SoF question

[follower of Christ]

Nope. The question is whether the NT was intended to be literal history or if it was telling a story to convey a message. It has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed. That's a topic for a different thread. I am in no way suggesting that Jesus never existed.

And the fact is that MOST of the scriptures ARENT presented as parable or allegory. YOU are trying to twist the things that ARENT given AS parable INTO being parable for whatever agenda you have going on here.

If what you are saying WERE actually true, and the message itself is all allegory and parable then the SAME LOGIC MUST APPLY to the man Jesus Christ who is spoken of in the scriptures.

Its astounding that you cannot see the point here.


.

 

[ydoaPs]

Nope. The question is whether the NT was intended to be literal history or if it was telling a story to convey a message. It has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed. That's a topic for a different thread. I am in no way suggesting that Jesus never existed.

And the fact is that MOST of the scriptures ARENT presented as parable or allegory.

They are? It seems that the Jewish author of Matthew was quite obviously using the Jewish tradition of midrash.

 

[follower of Christ]

What's with you and thinking I'm 'casting doubt'?

gee, I dont know.
Maybe your other thread here in this forum may have caused me to think something along those lines.

There are multiple places where we know the Bible is wrong historically.

Were you there ?

No, you asserted that it's an absurdity. There's a difference. You've yet to even describe how Jesus telling stories that aren't necessarily true to convey meaning is different from the author of Matthew telling stories that aren't nessecarily true to convey meaning about Jesus.

The fact that Jesus TOLD A parable does NOT negate the fact that the HISTORICAL ACCOUNT that says that He DID tell that parable is innaccurate.

If I believed as you seem to then Id have to believe that Jesus Himself was only allegory when He taught the parables.

Parables, visions and the like are generally VERY easy to discern in the scriptures friend.

.

 

[follower of Christ]

Nope. The question is whether the NT was intended to be literal history or if it was telling a story to convey a message. It has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed. That's a topic for a different thread. I am in no way suggesting that Jesus never existed.

And the fact is that MOST of the scriptures ARENT presented as parable or allegory.

They are?

Not sure what part of ARENT you missed there.

It seems that the Jewish author of Matthew was quite obviously using the Jewish tradition of midrash.

You seem to be obsessed with Matthew as if he was the only gospel writer for some reason.
One mans method and style of study and writing doesnt negate the historical facts presented.


.

 

[follower of Christ]

Quite so. I'm glad you learned that.

Its a lesson that you may want to take some time with yourself.

No, the issue is whether the stories need to be true for the message to be true.

And what needs to be 'true' is whether Jesus existed and spoke at all.
You attack the historical details and argue against them with the idea that those historical details present that Jesus spoke in parables that ARENT about those historical details.
And whats amazing is that you expect us to take you seriously, apparently.


.

 

[follower of Christ]

Herod reigned until his death in 4BC. Upon Herod's death, his kingdom was split among his sons. In 6AD, Herod Archelaus(one of King Herod's sons) was deposed and his land thus fell into Roman control. One of Archelaus's replacement was a man by the name Coponius. At the same time as the appointment of Coponius, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6AD. Upon the appointment of Quirinius, since this was the first time the land was under Roman control, it was decreed by Caesar Agustus that there should be a census. This census was the first Roman census of the area.

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."-Matthew 2:1-2

"And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."- Matthew 2:13-15

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." Luke 2:1-5.

Now, there is a problem. Jesus was said by one gospel to be born prior to the death of Herod the Great(4BC, but another says he was born after the census(which is a direct result of Herod's death) in 6AD. Prior to 6AD, Rome didn't even have the authority to take a census of that area.

We are left with a 10 year discrepancy between gospels. This cannot be a simple case of mistranscription, because one gospel's chronological anchor is a direct result of the other's.

The answer: it doesn't matter! The meaning matters.

What pathetic website did you dig this one up from ?

Id have to actually look at it to even figure out where the problems even start friend.
This 10 year 'discrepancy' of yours certainly doesnt show that there is any discrepancy.

I will be more than happy to look at the details and expose the error here thru the next 24 hours, however.

.

 

[follower of Christ]

Didnt have to look far. Cybershark already posted this for you elsewhere.

Fixing a precise date for this census is problematic. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius is known to have governed Syria during A.D.6-9. A well known census was taken in Palestine in A.D. 6. Josephus records that it sparked a violent Jewish revolt (mentioned by Luke, quoting Gamliel in Acts 5:37). Quirinus was responsible for administering that census, and he also played a major role in quelling the subsequent rebellion. However, that cannot be the census Luke has in mind here because it occured about a decade after the death of Herod (see note on Matthew 2:1), much too late to fit Luke's chronology (cf. 1:5). In light of Luke's meticulous care as a historian, it would be unreasonsable to charge him with such an obvious anachronism. Indeed archaeology has vindicated Luke. A fragment of stone discovered at Tivoli (in Rome) in A.D. 1764 contains an inscription in honor of a Roman official who, it states, was twice governor of Syria and Phonecia during the reign of Augustus. The name of the official is not on the fragment but among his accomplishments are listed details that, as far as is known, can fit no one other than Quirinius. Thus he must have served as governor in Syria twice. He was probably military governor at the same time that history records Verus was civil governor there. With regard to the dating of the census some ancient records in Egypt mention a worldwide census ordered in 8 BC. That date is not without problems either. It is generally thought by scholars that 6 B.C. is the earliest possible date for Christ's birth. Evidently the census was ordered by Ceasar Augustus in 8 B.C. but was not actually carried out in Palestine until 2-4 years later, perhaps because of the political difficulties between Rome and Herod. Therefore, the precise year of Chirst's birth cannot be known with certainty, but it was was probably no earlier than 6 B.C. and certainly no later than 4 B.C. Luke readers familiar with the political history of that era would no doubt have been able to discern the precise date for the information he gave.

 

[ydoaPs]

What's with you and thinking I'm 'casting doubt'?

gee, I dont know.
Maybe your other thread here in this forum may have caused me to think something along those lines.

Why is that?

[quote:1yd9mnjm]There are multiple places where we know the Bible is wrong historically.

Were you there ?[/quote:1yd9mnjm]
Were you?

[quote:1yd9mnjm]No, you asserted that it's an absurdity. There's a difference. You've yet to even describe how Jesus telling stories that aren't necessarily true to convey meaning is different from the author of Matthew telling stories that aren't nessecarily true to convey meaning about Jesus.

The fact that Jesus TOLD A parable does NOT negate the fact that the HISTORICAL ACCOUNT that says that He DID tell that parable is innaccurate.[/quote:1yd9mnjm] Why are you assuming it's a historical account when it is clearly midrash?

You seem to be obsessed with Matthew as if he was the only gospel writer for some reason.

Nope. It's just sticking with the same example to minimize confusion.

No, the issue is whether the stories need to be true for the message to be true.

And what needs to be 'true' is whether Jesus existed and spoke at all.

Who is saying He didn't?

You attack the historical details and argue against them with the idea that those historical details present that Jesus spoke in parables that ARENT about those historical details.

[/quote]You still haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about, do you?

Anyway, let's reserve this thread for discussing the affirmative argument of the SoF. This thread has been derailed enough. Let's continue this discussion in the thread I made for such discussion.

What is the case for inerrency?

 

[ydoaPs]

Didnt have to look far. Cybershark already posted this for you elsewhere.

And oddly enough, I already addressed that dishonest discussion.

 

[follower of Christ]

Didnt have to look far. Cybershark already posted this for you elsewhere.

And oddly enough, I already addressed that dishonest discussion.

No, you handwaved away the evidence you didnt like.
We've seen your type come and go here many times here friend.
You come in, dont get the response you wanted and eventually disappear.

.

 

[ydoaPs]

[quote="follower of Christ":2vuhx4vd]Didnt have to look far. Cybershark already posted this for you elsewhere.

And oddly enough, I already addressed that dishonest discussion.

No, you handwaved away the evidence you didnt like.
We've seen your type come and go here many times here friend.
You come in, dont get the response you wanted and eventually disappear.

.[/quote:2vuhx4vd]


Okay, I'm going to ignore the thing living under the bridge now.

 

[follower of Christ]

Why is that?

Maybe you need to reread it and this time with some objectivity.

Were you?

Im not the one making the claims of innaccuracies, gent.

Why are you assuming it's a historical account when it is clearly midrash?

You and that word.
I study the BIBLE, I couldnt care less about this 'midrash' nonsense.
There is more than one gospel account, in case you missed that fact.

Nope. It's just sticking with the same example to minimize confusion.

No, youre sticking to the one with whom you believe you can make your point.
I see this all the time in the MDR debate with people who want to avoid Matthew because it destroys their arguments.
Trust me friend, we are studied enough that we wont be confused if you leave Matthew ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

Okay, I'm going to ignore the thing living under the bridge now.

Actually I was checking the other side of the bridge to see if I could see you over there

 

[follower of Christ]

Who is saying He didn't?

Hey, its all parable....just to tell a story, remember ? Jesus doesnt HAVE to be REAL for the story to have a point...right ;)

You still haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about, do you?

I can only respond to what you SAY here. I cant read your mind.
If you dont MEAN what youve WRITTEN then that really isnt my error.

 

[Rick W]

The direction this thread has taken is one of person attack and conflict.
There has been too much of this recently therefore we are compelled to enforce the ToS much more strictly than in the past.

5 - Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

Any further violation of these rules will result in warnings being issued. I don't say this lightly. The personal attacks WILL stop.

I'm not trying to start a debate or anything...

But it occurred nonetheless.

I'm even open for a 1 on 1 discussion

Good idea.
You may start a thread in the 1 on 1 Debates forum.
Be aware that all posts must be approved when posted before becoming publicly viewable.