Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[bobareebop]

I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

 

A simple answer...it doesn't. One way of looking at this is...let's say that the biblical story of Jonah and the whale is not factual. Jonah was a real person, but let's say the whole whale thing is fiction. So what? It's still a good story, still instructive to us here and now, a story of God's provision and salvation. Tons of value, even if it's just a story.

 

The Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over multiple centuries and at locations on multiple continents. Undoubtedly it contains allegorical stories, and may contain statements that are at odds with each other. Again - it doesn't matter. Christianity and God's promises must be taken on faith. Faith based on LOTS of evidence and personal experience, but faith all the same. I know that my Redeemer lives, and that He lives in my heart. That is my testimony. So it does not matter if some biblical stories are just stories and are not, as you say, inerrant.

And it never occured to you that Jesus is just a Biblical story and not real? Feel the same about other religions' stories of god-men?

 

Sure, that thought has occurred to me, during my periods of disbelief and faithlessness. But there is a bit too much eyewitness evidence that Jesus was a real person, and I am not aware of any basis for believing the gospel records to be anything but reliable. I am not familiar with the god-man stories of other religions. But I would be surprised to find a god-man from another faith that made the claims that Jesus made.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I really do see where you are coming from. If one were to read one version, than the other, without much study they would not see things as they happened.

 

The irony here is that I've clearly studied this stuff a lot more than you have. I spent years studying the Bible, even memorizing huge portions of it. I've read the apologists' claims. I, who have studied this more than you, can see through the nonsense of it all. Good luck, and maybe someday you'll come to your senses as well.

 

Gotta get to work....

[bdp]

But there is a bit too much eyewitness evidence

 

Wrong, there is NO eyewitness evidence. None.

[centauri]

...Concerning one needing to know the complete story to know the full truth is a little flawed. To know and believe that these stories were real only the ministry of Jesus had to be confirmed, along with eye witnesses. Only the facts that will bring you to the truth that is expected or wanting one to believe has to be presented, and nothing more beyond this.

The flaw lies in the multiple assumptions needed to support the alleged “truth”.

Faith in tradition doesn’t equal truth.

It appears you’re trying to say that as long as a general ministry is confirmed, any eyewitness stories surrounding the ministry should be believed.

However, you didn’t name any eyewitnesses or provide any evidence that they actually were eyewitnesses.

 

The two narratives cannot be reconciled without inserting numerous qualifiers that are absent from the original stories.

Confirmation and discernment of facts was a primary thrust of Luke’s gospel preamble.

If apologists are going to start adding qualifiers and editing the texts, then you’re in essence writing a new birth narrative.

Your version of the birth of Jesus is not in the New Testament, it’s in your mind.

Obviously, you’re entitled to compose any story that you want to believe, but that story isn’t binding in any way on others, nor does it represent “truth”, except to those that agree with it.

 

centauri:

What you’re avoiding is the problem that Luke does not confirm history as given by Matthew.

 

stranger:

In this account, concerning Jesus childhood, your right, but Matthew and Luke have much in common in relation to the ministry of Christ and the events that took place. Does this hold any water for verification of Luke being aware of Matthew, or at least of the stories told?

Luke was aware that there were stories, and he attempted to provide Theophilus with the “facts” in order for Theophilus to know if what he had been taught was accurate.

The Gospel of Matthew and Luke are inconsistent with each other in many areas and cannot be reconciled without adding layers of qualifiers to the texts.

That’s the blow to claims of inerrancy.

 

However, Luke never put a disclaimer into his gospel indicating that key events in history had been omitted.

Luke's gospel never instructs Theophilus to seek outside information in order to get the entire story.

Certainly these would have been a very easy things to do if Luke’s gospel was only intended to be a partial presentation of key events.

Luke’s gospel is presented as a stand alone document that’s authoritative, complete, detailed, and orderly.

 

stranger:

And for the intent on showing Jesus to be the King and Savior that He and others claimed Him to be. True, Luke does not say parts were omitted, but he also does not say every story about Jesus, from before His birth to His death are included. More complete, perhaps, but not everything about Jesus past. How long do you suppose a book would have to be to write a complete history on anyone, let a lone King Jesus? How long of a book could be made just on one days events? And if written by x amount of people, who would include what, even if one was meant to conclude that the facts were true, and write a more complete story based on this? Even with all four gospels, we know very little. God gives us what we need to believe.

Of course Luke couldn’t write about every detail, but he did state that his gospel would serve to verify fact from fiction.

The basic facts revolve around key events that comprise the story.

When those key events are riddled with inconsistencies, the door is wide open for embellishment and fabrication, which in turn obscure the “truth”.

In this case "God" gave us a mess.

 

Well, apologists can’t have it both ways and defend inerrancy.

If there is too much that is not known, then inerrancy is an exercise in wishful thinking.

You want to make various assumptions and add qualifiers to support the truth of each version of the birth narrative, but don’t want to make assumptions about Herod having known about the amazing news concerning a new king.

 

stranger:

True. You want to make assumptions to dis prove the bible and I want to make assumptions that the bible is true. I guess it all comes down to what we want to believe.

Agreed, it’s all relative to personal perspective.

 

Even if Herod was completely ignorant of the amazing events and if Herod was as jealous an insecure as depicted, he could have easily taken steps to have the Magi followed when they left him to find the child.

 

stranger:

True, but what reason did he have not to trust these wise men?

Given the way Herod is generally depicted, does he seem like a trusting fellow, one that would put his confidence in the word of visiting pagans?

Wouldn’t an insecure and distressed ruler be the type to take out some insurance to make sure nothing went wrong with his plans?

How difficult would it have been to have spies follow the Magi, eliminating the need to wait for the Magi to return and giving less opportunity for his target to escape?

[the stranger]

 

 

 

THIS IS A LITTLE STUDY THAT I HAVE DONE ON FOUR STORIES CONCERNING GEORGE WASHINGTON AND DOING SOME COMPARISON AS OF THE LIKES THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING WITH THE BIBLE. I HOPE THIS WILL SHOW THAT THE SAME ISSUES AND QUESTIONS OF THE BIBLE WE STILL HAVE TODAY.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

(1)

 

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/gw/gwbio.html

 

On February 22, 1732 in the British Commonwealth of Virginia, Mary Ball Washington gave birth to her first son. Although she could not have possibly understood the importance of his birth at the time, his name, George Washington, would someday become synonymous with the founding of the United States of America.

 

Washington's childhood offered few omens of greatness. He was one of ten children (six by Mary Ball and four by George Washington's father's first wife) in an aristocratic Virginian family, bent almost exclusively on growing tobacco and preparing timber. Washington received his primary education at a nearby churchyard school and then was sent to a boarding school 30 miles away. He enjoyed learning about the practical world (how to count one's goods and be a good gentleman farmer), but was not versed in the literary classics of the day, nor did he excel in reading or languages. In Washington's early teens his formal education came to an end.

 

When Washington was 16, he met Lord Thomas Fairfax, an Englishman who owned an enormous tract of land in the northern neck of the colony. Fairfax gave Washington his first job, surveying the lands of the Shenandoah Valley. Through his surveying work, Washington was able to earn enough money to begin buying plots of land. By the age of 21 (now employed as the offical surveyor of the county of Culpeper), he owned more than 1500 acres, all purchased out of his own accounts.

 

====================

 

(2)

 

http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/21/

 

Childhood: 1732-1746

Picture of the site of Washington’s birthplace.

 

George Washington was born at his father's plantation on Pope's Creek in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on February 22, 1732. His father, Augustine Washington, was a leading planter in the area and also served as a justice of the county court. Augustine's first wife, Janet Butler, died in 1729, leaving him with two sons, Lawrence and Augustine, Jr., and a daughter, Jane. The elder Augustine then married George's mother, Mary Ball, in 1731. George was the eldest of Augustine Washington's and Mary Ball's six children.

 

In 1735 Augustine moved the family up the Potomac River to another Washington home, Little Hunting Creek Plantation (later renamed Mount Vernon). In 1738 they moved again to Ferry Farm, a plantation on the Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg, Virginia, where George spent much of his youth. Little is known of Washington's childhood, and it remains the most poorly understood part of his life. Popular fables illustrating his youthful honesty, piety, and physical strength have long taken the place of documented fact. Some of these fables are more plausible than others. The story that Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River -- an impossible feat -- had its origins in the recollections of a cousin that George could throw a stone across the much narrower Rappahannock River. But others, including the familiar story of Washington and the cherry tree, seem to have been invented by one of Washington's first biographers, Mason Locke Weems.

 

When George was eleven years old, Augustine died, leaving most of his property to George's older half brothers. The income from what remained was just sufficient to maintain Mary Washington and her children. As the oldest child remaining at home, George undoubtedly helped his mother manage the Rappahannock River plantation where they lived. There he learned the importance of hard work and efficiency.

 

Lawrence Washington

Little is known about George's formal education. Commonly the children of Virginia gentry were taught at home by private tutors or in local private schools. Boys generally began their formal education around the age of seven with lessons in reading, writing, and basic arithmetic. Later they were taught Latin and Greek, as well as such practical subjects as geometry, bookkeeping, and surveying. Wealthy planters often sent their sons to England to finish their schooling, as was done with George's two elder half brothers, Lawrence and Augustine.

 

The death of his father, however, made schooling abroad an impossibility for George Washington. He may have attended a school near his home for the first few years. Later he went to another school, either in Fredericksburg, Stafford County, or Westmoreland County. He excelled in mathematics and learned the rudiments of surveying. But he was not taught Latin or Greek like many gentlemen's sons, and he never learned a foreign language. Nor did he attend college. His formal education ended around the age of 15.

 

Among the gentry class, strong social skills were also considered an essential part of a young man's or woman's education. After the death of their father, George began to spend a great deal of time with his older half brother, Lawrence, at his home, Mount Vernon. Lawrence became a mentor to his younger brother, tutoring him in his studies, teaching him social graces, and helping to introduce him into society.

 

Throughout his life, Washington regarded his education as defective. He consciously made up for some of what he did not learn in school through reading and study on his own. Over the years he amassed a large and diverse library, and in his later years he subscribed to several newspapers. He became a skilled and prolific writer. Perhaps as a result of his lack of formal education he strongly believed in the value of a good education and left money in his will for establishing a school in Alexandria, Virginia, as well as for establishing a national university.

 

==================================

 

(3)

 

 

http://www.notablebiographies.com/Tu-We/Washington-George.html

 

 

Virginia childhood

 

George Washington was born at Bridges Creek (later known as Wakefield) in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on February 22, 1732. His father died when he was eleven years old, and the boy spent the next few years living in different households throughout Virginia. He lived with his mother near Fredericksburg, with relatives in Westmoreland, and with his half brother in Mount Vernon.

 

Not much is known about Washington's childhood. Many American children have heard the story of how the young Washington took a hatchet and cut down a cherry tree, then admitted his deed because his honest character would not allow him to lie. This tale was probably invented by Mason Locke Weems (1759–1825), author of the biography of Washington that appeared the year after his death. At the age of fourteen Washington had planned to join the British navy but then reluctantly stayed home in obedience to his mother's wishes. By the age of sixteen he had obtained a basic education in mathematics, surveying (the process of measuring and plotting land), reading, and the usual subjects of his time. In 1749 Washington was appointed county surveyor, and his experience on the frontier led to his appointment as a major (a military officer who is above a captain) in the Virginia militia (a small military force that is not part of the regular army) in 1752.

 

 

Read more: George Washington Biography - life, family, childhood, children, story, death, mother, young, old, information, born, house, time, year http://www.notablebiographies.com/Tu-We/Washington-George.html#ixzz1A663JFvj

=================================================

 

(4)

 

http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/george-washington-18.php

 

Childhood and Early Life

George Washington was born on 22 February 1732 near Colonial Beach in Westmoreland County in Virginia. He was the first son of Augustine Washington and his second wife Mary Ball Washington and had an older half-brother Lawrence Washington. He didn’t get any formal education, but was educated by his father and older brother at home. In early days of youth, George Washington worked as a surveyor before taking a career as a planter in 1748. In 1749, Washington was appointed as surveyor of the Culpeper County, and while working there he developed interest in the Ohio Company, which had a reputation for exploiting foreign lands.

 

After Lawrence’s death in 1752, Washington took charge of the colony as assistant officer, the position previously held by Lawrence. George Washington was made Major Washington at the age of 20, after his appointment as district adjutant general in the Virginia militia in 1752. The work included training the militia and moving ahead in his career, he became a Master Mason in the organization of Freemasons, a fraternal organization, at the age of 21.

 

=================================================================

 

================================================================

 

==================================================================

 

====================================================================

 

 

Can we see the same kind of so called differences in the childhood of George Washington as we see in the accounts of the early childhood of Jesus Christ?

 

Keep in mind these articles are new comparing to the bible.

 

Now read account one, and tell me what we can assume. We can easily assume if keeping things with the flow of the article that Washington lived in the same place all of his childhood, could we not? (except for boarding school)

 

Now according to the second article, he moved at the age of three,and again when he was six. Now the first account seems to began, though not stated, at the age of six in Washington's life. Now why didn't the first account mention this?

 

In account three tells us that Washington, after turning 11, he spent the next few years living in different households. Why did not the first two accounts mention this?

 

In account four we can also assume that Washington never moved.

 

Four different accounts, and four different stories. Are all four true?

 

 

 

In account four, it states that Washington was a surveyor until 1748 (16 years old) than became a planter, but was appointed as the surveyor of the county the following year. (a typo?) Based on the other three, most likely.

 

============================

 

I want to quickly see if I can get a time line for Washingtons life.

 

 

1729 Washingtons dad's first wife dies, leaving behind two boys and one girl (account 2)

 

1731 Washingtons father remarries to marry, Washingtons mother. They had six more children together (including Washington) (account 2) This would be a total of 9 children

 

1732 born in Westmoreland County, Virginia. (All four accounts)

 

1735 The family moved up river (account 2)

 

1738 The family moved again to Perry Farm. (account 2) First move at age 3, and second at age 6.

 

** Thus far we have two sets of numbers for the number of kids. Account 2 showing a total on 9, and account 1 showing 10. (based on 4 presumed kids from the first wife) Also account 4 has just one half brother listed, making it a possible total of 7. Account 3 only mentions a half brother. One can say all possibilities are possible, but 9 and 10 are certainly different, and account 4 implies directly that he had 1 half brother.

 

Now the time between 1736 and when he turned 11, 1943 (between the sages of 6 and eleven)

 

In account four, Washington was home schooled. In account 2 puts him at atleast two schools, and account one confirms this with first a church school and than a boarding school. Which one is right?

 

 

1743 Washington's father died (account 2 and 3)

 

Now at this point, with the other brothers being at school abroad and the ones that were left younger than himself, account 2 puts him staying at the house to help his mother. Now lets see what account 3 states: His father died when he was eleven years old, and the boy spent the next few years living in different households throughout Virginia. He lived with his mother near Fredericksburg, with relatives in Westmoreland, and with his half brother in Mount Vernon.

 

Can you help me out here? What did he do? Where did he live?

 

 

1748 Washington lands his first job, being a surveyor. (age 16) (account 1 and 3)

 

1752 Gets appointed the position of assistent officer. (age 20) (accounts 4, and 3)

 

Things to pondor. Account 3 states that he had gotten this position perhaps because of his experience on the frontier, and account four implies perhaps his older half brother helped him get there.

 

Other things are about his half brother, and where he was. Account 4 puts him perhaps around home until later years where he likely joined the service. Account 2 puts him at school out of the country.

 

=============================================================================================================

 

 

 

 

ALL IN ALL this seems like a stupid thing to even pondor, as one could say the same about the bible. But this is the point. A much newer collection, about a much newer event, with all of the authors having resources beyond what one could ever dream of in Lukes day, yet all four seeming different from one another. Did Washington really exist, or was it just a myth?

 

There are more differences in here that I did not feel like getting into more detail about, but I think you get the point.

 

Now can we relate this to the same issues as we see in the gospels?

 

Again, account 1 implies Washington stayed in the same place until at least 16 years old. Account 2 showing two moves, in the early life of Washingtons childhood. Account 3 showing him at the same home until he was 11 years old, then moving several times, and account 4 also implies a one home childhood.

 

 

Is all of these accounts true. I believe so, except for a possible couple typos or misinformed number of kids. Bottom line is, you can still put them all together to make a strong case that this was a true account. I might add that account 2 was the longest, (like Luke) but did not include some of what I would consider to be very important information. The similarities in all of these accounts are greater than the preceived differences. Most of the differences are just to do with the timing of the story, and the events that the author decided to include. Put together they tell a more full childhood story, though of course, there is much more than we could ever dream of or write down.

 

===============================================

 

IN CONCLUSION, WE SEE ALLOT (LOL) A LOT OF THE SAME DIFFERENCES AND/OR PROBLEMS THAT WE FIND IN THE BIBLE. ALL TRUE, BUT ONLY WHEN A LITTLE RESEARCH IS DONE TO TIE THEM ALL TOGETHER.

 

Now we are still left with a couple questions, but some things we will never know this side of heaven.

 

 

I hope at the very least, this study has shown you the same problems rest on the stories of today, just like the stories of the bible. It does not mean something is not true, just because we assume the author meant something more than that of what was written. Would you or could you believe in Washington if these were your only resources if you looked at it the same way as you look at the bible?

 

Thank you for reading my friends!

 

=============================================================

 

I will try to get to the rest of my replies a little later tonight. There is so much that I want to get into but just have yet to find the time. I hope to post something quickly regarding other writings having a partial story of Jesus.

 

God bless

[kittypaws]

Truth is I am still learning myself, and have ALLOT more to go.

My only contribution here is for the selfish reason of saying I cannot take it! There is no such word as ALLOT, or even alot. It is two separate words! A lot. I use it a lot, it is not one word!

 

 

Ahhhhh..... A lot. A lot. A lot. Correct usage! Never Allot, or alot. no, no, no! F- flunk . Bad fail. Booo.

 

Sorry for the off-topic but I can't resist posting this: The Alot

[Antlerman]

Truth is I am still learning myself, and have ALLOT more to go.

My only contribution here is for the selfish reason of saying I cannot take it! There is no such word as ALLOT, or even alot. It is two separate words! A lot. I use it a lot, it is not one word!

 

 

Ahhhhh..... A lot. A lot. A lot. Correct usage! Never Allot, or alot. no, no, no! F- flunk . Bad fail. Booo.

 

Sorry for the off-topic but I can't resist posting this: The Alot

That was hilarious. So then, would an Allot, be like an Alot with an extra set of eyes or something?

[bdp]

Would you or could you believe in Washington if these were your only resources if you looked at it the same way as you look at the bible?

 

 

 

Washington isn't supposed to be my fucking savior, and accounts of his life aren't supposed to have been traced by the hand of 'god.'

[Mister Pappy]

Jesus' birthdate was miscalculated when the Gregorian calendar (which established "BC" and "AD") was established. Jesus was born while Herod the Great was alive. This is not a matter of biblical inerrancy, just human miscalculation.

 

Simple. Because of leap years and differences, the actual birth of Christ is believed to be no later than 4 BC, and likely 6 BC.

 

Okay ... I have let some time pass and breathed deeply for a couple of days since reading these responses. You two really got to me with the ignorance of your arrogance in simply making up fact to suit your whimsical beliefs. Isn't it bad enough to not know the answers that anyone in your position should already know? What position am I referring to? The position of telling others that they are wrong and should believe as you do - yeah that position. If you will be so arrogant, you should know what you are talking about. To be completely ignorant and then simply make up crap as a fact, as you have both done above, is vulgar.

 

Herod died in 4BC and Quirinius (Cyrenius) became governor in 6 AD. Luke states that he was in power and ordered the census at the time Jesus was born. This totally collapses your made up facts that Jesus was born while Herod was still alive (before, or by, 4BC). Does it ever cross your mind, when you do things like this, that the things you say effect people? The lies you tell to continue the lies your were told are not harmless. Shame on you both and your religion as a whole.

[Antlerman]

Would you or could you believe in Washington if these were your only resources if you looked at it the same way as you look at the bible?

 

 

 

Washington isn't supposed to be my fucking savior, and accounts of his life aren't supposed to have been traced by the hand of 'god.'

Ya know, you make a hard to refute point here.

[bdp]

Would you or could you believe in Washington if these were your only resources if you looked at it the same way as you look at the bible?

 

 

 

Washington isn't supposed to be my fucking savior, and accounts of his life aren't supposed to have been traced by the hand of 'god.'

Ya know, you make a hard to refute point here.

 

Every now and then, it happens.

[Mister Pappy]

Would you or could you believe in Washington if these were your only resources if you looked at it the same way as you look at the bible?

 

 

 

Washington isn't supposed to be my fucking savior, and accounts of his life aren't supposed to have been traced by the hand of 'god.'

And you don't go to hell for all eternity if you don't believe in Washington ... excellent point BDP!

[Mister Pappy]

THIS IS A LITTLE STUDY THAT I HAVE DONE ON FOUR STORIES CONCERNING GEORGE WASHINGTON AND DOING SOME COMPARISON AS OF THE LIKES THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING WITH THE BIBLE. I HOPE THIS WILL SHOW THAT THE SAME ISSUES AND QUESTIONS OF THE BIBLE WE STILL HAVE TODAY.

What your study proves is that "humans" get it wrong, in full or in part, often - if not always. Sometimes this is by accident. Sometimes not, but they do get it wrong. Your study only shows the errant nature of written histories. This does nothing but substantiate the claims that the writers of the "history" of Jesus would have been subject to the same.

[the stranger]

Thus far, some of the responses I much expected. Here is the thing, though. It does seem to me all of you have not refuted my claims of the story of Washington being hard to swallow unless all accounts are looked into and assumptions are not made. My point was not that humans can't make mistakes, but that we can see the same thing play out here.

 

Thus far the things being pointed out concerning the bible being incorrect or full of differences, are just the same things we see here. And I am not talking about the "different facts" but just the assuming of the facts. In other words, just because we may assume that one of the gospel imply someone to be or to go directly to a certain place, or not to be or go to a certain place, this does not mean that the bible is wrong. Unlike the bible, these stories of Washington has some true mistakes, but thus far, I have yet to come across the same with the bible that cannot be at least explained in a fairly easy believable way. My point was not to point out the mistakes as much as it was the style of writing and how easy it is to make assumptions about things we read, just because the author does not include that part of the story.

 

So here is the question. Sense it has been proven that this story of Washington has the same questions as the account being discussed in the bible, and in Washington case we understand this, still believing this truth, than how is it one cannot use the exact same logic to believe that the bible is true?

 

 

====================================================================================

 

Now concerning Jesus outside of the bible:

 

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_Evidence_for_Jesus_Outside_the_Bible

 

Some interesting points on this site:

 

 

Phlegon (80-140AD)

In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:

 

 

"Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour." (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

 

 

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):

 

 

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

 

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place ... ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

 

“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)

 

 

From these accounts, we can add something to our understand of Jesus and conclude that Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and demonstrated his wounds after he was resurrected!

 

Celsus (175AD)

This is the last hostile ‘pagan’ account we will examine (although there are many other later accounts in history). Celsus was quite hostile to the Gospels, but in his criticism, he unknowingly affirms and reinforces the authors and their content. His writing is extensive and he alludes to 80 different Biblical quotes, confirming their early appearance in history. In addition, he admits that the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the early 2nd century! Here is a portion of his text:

 

 

“Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.”

 

 

Celsus admits that Jesus was reportedly born of a virgin, but then argues that this could supernatural account could not be possible and offers the idea that he was a bastard son of a man named Panthera (an idea borrowed from Jews who opposed Jesus at the time). But in writing this account, Celsus does confirm that Jesus had an earthly father who was a carpenter, possessed unusual magical powers and claimed to be God.

 

===============================================================================

 

Now there are other clear examples of this right after the ones posted, but I will let those who are interested go to the site themselves.

 

Flavus Josephus:

Pliny the Younger

Tacitus

Maimonides

Mara Bar-Scrapion

Lacian of Samosata

Ancient Rabbinical References to Jesus

The Nag Hammadi Library

Pilate's report to Caesar continues:

 

All of the writings of these can be seen on http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Proof_of_Yahshua.htm

 

 

 

 

For some different names check out http://www.reasonableanswers.org/11-Historical-Extra-Biblical-Evidence-concerning-the-Resurection-of-Christ.html

 

 

 

Now are all of these accounts , reports, and words fake? Does none of these really exist? How many do you need to believe, my friend.

 

 

 

I will now respond to the questions about this:

 

Okay ... I have let some time pass and breathed deeply for a couple of days since reading these responses. You two really got to me with the ignorance of your arrogance in simply making up fact to suit your whimsical beliefs. Isn't it bad enough to not know the answers that anyone in your position should already know? What position am I referring to? The position of telling others that they are wrong and should believe as you do - yeah that position. If you will be so arrogant, you should know what you are talking about. To be completely ignorant and then simply make up crap as a fact, as you have both done above, is vulgar.

 

Herod died in 4BC and Quirinius (Cyrenius) became governor in 6 AD. Luke states that he was in power and ordered the census at the time Jesus was born. This totally collapses your made up facts that Jesus was born while Herod was still alive (before, or by, 4BC). Does it ever cross your mind, when you do things like this, that the things you say effect people? The lies you tell to continue the lies your were told are not harmless. Shame on you both and your religion as a whole.

 

Next.

[bdp]

(then) how is it one cannot use the exact same logic to believe that the bible is true?

 

 

 

 

When did George Washington allegedly rise up from the dead, or bring anyone back from the dead? The bible is bullshit.

[bdp]

 

 

 

 

Now are all of these accounts , reports, and words fake?

 

 

No. Are they reliable? No. Do they in any way substantiate any of the supernatural crap in the gospels? No. Are any of them eyewitness accounts of anything? No.

 

Next.

[the stranger]

I) LUKE SAYS CYRENIUS (QUIRINIUS) WAS GOVERNOR OF SYRIA WHEN

JESUS WAS BORN? WAS HE WRONG?

 

http://faiththatworks.com/id27.html_pfd/THE_BIRTH_DATE_OF_JESUS.pdf

 

This is a good one displaying answers that make sense. I will copy a little of it here

 

 

Luke has not made an error. There are reasonable solutions to this

difficulty. First, Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 B.C. to

about 4 B.C. Varus was not a trustworthy leader, a fact that was

disastrously demonstrated in A.D. 9 when he lost three legions of soldiers

in the Teutoburger forest in Germany. To the contrary, Quirinius was a

notable military leader who was responsible for squelching the rebellion of

the Homonadensians in Asia Minor. When it came time to begin the census,

in about 8 or 7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate

problem in the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding the

authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of

special authority in this matter. It has also been proposed that Quirinius

was governor of Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting

the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and

later beginning about A.D. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has

been interpreted to refer to Quirinius as having served as governor of Syria

on two occasions. It is possible that Luke 2:2 reads, "This census took

place before Quirinius was governing Syria." In this case, the Greek word

translated "first" (prwtos) is translated as a comparative, "before." Because

of the awkward construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely

reading. Regardless of which solution is accepted, it is not necessary to

conclude that Luke had made an error in recording the historical events

surrounding the birth of Jesus. Luke has proven himself to be a reliable

historian even in the details. Sir William Ramsey has shown that in making

reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands he made no mistakes!"

*********************************************************

 

 

Also on this site are a couple more explanations of his own about topics being discussed.

 

http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

 

I won't began to copy this one, but it gives plenty of info on the census of Luke and of it being world wide.

 

========================================================

 

I think I will stop for now with boring every one with web sites, but I just though I would throw those out there to help answer a couple of the questions. Now you might ask, why don't you tell us what you know instead of always resorting to websites? Truth is, its the way things are often done today, by both parties. Truthfully, apart from the bible itself, my knowledge is limited. It has only been like maybe two years that we have even had a computer, and school above high school was not really an option. Not that i have a thing to complain about, but just letting you know, apart from the bible, I do have to do research on the net.

 

In saying that, I know that there are many websites on both sides. Just like before computers, or in the courts of today, it still comes down to hearing both sides and than making a decision on what to believe.

 

Is it true I already know what I intend to believe? Yes, to a degree, it is. But, I have been convinced otherwise many times of many things when the evidence is there to support it, and it can not be refuted. At the very least in many cases, I have accepted a respectable disagreement. In other words, if both sides have clear evidence to back their claim, and none can be refuted to a beyond a doubt stance, then generally a respected end to the debate is something I have concluded many times. Not saying that is at all my intent here, but just saying, with hard evidence that CANNOT be refuted, I can be convinced of other possibilities.

 

 

Antlerhead, I have yet to look at your reply from a while back. I will do that right now.

[bdp]

Phlegon...wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD.

 

Long after 'jesus' is supposed to have died. Phlegon is pure hearsay, and we don't know who from. Correct?

[bdp]

I) LUKE SAYS CYRENIUS (QUIRINIUS) WAS GOVERNOR OF SYRIA WHEN

JESUS WAS BORN? WAS HE WRONG?

 

http://faiththatworks.com/id27.html_pfd/THE_BIRTH_DATE_OF_JESUS.pdf

 

This is a good one displaying answers that make sense.

 

...displaying classic excuse making, twisting words, and outright fabrications. This stuff is really weak.

[the stranger]

I take that back, Antlerhead. I guess I did read it.

 

Well, it could be a day and a half before I get back here, but I hope you all have a good day or two, and perhaps ask what an old girlfriend just ask me, Why am I here and what is the reason? I know some on here has already given answers in which I have yet to unravel, but for me, I enjoy having a purpose, and a reason to live, even beyond this here called earth. Even more so, I enjoy feeling at peace. I no some have claimed that they also feel at peace, and if so, more power to ya, but for me, there is no peace with out Christ.

 

See ya in a day and a half or two.

[Mister Pappy]

So here is the question. Sense it has been proven that this story of Washington has the same questions as the account being discussed in the bible, and in Washington case we understand this, still believing this truth, than how is it one cannot use the exact same logic to believe that the bible is true?

Because the claims being made of Washington are not nearly as fantastic. I think BDP has pointed this out nicely on a couple of occasions - in his own BDP way - in this case, he is dead on accurate. Do you really have to ask the question, "Why not believe in the claims made of Jesus just like we "accept" claims made of Washington"? Surely you can reason this out for yourself. The claims made of Jesus are unbelievable. If it were said of George that he walked across the unfrozen Delaware River, along with his troops, or that he parted those chilly waters and walked across on dry land, I feel most certain that I, or you for that matter, would not believe it without something more tangible than the word of an unknown author. Get real stranger! Your question is absurd.

[Mister Pappy]

Stranger,

 

There is no evidence whatsoever, apart from wishful thinking, that records Quirinius as Governor before 6AD. Certainly it would be convenient for your position if he were. Speculating that "he could have been", is nothing more than the aforementioned wishful thinking. This type of reason can be undertaken to ineffectively prove practically anything one wishes - not impressive.

[bobareebop]

Jesus' birthdate was miscalculated when the Gregorian calendar (which established "BC" and "AD") was established. Jesus was born while Herod the Great was alive. This is not a matter of biblical inerrancy, just human miscalculation.

 

Simple. Because of leap years and differences, the actual birth of Christ is believed to be no later than 4 BC, and likely 6 BC.

 

Okay ... I have let some time pass and breathed deeply for a couple of days since reading these responses. You two really got to me with the ignorance of your arrogance in simply making up fact to suit your whimsical beliefs. Isn't it bad enough to not know the answers that anyone in your position should already know? What position am I referring to? The position of telling others that they are wrong and should believe as you do - yeah that position. If you will be so arrogant, you should know what you are talking about. To be completely ignorant and then simply make up crap as a fact, as you have both done above, is vulgar.

 

Herod died in 4BC and Quirinius (Cyrenius) became governor in 6 AD. Luke states that he was in power and ordered the census at the time Jesus was born. This totally collapses your made up facts that Jesus was born while Herod was still alive (before, or by, 4BC). Does it ever cross your mind, when you do things like this, that the things you say effect people? The lies you tell to continue the lies your were told are not harmless. Shame on you both and your religion as a whole.

 

Mister Pappy - I can assure you that I have not made anything up. My understanding is that Jesus was born while Herod was alive, and that the Gregorian calendar is wrong.

 

I honestly don't know anything about Cyrenius/Quirinius other than he is a character named in the Bible. Thank you for your enlightening information about him...I will read up.

 

I have posted four times on this forum and I don't believe that I have yet told someone that "they are wrong".

 

Telling a lie is knowingly spreading a falsehood, something I have also not done.

 

Arrogant people make me ill, and Christians especially should not act in an arrogant manner. I am sorry if you feel that my honest, sincere, and polite comments are arrogant.

[Guest Valk0010]

Might to be of interest for stranger, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Word

[bdp]

So here is the question. Sense it has been proven that this story of Washington has the same questions as the account being discussed in the bible, and in Washington case we understand this, still believing this truth, than how is it one cannot use the exact same logic to believe that the bible is true?

Because the claims being made of Washington are not nearly as fantastic. I think BDP has pointed this out nicely on a couple of occasions - in his own BDP way - in this case, he is dead on accurate. Do you really have to ask the question, "Why not believe in the claims made of Jesus just like we "accept" claims made of Washington"? Surely you can reason this out for yourself. The claims made of Jesus are unbelievable. If it were said of George that he walked across the unfrozen Delaware River, along with his troops, or that he parted those chilly waters and walked across on dry land, I feel most certain that I, or you for that matter, would not believe it without something more tangible than the word of an unknown author. Get real stranger! Your question is absurd.

 

We can also, generally, identify who is writing about Washington, if they were contemporaries of Washington, the veracity of their writings. None of which we have with the gospel writers.