West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Maestro Minded on July 30, 2002, 12:37:29 PM
-
i got a couple question i want cleared out... and like always: all beef gets ignored...
who came up with the name "Bible", because theres no place in the book its name have been written... so its obviously a human that made up the name... and now when the Bible IS a holy book... how come that God didnt give it a name?
-
It was mentioned in the bible as being God's holy word
I'm not sure where the name Bible came from. Good question.
-
The (Christian) Bible is just a collection of religious articles collated by the Catholic Church, many hundreds of years ago, into a single book form. The individual chapters where just written as historical records by normal men e.g. Moses, King Solomon etc.
No idea why they chose the name "Bible" but they did. (Why did the Jews called theirs the Torah?) "Bible" is not mentioned anywhere within the book as each chapter was written individually by different people and at the time they did not invisige some of their articles being combined in a single book called the Bible.
God didn't give it a name because God didn't write it, nor did he directly ask for it to be written.
-
The (Christian) Bible is just a collection of religious articles collated by the Catholic Church, many hundreds of years ago, into a single book form. The individual chapters where just written as historical records by normal men e.g. Moses, King Solomon etc.
No idea why they chose the name "Bible" but they did. (Why did the Jews called theirs the Torah?) "Bible" is not mentioned anywhere within the book as each chapter was written individually by different people and at the time they did not invisige some of their articles being combined in a single book called the Bible.
God didn't give it a name because God didn't write it, nor did he directly ask for it to be written.
so the Bible is not "God's book"... its the peoples book, and those who wrote it may had gotten wrong informations... so why shall a christian follow the Bible, when its not even God who wrote it?
-
LoL.....ppl that belive that God would be able to write a book is craaaaaaaazy :D
-
so the Bible is not "God's book"... its the peoples book, and those who wrote it may had gotten wrong informations... so why shall a christian follow the Bible, when its not even God who wrote it?
The Bible is about God and is a history of the world and how God created it, and in that sense is a Holy Book.
Christians should by definition believe the Bible as otherwise they're not Christians. i.e. You don't just decide one day to be a Christian and then start to read the Bible to find out what it says, you read the Bible first and if you understand and believe it you join your chosen religion.
Whether or not the Bible contains "wrong information" it's really up to you to determine that for yourself. God did not proof read the Bible and as the chapters were written by normal people they may have made normal mistakes so it could contain errors. However, you can use various historical sources to cross reference Biblical stories and make a decision as to whether or not they are true. Also, you have to assume that people who wrote the original religious texts had good intentions and were not deliberatly trying to mislead people by lying to them. So they would have tried their best to be accurate. In the end religion is about faith and there is no proof of the existance of a God so the question you really need to ask is "Do you believe the stories are correct?"
To be honest one should never claim to be a Christian without reading the Bible (and the same goes for other religions and their related religious texts) because you're just being told to believe something that may or may not be correct. For example, where was Jesus born? In a stable perhaps? But where in the Bible does it actually say he was born in a stable? Almost all Christians seem to go around with the belief that there was "no room at the inn" and thus Jesus was born in a stable but this is not mentioned in the Bible. So don't accept things at face value just because someone tells you something is true.
-
Google strikes again...found this info:
The Origin and Meaning of the Word Bible
The word Bible is a literal translation of the Greek word biblos (inner bark of the papyrus plant). Many ancient writings were on rolls of papyrus from which comes the word “paper.” Such a roll was called a biblion and contained only one book. The plural of biblion is biblia, which passed over into Latin as singular and came to mean Bible.
So "Bible" literally means a collection of paper rolls or ancient books.
-
True, Gid didn't write it with his own hand or nuthin, but he inspired and influenced those who wrote it. SO pretty much they were writing what he wanted them to.
-
True, Gid didn't write it with his own hand or nuthin, but he inspired and influenced those who wrote it. SO pretty much they were writing what he wanted them to.
but theres alotta contradictions in the Bible... so obviously the authors didnt have connection with God when writing it, because else they wouldnt claim one thing on page one, and deny it on page 4
-
but theres alotta contradictions in the Bible... so obviously the authors didnt have connection with God when writing it, because else they wouldnt claim one thing on page one, and deny it on page 4
Contradictions?
Please list them
-
Contradictions?
Please list them
1. In Cronicles (2), 36:9, its written that Jojakin was 8 years old when becoming a king and he ruled for 3 months. But in Kings (2), 24:8, its written thats he became a king a the year of 18 and ruled for 3 months and 10 days...
2. According to Kings (2), 8:26, Ahasja became a king at the age of 22, Cronicles (2), 22:2 is stating that Ahasja became a king at the age of 42
3. "Numbers", 23:19, claims that God never regrets his actions, but in "Genesis", 6:6, its written that God regrets creating the human being.
4. The Note Written Above The Head Of Jesus, On The Crucifix:
"This Is Jesus, The King Of The Jews" - (Matt 27:37)
"The King Of The Jews" - (Mark 15:26)
"This Is The King Of The Jews" - (Luk 23:38)
Even with the help of God (??), the 3 authors couldnt write 5-8 words correct... witch one is correct and with one(s) are fake? is any of them correct at all?
thats 4 examples.... ive written exactly were you can find the paragraphs, so check for yourself if you want... i have a couple more iff you're interested...
anyway.. this obviously shows that the writers had no connection with God when typing, else, how could they contradict theirselfes?? .. i also have proofs for the statements im going to claim now:
1. Jesus did NOT dy by the crucifix...
2. Jesus was a fighter and was ready to protect his life by the sword
3. Jesus is NOT holding (being respoisible) for the humans sins, and ne never had
-
Well first off, 1, 2 and 4 have nothing to do with the basic principles of the Bible or whether it is a holy book or not. And I pulled out my Bibles and looked through them, and out of the three different Bibles I looked through, only one had the errors when it came to the kings ages. I think it may depend on what translation you have. Also, I'm positive Chronicles and Kings were all written by different men. Those are small errors that take nothing away from the main principles or purposes of the Bible. And the men who wrote it and the people who print it are humans. Last time I checked humans are not perfect.
As for the different apostles writing what the sign on Jesus' cross said were slightly different, come on, they all say the same thing, give or take a few. Like I said, man is not perfect.
Now number three is what puzzled me, but you gotta realize we are dealing with the english language. The word "regret" has more than one meaning. These definitions below came from the dictionary, no affiliation to the Bible. Check it:
1: mourn or loss or death of
2: sorrow or the expression of sorrow
3: to be dissapointed
No where does it mention God changing his mind. In Genesis 6:6, God was dissapointed and felt sorrow for his people turning away from him. It doesn't say he wished we were never made. And Numbers says He never changes his mind or lies. If you break it down like that there is no contradiction at all. You just took a few words out of context.
-
I'll come back tonight and refute all those supposed 'contradictions'... Most of the 'contradictions' are gramattical differences, or things that are of little importance. Also keep in mind that the bible has been translated several times, it's grandfathered to the point that it's not in it's original form. Peace~
-
Is that all you got I-Bo?
lmao
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their stories of the events through eyewitness reports. God didn't fucking tell them what happened,
-
Is that all you got I-Bo?
lmao
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their stories of the events through eyewitness reports. God didn't fucking tell them what happened,
so your point is that we do not know if the Bible is correct.... ??
-
Er, no, my point is that your point about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John "even with the help of God" is a bunch of horseshit.
-
Er, no, my point is that your point about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John "even with the help of God" is a bunch of horseshit.
if the Bible is supposed to reflect the thaughts of God, how come that 3 of the Bibles most important persons cant write it down correct... that doesnt make sense...
-
For fucks sake
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not there when Jesus died.
They asked people what was written on the cross years after the incident and they got different responses that were similar.
It's like asking different people what a sign in a shop said after they came out the shop. One says "Please do not smoke", another says "No smoking" and another "Don't smoke on the premises"
And how in the fuck is what is written on a cross "the thoughts of God"??????
-
For fucks sake
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not there when Jesus died.
They asked people what was written on the cross years after the incident and they got different responses that were similar.
It's like asking different people what a sign in a shop said after they came out the shop. One says "Please do not smoke", another says "No smoking" and another "Don't smoke on the premises"
And how in the fuck is what is written on a cross "the thoughts of God"??????
so since the Bible is written by regular guys with no help from God, the content may be incorrect... ??
-
Maybe
-
Maybe
hm....
not "maby"... rather "definatly"....
but ok... in that case thing are clear...
-
Who wrote the Qu'ran?
-
HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!! :o
Lemme be the Jew to step in here.....
We (Jews) believe that GOD gave Moses the 10 commandments on Mt. Sinai and the Bible was written by the Rabbis with the 10 commanments as a source of GOD of influence of GOD (btw...the 10 commandments are in the Bible).
But u should understand that the Rabbis (back in the day) were considered to be the smartest people in the land!
~~When I say Bible, im talking about the Old Testemant~~
-
so since the Bible is written by regular guys with no help from God, the content may be incorrect... ??
not 'may be' - it is ;)
its accepted that the testimony of the disciples is flawed. the importance is that these works exist at all, and show how these people percieved the events around them.
-
~~When I say Bible, im talking about the Old Testemant~~
of course, because jews dont recognise the new testament.
the flawed works we were just talking about ;)
-
A lot of the Old Teastament is plain stupid
Adam and Eve etc
-
Who wrote the Qu'ran?
Qu'ran is the words of God... you may search for contradictions there if you want
-
hm....
not "maby"... rather "definatly"....
but ok... in that case thing are clear...
I beg to differ because the Gospel books are all pretty much identical. Some books go into more details about different parts of Christ's life. The Bible has been proven to be historically accurate and its pretty hard for men to lie.
I think you trippin over three or four grammatical errors or words is absolutely ridiculous.
-
Who penned his words for him?
-
i got a couple question i want cleared out... and like always: all beef gets ignored...
who came up with the name "Bible", because theres no place in the book its name have been written... so its obviously a human that made up the name... and now when the Bible IS a holy book... how come that God didnt give it a name?
- the word bible is derived from "biblios", the Greek word for book.
- Yes, it was written by man.
-
The (Christian) Bible is just a collection of religious articles collated by the Catholic Church, many hundreds of years ago, into a single book form. The individual chapters where just written as historical records by normal men e.g. Moses, King Solomon etc.
no. they were written by monks.
No idea why they chose the name "Bible" but they did. (Why did the Jews called theirs the Torah?)
Torah = Law = Hebrew word.
God didn't give it a name because God didn't write it, nor did he directly ask for it to be written.
;D
-
A lot of the Old Teastament is plain stupid
Adam and Eve etc
thats just fuckin ignorant and fucked up....that comment is complete bullshit....
i cant believe u would say some bullshit like that!!!
if u knew anything....Both the Old and New Testemants have stories that teach us....Adam & Eve is one of those stories....
in short...FUCK U!!!!
-
The Bible is about God and is a history of the world and how God created it, and in that sense is a Holy Book.
It's about man.
Christians should by definition believe the Bible as otherwise they're not Christians. i.e. You don't just decide one day to be a Christian and then start to read the Bible to find out what it says, you read the Bible first and if you understand and believe it you join your chosen religion.
no. Christianity is about choice. You may choose which way to take. You're not forced to take a certain way.
Whether or not the Bible contains "wrong information" it's really up to you to determine that for yourself. God did not proof read the Bible and as the chapters were written by normal people they may have made normal mistakes so it could contain errors. However, you can use various historical sources to cross reference Biblical stories and make a decision as to whether or not they are true. Also, you have to assume that people who wrote the original religious texts had good intentions and were not deliberatly trying to mislead people by lying to them. So they would have tried their best to be accurate. In the end religion is about faith and there is no proof of the existance of a God so the question you really need to ask is "Do you believe the stories are correct?".
30 years ago we would have got into trouble if we used words like "wanka" or "cocksucker" in public. Today it's "rather normal". Language changes. The bible was written a few thousand years ago. These people used a different language. They used different images ("mythos") to describe their experiences with God and their environment. Is it correct? Some things are, some things are not. It depends on the people who wrote down a particular passage etc.
To be honest one should never claim to be a Christian without reading the Bible (and the same goes for other religions and their related religious texts) because you're just being told to believe something that may or may not be correct.
true, but you need some basic knowledge.
For example, where was Jesus born? In a stable perhaps? But where in the Bible does it actually say he was born in a stable? Almost all Christians seem to go around with the belief that there was "no room at the inn" and thus Jesus was born in a stable but this is not mentioned in the Bible. So don't accept things at face value just because someone tells you something is true.
Jesus was most probably born in Nazareth.
-
Google strikes again...found this info:
The Origin and Meaning of the Word Bible
The word Bible is a literal translation of the Greek word biblos (inner bark of the papyrus plant). Many ancient writings were on rolls of papyrus from which comes the word “paper.” Such a roll was called a biblion and contained only one book. The plural of biblion is biblia, which passed over into Latin as singular and came to mean Bible.
So "Bible" literally means a collection of paper rolls or ancient books.
damn, I didn't read this one.
-
Jesus lived in Nazareth, but was born in Bethlehem.
-
no. that's a myth. He was most probably born in Nazareth.I had the pleasure(?) to study theology at university for about 3 terms thus I know what I'm talking about.
-
thats just fuckin ignorant and fucked up....that comment is complete bullshit....
i cant believe u would say some bullshit like that!!!
if u knew anything....Both the Old and New Testemants have stories that teach us....Adam & Eve is one of those stories....
in short...FUCK U!!!!
Calm it
I know what you're sayin man, about the stories, but my point is that it didn't actually happen. Some people will not recognise the fact that it teaches something, and instead will see it as a lie.
-
Calm it
I know what you're sayin man, about the stories, but my point is that it didn't actually happen. Some people will not recognise the fact that it teaches something, and instead will see it as a lie.
well jews believe it did happen!!!!!
-
That's a hot debate right now and you have a right to your opinion
It's Science vs Religion
I'm a catholic and I don't think it happened
-
its not a hot debate now, its always been one.
people have been killed on both sides for saying less.
hows this for an angle.
the adam&eve story may well be based on an older oral tradition that was changed like a 'chinese whisper' before it was codified (written down).
-
^^^ Exactly.
Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible. Moses wasn't around when adam was... lol. So it's impossible for Moses to have first hand information about what God said to Adam, and Eve, he only wrote down what he understood, and what Jews and perhaps even God himself told or showed him. The story of Adam and Eve, in my opinion, happened, but if you find flaws with it, it's flaws of men, not god, lol.
Yall miss the point, that god is by DEFINITION perfect, anything good you can think of to the highest power. So you can't say "god messed up" or whatever, about ANYTHING, because by definition, it's impossible.
The gospels differ because they were written several, several years after Jesus's death. The disciples went out teaching his word, for years after the ressurection, and as they neared the end of their life, put to paper what had transcribed. Some of the gospels were written with help from the OTHER gospels, too... so say for instance, the book of Luke may have already been written, by the time John wrote his account, so he could refresh his memory with what Luke had written (I'm not sure about those two books, but you get the idea).
Also, the books were originally in Hebrew, then Greek, etc. etc. So, when King James rolled around, he decided that there was no good english translation. He had 6 crews of Scholars translate 6 different languages of the bible into english. The head of each team met with the head of the other teams, finally, and decided together what the most correct translation of each verse was. Lots, Lots, Lots was lost in the translation, and even though the 6 teams may have been divinely inspired at the time, they still probably made thousands of mistakes.
The bible probably does have some wrong information, 1 for instance is that in Genesis it doesn't mention adam and eve having daughters, but yet at one point Seth is married. To who? Just little stuff like that. On the other hand, the bible is FULL of material that just blows your mind if you sit down and read it... the old testament of course is a record of people back to the original man, Adam, and the creation of the world. It follows the hebrews through time, up until when the building of Solomon's temple, awaiting the arrival of the saviour, there are also lots of prophecies about the future... the old testament predicted Christ's coming.
Then of course, the new testament is a record of the prediction of the lamb's arrival coming true. With the new testament, we can read what Jesus taught, etc. and all the things surrounding that. At the end of the New Testament you have Revelation, which basically is like "Hey, the old testament predicted christ, and that came true. This testament is gonna predict the second coming of christ, and that's gonna come true too".
That's how it works.
-
so the guys wh wrote the new testament were just normal guys who could have gotten the wrong information´, and they had no connection with God?? ... does that mean that we can expand the Bible and add "The Third Testament" with more informations and sagas?? if "no",, why not?
-
no. they were written by monks.
Don't get confused. The KJV was not the first Bible produced, it was the first English Bible. The first Bible WAS commisioned by Catholic Rome. Anyway, most Monks are Catholic anyway and actually King James might have been too. But I digress...
A lot of you of you seem to understand the Bible quite well. By Bible I'm talking about the Christian old+new testaments. And by understand I mean you don't just blindly take it at face value and are willing to question aspects of it that don't seem right.
Yes, the Bible is full of inconsistancies. To be honest I've neither the time nor the inclanation to list them all or argue them. But as an example, take the genealogy of Christ as described in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. They both claim to describe Joseph's family line but they are both totally different. Whether or not one is actually Mary's family (as I've heard claimed) is irrelevant as this is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is an inconsistancy. If you actually sit down and read the book, preferably from the orginal Greek and Hebrew, you will see these mistakes. You don't need specialist knowledge, you just need to be able to read and have access to a library. There's also the Internet!
It's not just mistakes in the original documents but also in the translations. Although translators may have tried their best, who's to know if the translations are perfect? When the original texts were written, some words had more than one meaning so who's to say the correct meaning has been used or correctly interpreted? For example consider the "no room at the Inn" told to us in Luke 2.7. The original word for Inn is translated elsewhere in both Luke and Mark as a large upper room in a house. Even Matthew (2.11) states when the Wise Men found Jesus they were in a house. So where did the nativity story with them living in a stable come from? (Please don't tell me the answer because I already know).
But of course there are bound to be mistakes in the originals anyway. Most of the books were written years after the events they depict. Even the calendar didn't change to A.D. until almost 500 years after Christ died and the wrong start date was probably chosen - as most scholars put the death of Herod the Great at 4BC and seeing as he was reportedly alive when Christ was born then the birth must have been before that.
The point I'm trying to make is that the Bible is a small book, made of sources written in more than one original language, over thousands of years, sometime many years after the events depicted, and in some cases translated again into another language. Ironically the people of the time did not have as good a grasp of history as we do today as they did not have access to the resources (in terms of reference material) we have. In addition a lot of the Bible is written metaphorically and isn't intended to be taken literally. So you can't just read the Bible and say that everything in it is right and true. There is no such thing as "Gospel Truth" as the Gospels quite clearly are not 100% true. You have to be skeptical at frst, read other history books and you can work out what is right and what is wrong.
-
Don't get confused. The KJV was not the first Bible produced, it was the first English Bible. The first Bible WAS commisioned by Catholic Rome. Anyway, most Monks are Catholic anyway and actually King James might have been too. But I digress...
Obviously we're havin a little misunderstanding. Monks do not necessarily have to be of Catholic faith. I was referring to those people who wrote down the various passages which were canonized later on.
A lot of you of you seem to understand the Bible quite well. By Bible I'm talking about the Christian old+new testaments. And by understand I mean you don't just blindly take it at face value and are willing to question aspects of it that don't seem right.
Yes, the Bible is full of inconsistancies. To be honest I've neither the time nor the inclanation to list them all or argue them. But as an example, take the genealogy of Christ as described in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. They both claim to describe Joseph's family line but they are both totally different. Whether or not one is actually Mary's family (as I've heard claimed) is irrelevant as this is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is an inconsistancy. If you actually sit down and read the book, preferably from the orginal Greek and Hebrew, you will see these mistakes. You don't need specialist knowledge, you just need to be able to read and have access to a library. There's also the Internet!
It's not just mistakes in the original documents but also in the translations. Although translators may have tried their best, who's to know if the translations are perfect? When the original texts were written, some words had more than one meaning so who's to say the correct meaning has been used or correctly interpreted? For example consider the "no room at the Inn" told to us in Luke 2.7. The original word for Inn is translated elsewhere in both Luke and Mark as a large upper room in a house. Even Matthew (2.11) states when the Wise Men found Jesus they were in a house. So where did the nativity story with them living in a stable come from? (Please don't tell me the answer because I already know).
But of course there are bound to be mistakes in the originals anyway. Most of the books were written years after the events they depict. Even the calendar didn't change to A.D. until almost 500 years after Christ died and the wrong start date was probably chosen - as most scholars put the death of Herod the Great at 4BC and seeing as he was reportedly alive when Christ was born then the birth must have been before that.
The point I'm trying to make is that the Bible is a small book, made of sources written in more than one original language, over thousands of years, sometime many years after the events depicted, and in some cases translated again into another language. Ironically the people of the time did not have as good a grasp of history as we do today as they did not have access to the resources (in terms of reference material) we have. In addition a lot of the Bible is written metaphorically and isn't intended to be taken literally. So you can't just read the Bible and say that everything in it is right and true. There is no such thing as "Gospel Truth" as the Gospels quite clearly are not 100% true. You have to be skeptical at frst, read other history books and you can work out what is right and what is wrong.
100% cosign.
-
Well said Darth. I agree with what you're saying, I just want to add a comment though:
^^^ Exactly.
The bible probably does have some wrong information, 1 for instance is that in Genesis it doesn't mention adam and eve having daughters, but yet at one point Seth is married.
Most of biblical geneology only mentions men because in those days women were seen as not so important so not many got a mention. That might explain why Adam and Eve don't appear to have daughters when they may actually have had some. However, Genesis 1-27 states "God created man in his own image; male and female created he them." But God does not create Adam until 2-7 and Even until 2-22. So what does the 1-27 passage mean?
Genesis1 obviously isn't a strict factual account of what happened when God created the world. It doesn't for example mention Dinosaurs and I don't think that anyone can actually deny they existed. Genesis only mentions the things that Moses knew about so must contain ommisions as he can't have known everything - and besides there is no need for him to know everything.
It's my opinion that Adam and Eve where not the only people on the Earth at that point. Maybe God spent time experimenting by populating the Earth with different animals such as Dinosaurs and early proto humans before finally deciding on homo-erectus. Man created in his own image with the ability to think and most importantly talk. Maybe he created several humans but chose to place only Adam and later Eve in the garden. Afrer a great deal of thought I have found I cannot believe in macro evolution (micro yes, macro no) so in my opinion all animal species (including for example Neanderthal man and Dinosaurs) must have been created by God at some point.
I just don't know how else to interpret the fact it says God created "man and woman" and instructed them to be "fruitful and multiply" and have "dominion" over all of the animals. Then rested on the seventh day before creating Adam.
So I believe that after the expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve met up with some of those other humans and we came from there. That's how Seth and Cain could have families even if Adam and Eve didn't have daughters (and it means there was less incest too.)
-
Obviously we're havin a little misunderstanding. Monks do not necessarily have to be of Catholic faith. I was referring to those people who wrote down the various passages which were canonized later on.
Agreed. :)
-
It's my opinion that Adam and Eve where not the only people on the Earth at that point. Maybe God spent time experimenting by populating the Earth with different animals such as Dinosaurs and early proto humans before finally deciding on homo-erectus. Man created in his own image with the ability to think and most importantly talk. Maybe he created several humans but chose to place only Adam and later Eve in the garden. Afrer a great deal of thought I have found I cannot believe in macro evolution (micro yes, macro no) so in my opinion all animal species (including for example Neanderthal man and Dinosaurs) must have been created by God at some point.
I just don't know how else to interpret the fact it says God created "man and woman" and instructed them to be "fruitful and multiply" and have "dominion" over all of the animals. Then rested on the seventh day before creating Adam.
So I believe that after the expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve met up with some of those other humans and we came from there. That's how Seth and Cain could have families even if Adam and Eve didn't have daughters (and it means there was less incest too.)
Do some research ;). Key terms: "Jahwist & Priestly Source". Take care of the historical background in particular. Adam & Eve is not about God - it's about man.
-
I wish my English skills were better :'(
-
no. that's a myth. He was most probably born in Nazareth.I had the pleasure(?) to study theology at university for about 3 terms thus I know what I'm talking about.
How was it a myth?
-
How was it a myth?
I'd like to know too because I've never understood why Mary and Joseph would go to Betlehem. Seeing as how Palestine was not at that time under Roman control so I don't quite see how Caeser was planning on taxing the population.
-
Jesus was called "Jesus Nazarenus rex Judaeorum" (Jesus of Nazareth, King of Jews). This title points very highly to Nazareth being his birthplace. In the first century, the Jewish naming convention was to call a man either according to his father's name or according to the town in which he was born. According to many liberal theologists the early Christian writers changed Jesus' birthplace to Bethlehem because they wanted to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.
-
Jesus was called "Jesus Nazarenus rex Judaeorum" (Jesus of Nazareth, King of Jews). This title points very highly to Nazareth being his birthplace. In the first century, the Jewish naming convention was to call a man either according to his father's name or according to the town in which he was born. According to many liberal theologists the early Christian writers changed Jesus' birthplace to Bethlehem because they wanted to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.
Very interesting.....I never heard that before. Thanks man, I'ma seriously look into that.
-
so the guys wh wrote the new testament were just normal guys who could have gotten the wrong information´, and they had no connection with God?? ... does that mean that we can expand the Bible and add "The Third Testament" with more informations and sagas?? if "no",, why not?
Nah, you got it twisted, lol. They were men, pre-ordained by god to have the ability, and desire within them to write the scriptures. Why are you trying to trip us up? lol. As for the "Third Testament", I'm mormon, and we have the "third Testament" the book of mormon we use as scriptures too. We have a prophet, and consider what he says scripture, also, so yeah, take that how ever you want. The bible, alone, holds enough information to save someone's soul, so extra 'testaments' aren't totally needed, they only embelish the bible. Peace~
-
Well said Darth. I agree with what you're saying, I just want to add a comment though:
Most of biblical geneology only mentions men because in those days women were seen as not so important so not many got a mention. That might explain why Adam and Eve don't appear to have daughters when they may actually have had some. However, Genesis 1-27 states "God created man in his own image; male and female created he them." But God does not create Adam until 2-7 and Even until 2-22. So what does the 1-27 passage mean?
Genesis1 obviously isn't a strict factual account of what happened when God created the world. It doesn't for example mention Dinosaurs and I don't think that anyone can actually deny they existed. Genesis only mentions the things that Moses knew about so must contain ommisions as he can't have known everything - and besides there is no need for him to know everything.
It's my opinion that Adam and Eve where not the only people on the Earth at that point. Maybe God spent time experimenting by populating the Earth with different animals such as Dinosaurs and early proto humans before finally deciding on homo-erectus. Man created in his own image with the ability to think and most importantly talk. Maybe he created several humans but chose to place only Adam and later Eve in the garden. Afrer a great deal of thought I have found I cannot believe in macro evolution (micro yes, macro no) so in my opinion all animal species (including for example Neanderthal man and Dinosaurs) must have been created by God at some point.
I just don't know how else to interpret the fact it says God created "man and woman" and instructed them to be "fruitful and multiply" and have "dominion" over all of the animals. Then rested on the seventh day before creating Adam.
So I believe that after the expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve met up with some of those other humans and we came from there. That's how Seth and Cain could have families even if Adam and Eve didn't have daughters (and it means there was less incest too.)
I agree with most of that, we just don't know for sure what happened... but I think Science is merely a means by which God accomplishes his miracles. I see no rift between science, and religion, almost everything even the parting of the red sea has been proven scientifically possible. God took "7 days" to create the world, but the book of mormon, and MAYBE the new testament mention that a day to god is like 1000 to us. So maybe that's just a gross generalization, and over millions of years, God took his 'week' to create the earth. Peace~
-
Jesus was called "Jesus Nazarenus rex Judaeorum" (Jesus of Nazareth, King of Jews). This title points very highly to Nazareth being his birthplace. In the first century, the Jewish naming convention was to call a man either according to his father's name or according to the town in which he was born. According to many liberal theologists the early Christian writers changed Jesus' birthplace to Bethlehem because they wanted to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.
I think we dissagree again. First off, don't get your information by copying and pasting webpages. Open the bible, and read it yourself. You're pretty much borderline plagerizing webpages online, the entire quote above was almost verbatim copyed from another page.
The whole trick of the story of Jesus is that he fullfilled all the prophecies, backwards. For instance, Jews expected him to come in as a powerful, rich splendid leader. He came in dirt poor, healed sick people, and died poor. He didn't take anything by force, he did it through his word, instead (Like in Revelation, when he is pictured as the first horeseman, with a sword coming out of his mouth). When asked if he was the Messiah, he never admitted to it, instead, he'd say "What do you think?" or something like that. Remember, this is all on FAITH, that's why he couldn't come out and do everything in the open. The gospels hold that Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to be counted in a census ordered by the Roman king... another says that Joseph was actually from Bethlehem, all agree that he was born in Bethlehem, just like the prophecy said. He grew up in Nazareth, though... if he had been called "Jesus of Bethlehem", it would have gave away his cards, so to speak... almost everything jesus did was totally backwards from what people expected through prophecy. Peace~
-
I think we dissagree again. First off, don't get your information by copying and pasting webpages. Open the bible, and read it yourself. You're pretty much borderline plagerizing webpages online, the entire quote above was almost verbatim copyed from another page.
I didn't get my information by copying & pasting websites. I studied this shit at university. But see, English is not my native tongue. Therefore I searched the web in order to find short and informative comments & articles on the topic - in appropriate English.
P.S. Open the bible and read it yourself? First off, you'll have to do some research and get some knowledge. The bible cannot be read without background knowledge.
-
The whole trick of the story of Jesus is that he fullfilled all the prophecies, backwards. For instance, Jews expected him to come in as a powerful, rich splendid leader. He came in dirt poor, healed sick people, and died poor. He didn't take anything by force, he did it through his word, instead (Like in Revelation, when he is pictured as the first horeseman, with a sword coming out of his mouth). When asked if he was the Messiah, he never admitted to it, instead, he'd say "What do you think?" or something like that. Remember, this is all on FAITH, that's why he couldn't come out and do everything in the open. The gospels hold that Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem to be counted in a census ordered by the Roman king... another says that Joseph was actually from Bethlehem, all agree that he was born in Bethlehem, just like the prophecy said. He grew up in Nazareth, though... if he had been called "Jesus of Bethlehem", it would have gave away his cards, so to speak... almost everything jesus did was totally backwards from what people expected through prophecy. Peace~
Please differentiate between the kerygmatical person Jesus Christ & the historical person Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, please do not take the gospels as some kind of historical account. The gospels served different purposes & were written for different groups of people. The gospels are not about facts, they're about faith. Btw, I read your posts and only Mark & Source Q were (most probably) written in Hebrew. Luke, Matthew & John were written in Old Greek.