claimed all along that the bible is consistent on its main points. Whether that constitutes proof of God's existence is another matter. But the only way you can find out is to diligently study the bible. And study with the point of view of a 'but' head. Don't take anything for granted. For example, if you believe the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites proved that God is not or was not merciful, don't stop but-ing until you get the explanation. I know where to find it if the person teaching you does not.

And there is this warning: There will come a time when God will act to destroy the systems Satan has created. Those who are supporting those systems will be in great danger.

0 Replies

What are the "systems Satan has created"?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

What are the "systems Satan has created"?

Here's one to think about:

"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." (Daniel 2:44)

The same kingdom Jesus told his followers to pray for.

0 Replies

BIBLE CONSPIRACY

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know