Religous debates and questions [2]

Firstly Hllbilly thankyou for taking the time to read my slightly rambling posts- I didnt really have a plan for it (as you can tell) and just put it together as I went along, so I suspect its not the easiest read and I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

To respond to some of your points-

"have it be as inline with OT prophesy as the NT claims about Jesus and the events surrounding him occurred"

I dont think it is inline really.
I gave the census as an example of something which historically we have records for, the actual census, and there was one* but was significantly later and did not require people to go to the hometown of a long dead ancestor (an impossible task for most people even today to trace).
But the reason for the census and its impossible condition, that Joseph return to the hometown of his distant ancestor David, was to get Jesus in Bethlehem for the birth because the OT prophesy said that's where it happens.
For me it is a clear example of the gospels inventing something- the census and its conditions- in order to bring the NT in line with the predictions of the old.
In my view Jesus was most likely born in Nazereth at home.

Another type is where the OT make a prophesy such as entering the city on an ass, and Jesus performs this.
As someone well versed in his scripture Jesus would have been aware of this prophesy, which makes it impossible to determine if the original prophesy was right, or if Jesus simply deliberately reinacted it because it was a prophesy.

"Why make something up that people of the time could easily disprove."

I suspect by the time the census stuff was added, probably around the time of Nicea, or even later as I seem to recall its main proponent is Luke which is universally considered to be the latest in composition, long after the events when more than enough time had elapsed so that all the original people involved were long since dead.
The earliest forms of what we call the NT were probably just individual sayings, that were then gathered into collections of sayings on different topics- like the meek, or healings, or parables.


"For example, petty sited John the Baptist doubting Jesus' claims about himself. Why would a band of conspirators attempting to rewrite history include that?"

The general rule of thumb among scholars is that the more uncomfortable something is in the NT to the early church, the more likely it is to be from an earlier account.

It seems some things people knew about and had become common knowledge- like everyone knowing King Arthur has a sword called Excalibur and lived in Camelot, everyone seemed to know Jesus started out with John but they fell out at the end, some parts of the story were simply too well known, such as John doubting Jesus. Its still there because they could not just take it out without everyone knowing that's what they had done.

The John story however highlights another aspect where we can see later interjection- at the baptism of Jesus- which the NT presents as a God involving moment with all sort of Godly signs and portents- there is no-one witnessing that would have been in any doubt Jesus was who he claimed, especially not the person performing the baptism.
Yet here we have John doubting Jesus.

The former injection is an attempt to distract from the fact John doubted Jesus, and they typically over do it and protest to much.

I should add I dont believe there was ever any group conspiring to lie.
Take the census, it seems to me the thinking probably went-
1st Scribe - "Jesus is the Messiah, the OT tells us he was born in Bethlehem, but we dont have that bit of his story, know one knows for sure where he born, but as he is the Messiah he must have been born in Bethlehem."
2nd Scribe- "But why would Mary be in Bethlehem, we do know he lived in Nazareth? All the account say so."
1st Scribe- "Wasn't there a census back then?"
2nd Scribe- "Yeah I think Josephus mentions it."
1st Scribe- "They probably had to go there for the census then."

I honestly think its that straightforward, and at no point would they have considered themselves telling lies or as conspirators.

"I disagreed with is that Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sins was not blasphemy."

It was not by normal standards of the time- John also forgave sins and like Jesus they both did so in the name of God not in their own name.
There was also the Egyptian just after Jesus time and Honi just before, and they made much more direct claims than Jesus seems to have done and were not accused of blasphemy.

If Jesus had claimed he was forgiving sins in his own name and not Gods, that would be blasphemy.
But the Gospels dont support that this was the case, Jesus language is normal use for the time and is implicitly in Gods name. Nor was he accused at his trial of blasphemy for this reason, as surely he would have been rather than the rather convoluted way the High Priest actually goes about accusing him trying to trap him in titles.

"When Jesus said "your sins are forgiven", he not only claimed to have the authority to do so, he implied you no longer needed the priests to approach God for you."

I agree Jesus was along those lines politically and socially (you may have not got to the later discussion on Essenes where I discuss the symbolism of the water to wine ceremony, but it is along these same political lines, allowing lay people to act like priests).
So I do not disagree that this was part of his agenda and a big part of the reason the authorities saw him as a problem.

Where I disagree in his view of the Temple- on more than one occasion he tells people to go to the Temple and make a sacrifice, when his disciples break the Sabbath he argues the case within the rules, he does not exempt himself from them, when it comes to paying taxes he says you should and when it comes to the Law he proclaims he has not come to destroy it but to uphold it, and the Temple is central to the Law.
He also envisions some sort of future Temple in the coming Kingdom.
So whilst I am sure he had his issues with all elements of the social structure I dont believe he was genuinely claiming to replace the Temple with himself.


On the burial of the dead issue I think your interpretation of his words, "let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead" is a later theological interpretation, which in itself probably speaks to the awkwardness of what Jesus appears to say at face value.

But I don't entirely refute your interpretation of it, but even as it then stands to Jewish ears it would be quite shocking to say at all.

"it leaves petty out, I'm sure he has no problem affiliating himself with the motherland"

Ahh, I see you are confused by a concept yet to reach the colonies. I am Scottish, British, a European and then a world citizen. This way I can drink anywhere.



*The Census of Quirinius 5-7AD The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that in the year 6–7, after the exile of Herod Archelaus (one of the sons and successors of Herod the Great), Quirinius (in Greek, Κυρήνιος, sometimes transliterated Cyrenius), a Roman senator, became governor (Legatus) of Syria, while an equestrian assistant named Coponius was assigned as the first governor (Prefect) of the newly created Iudaea Province. These governors were assigned to conduct a tax census for the Emperor in Syria and Iudaea.

"No historical sources mention a census of the Roman world which would cover the entire population. Those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only,and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes. James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit". E. P. Sanders points out that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judaea.
In 1886, however, the theologian Emil Schürer, in his monumental study, Geschichte des judischen Volks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ), closely criticised the traditional view. He raised five points which showed, he believed, that the Luke account could not be historically accurate:  nothing is known in history of a general census by Augustus;  in a Roman census Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem, and Mary would not have had to travel at all;  no Roman census would have been made in Judea during the reign of Herod;  Josephus records no such census, and it would have been a notable innovation; Quirinius was not governor of Syria until long after the reign of Herod."- wiki

Civil discourse, the likes of which has not been seen in Bree since the dawn of the third age.

Glad to see you back Hillbilly.  

I don't want to distract you while you have your hands full with Petty, but since you brought up the Brit question, may I ask what claim you have to the title "hillbilly"?

I'm off the maps in the rural Northwest, and I'm wondering if perhaps you and I could cover each other's backs whenever the discourse turns to urban/rural values?

Civil discourse- Hillbilly

You will find I am very civil in all discourse, so long as you agree with me obviously.  

My claim to hillbilly is primarily as one who understands that my values (the rural ones especially) are viewed as backwards in todays society. I'm 7 miles from the county seat (population 1,500), used to be 15. McDonalds is 30 miles, Walmart is 45. I have a lot of "good pallets" to keep my junk on. I think it's heaven frankly. To be direct, I'm a badger of the northern species, and would be proud to stand next to a duck (or other) in defense of rural values.

Petty, will get on with the reading and responding soon. I may take a break to post on the intro.

Petty, will get on with the reading and responding soon. I may take a break to post on the intro.- Hillbilly

Take your time Hillbilly, this is Forumshire, I am sure we will just amuse ourselves until you can return to the subject.  

Anyone got any peanuts?

"Any time I spend on the internet is meant to be mindless down time, which the lot of you are ruining."

I think many of us may refer to work as mindless down time, or we wouldn't be on the internet.  

Excellent credentials Hillbilly! I'm 10 miles from the nearest stoplight, 24 miles from McD's, 28 miles from the county seat (pop. 1,609) and 35 miles from Wallyworld. I'm a flatland cranberry farmer (not a duck, but almost as wet). Together I think we should be able to take all comers!

Halfy always makes me laugh. Petty makes me cry. I'm such an emotional mess. I gotta go.

David you must be full of crap or working for the NSA. Are you independent or OS. I work for an independent and own 2 acres of OS a pool!

Petty makes me cry.- Hillbilly

I have  similar effect on Mrs Figg, only hers are tears of rage.
And I can always move downwind of you if it will help

Only Daves fields are full of crap, with it being on my way home from the Duck n' Muck  

Hillbilly wrote:I work for an independent and own 2 acres of OS a pool!

Oh, a fence straddler I see! ...not that there's anything wrong with that of course.... Some of my best friends are independents.... 

Our family now has 53 acres in A pool. Nothing on the outside. We just brought the last 6 in from B pool this year. We've been with the Co-op since '49.

This is pretty strange to meet in Forumshire though isn't it? Are you sure you're not NSA?  

  yer darn tootin Petty.

The hell's 'A pool' and 'B pool'? And while we're at it, 'OS'?  You two aren't talking in some NSA code, are you?

It' s cranberryspeak Halfy. You wouldn't understand.   
(though I bet you can figure out OS if you try... )

I'm loving this discussion and all the twists and turns it makes in between the big long posts. I'm glad to have you with us Hillbilly.

Hillbilly wrote:One of the reasons I believe the Bible is accurate is that I cannot reconcile how a single person (Paul as some have suggested), much less a group of people, could conspire together to create the book and have it be as inline with OT prophesy as the NT claims about Jesus and the events surrounding him occurred.  For example, petty's post on page 12 claims Luke "invented a census" as a reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem.  Certainly this would have been an obviously fraudulent claim to people of the time if there was not at least some bit of truth in it.  Why make something up that people of the time could easily disprove.

Out of curiosity -- and I ask this because I don't know nearly enough about first century Jewish thought to answer this question -- how literally did people read their religious texts during Jesus' time?  Did people passing down the Gospels orally or reading them several decades after Jesus' death assume that they were a literal transcription of events, or did they assume that there was plenty of allegorical stuff and references to older myths and legends thrown in there?  I recall reading an argument somewhere (can't recall where though) that the authors of the Bible were more concerned with making moral and theological points than they were with writing an exact biographical account of Jesus.

DavidH wrote:It' s cranberryspeak Halfy. You wouldn't understand.
(though I bet you can figure out OS if you try... )

all this time was that little cherry bomb icon a cranberry?

Ah yes, OS.  Good commercials.  Lousy amount of sugar.  If you guys keep up with the cranberryspeak I may gather enough data to crack A pool and B pool.  Can't be worse than Fjordlandian.

Eldorion wrote:
Out of curiosity -- and I ask this because I don't know nearly enough about first century Jewish thought to answer this question -- how literally did people read their religious texts during Jesus' time?  Did people passing down the Gospels orally or reading them several decades after Jesus' death assume that they were a literal transcription of events, or did they assume that there was plenty of allegorical stuff and references to older myths and legends thrown in there?  I recall reading an argument somewhere (can't recall where though) that the authors of the Bible were more concerned with making moral and theological points than they were with writing an exact biographical account of Jesus.

I'm no authority, but it's pretty clear Matthew was laboring hard and bending every twig he could to make Jesus fit into prophecy, even up to adding and dropping from his geneological list to make each major figure (Jacob, David, Jesus) fit into exactly 33 generations.  His list doesn't agree with other lists in the OT, he's stacking the deck: Asimov's guide to the bible has several pages on this.  And John is so clearly aiming for the symbolism and less concerned with making it real.

Whether or not the early Christians took this as given or not is another question.

Eldorion wrote: I recall reading an argument somewhere (can't recall where though) that the authors of the Bible were more concerned with making moral and theological points than they were with writing an exact biographical account of Jesus.

That's almost certainly true.  Historiography is an interesting field.  What passed for history in Greek and Roman times would never pass muster by modern standards.

Myth and gossip was expected.  Herodotus has often been called the first Historian, and his writings read like a tabloid.  Biography didn't really appear until Plutarch, about the time the Gospels are being written, and again  it's far from objective.  

No contemporary reader of the early Gospels would have any concept of objective biography as we understand it today. The texts were written, copied and shared as teachings at a time the early Church was trying to standardize doctrine.  

The fact that they're actually pretty decent biographies at the very dawn of Biography is actually pretty cool, aside from their religious importance.

halfwise wrote:
Ah yes, OS.  Good commercials.  Lousy amount of sugar.

OS (aka The Co-op) has made and tried to market much lower sugar blends, but the market hasn't been interested. The problem is that if you squeeze a cranberry you get a couple drops of a thick juice that sourer than a lemon and so thick that it can jell if you let it sit. The 100% juice blends use apple juice and grape juice to get the sweetness up so that it's comparable to other juices.

Think of it like this: most fruits are trying to provide a damp, nutrient rich environment for it's seeds to grow in, and many are trying to bait birds and furry critters into eating them so their seeds can be spread and fertilized by excrement. Cranberries grow in a swamp. They don't need excrement. There's all the nutrients and moisture they could want, along with a jungle of pathogens. So the cranberry developed as a dry little lifeboat to float the seeds away, with as little sugar to attract microbes as possible, and a strong protective layer of antimicrobial compounds in the shell.  That's why people who want to eat cranberries tend to find ways to sweeten them (if they're not just taking them for medicinal purposes.)

 If you guys keep up with the cranberryspeak I may gather enough data to crack A pool and B pool.  Can't be worse than Fjordlandian.

Good luck!

OS is the Co-op? Strange terminology, as 'co-op' usually means the opposite of 'corporate'.

So it's pure chance that cranberries are edible? Why are they red? Seems fishy.

There's nothing corporate about Ocean Spray.  It's an old-school grower-owned cooperative, founded back in 1930 when co-ops were first becoming popular.  

The board of directors is made of cranberry growers from all the different growing regions of North America. All the stock is owned by "grower-owners", (that's what we're called. Really. ) We're required to own voting stock  proportional to our size.. It never changes in value and can only be sold back to the co-op.

We don't actually sell our berries to OS.  Our contract says that we we are required to deliver 100% of what we grow, and in return the co-op will sell 100% of what is delivered. The proceeds are then divided proportionally among the grower-owners as the money comes in over the next year.

In the corporate world we are like a pilot fish swimming with sharks that are hundreds of times our size.  You gotta play nice with them, but that doesn't mean you are them.

It's not pure chance that they're edible, but it's not their primary strategy.  They've learned not to rot better than almost any fruit out there. The red is caused by a red pigment called anthocyanin, which belongs a class of compounds known as proanthocyanidins which strong antibacterial properties. You find it in smaller concentrations in apples.

Cranberries will keep without refrigeration right through the winter, better than any keeping apple, which makes them an important winter food source for humans, birdies and beasties.  Yankee ships used to carry barrels of cranberries to ward off scurvy because they were local and kept better than limes.

I'm I could keep going on and on like this, but really it's hardy a religious debate, is it?

Depends on how seriously you take your cranberries.

cranberries are excellent for the pee pee tubes. stops you getting cistitis. They are probably alkaline so stops the acid wee thing. its helpful if you drink a lot of coffee and your wee goes acid.