Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I'm the ignorant onehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#New_Testament
You just posted a link to a Wikipedia article that proves one of my points. Did you intend to do that?
Originally posted by Digi
I don't know of much serious debate on the existence of the man. Or if there is one, it's kind of irrelevant, isn't it? Any productive debate stems from the veracity of his divinity, not whether or not he ever existed.
This was indeed my overarching point as I made it quite clear multiple times.
Originally posted by inimalist
ddm got butthurt that I called Jesus fictional in another thread...
Or rather, you got butthurt because someone corrected your comment. You practically raged at me which was never my intention. I tried to indicate my comment was lighthearted with the nerdy glasses reference (internet meme).
No worries: water under the bridge. It's not serious business.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You just posted a link to a Wikipedia article that proves one of my points. Did you intend to do that?
if your point was that there is no evidence suggesting the census as depicted in the bible occurred, that it's description was inconsistent with roman practices, and that a similar incident that might have been what the story was based on happened years after and potentially under the rule of a different leader, then sure...
I think the issue, if that is the case, is that we have wildly different ideas about what constitutes fiction. for instance, to me, loosely based on events that may or may not have happened but definatly not as depicted constitutes a fictional event. maybe less fictional that, idk, the expanded star wars universe, but certainly not real in any way.
Originally posted by inimalist
if your point was that there is no evidence suggesting the census as depicted in the bible occurred, that it's description was inconsistent with roman practices, and that a similar incident that might have been what the story was based on happened years after and potentially under the rule of a different leader, then sure...
No, my point is you said this:
"returning home for a census when Jesus was born,"
And prefaced it with this:
"Almost all stories in the bible are laughably false..."
When there are plenty of historical discussion concerning this. This wiki article you posted at me agrees with my sentiments: it's not that such a census never happened (hell, it even mentions that Roman citizens would do the traveling), it's the details of how it is told that are off.
"I arrived at work around 5" is not "laughably false" when you actually clocked in at 5:30.
Laughably false would be, "I worked all day at work from 6 am to 5 PM" when you actually spent the whole day, on the opposite side of the planet, having a party with a Saudi Arabian prince.
Basically, from when I was a small child, I knew that the image of "baby Jesus" in a manager is silly since Jesus would have been a toddler, at the youngest, and a boy at the latest...due to the timing of actual events.
Are you forgetting that I'm not a bible thumping literalist? You do know that one of the fundamental tenants of my religion is that the bible IS full of error, right? 🙂
My personal opinion on it is that the some of the Matthew account is incorrect. Not "laughably false" as you parade.
Ancestral return home? Maybe. Census? Maybe..and even probably. Conflicts in the New Testament? Most definitely. Does it destroy the foundation of believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ? Most definitely not. If your belief in Jesus Christ's divinity was tied solely to the notion of a census, you really missed the entire point.
The fact that it is still argued today (both sides from both sides...meaning...you have theologians, believers and non-believers alike, arguing both sides) means it is not settled. Not this notion of "laughably false".
The sweeping conclusions that you are parading speak to your position as being a tad-closed minded, don't you think?
Originally posted by inimalist
I think the issue, if that is the case, is that we have wildly different ideas about what constitutes fiction.
No we don't. 😐
Stop using so many extreme adjectives. 😬
Originally posted by inimalist
for instance, to me, loosely based on events that may or may not have happened but definatly not as depicted constitutes a fictional event. maybe less fictional that, idk, the expanded star wars universe, but certainly not real in any way.
Correction:
Strongly based on real events that definitely happened but with some details that are conflicting or unclear.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so the answer is we just have different ideas of what fictional means. for instance, you seem to be arguing that something you agreed never happened is nonfiction...
Your for instance is not true and is a strawman argument.
If you would like to quote me where I said I agreed that it never happened, be my guest.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, something strongly based on real events is not the same as something being real...
Duh.
But that doesn't mean the entire thing false, either.
This is where you err.
I used the example of William Faulkner fabricating some of his young adult life as an example. He later fessed up to it. However, his admission did not magically cause him to cease to exist. This is what you're missing.
To continue the discussion, was Jesus a carpenter? I don't know for sure but my research indicates that he probably was not. It was a falsehood perpetuated by early Christians or mistranslation.
There's another error for you. You think this is a case of "believing in the foolish traditions of your fathers" and I see it as a case of "why Mormons are still right".
Amazing how we can get two different things from the same bit of information, huh?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Duh.But that doesn't mean the entire thing false, either.
This is where you err.
I used the example of William Faulkner fabricating some of his young adult life as an example. He later fessed up to it. However, his admission did not magically cause him to cease to exist. This is what you're missing.
To continue the discussion, was Jesus a carpenter? I don't know for sure but my research indicates that he probably was not. It was a falsehood perpetuated by early Christians or mistranslation.
There's another error for you. You think this is a case of "believing in the foolish traditions of your fathers" and I see it as a case of "why Mormons are still right".
Amazing how we can get two different things from the same bit of information, huh?
man... I'm really sick of you trying to argue points that I really don't care about
you admit the stories aren't true, I'm done
Originally posted by inimalist
man... I'm really sick of you trying to argue points that I really don't care about
Man, I'm really sick you making everything about you.
I was bringing it back on topic with some more humor. Calm TFD.
Originally posted by inimalist
you admit the stories aren't true, I'm done
I don't. Nor do I admit that they are true. I'll stick with gray.
Originally posted by dadudemon
OH! So...the New Testament is NOT strongly based on real events, huh?Well, glad you cleared that up for me.
😬
How can they be strongly based on true events? No one has proven that most of those stories ever actually happened. I do think Jesus existed, but he was probably no more divine than a preacher on the 700 network.
Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, a conversation that you were trying to make about how Mormons are teh shit was all about me.../ffs
Perhaps I should explain "what I did there".
When I put "believing in the foolish traditions of your fathers" in quotes, it was due to it actually being a requiring motif from the Book of Mormon used by "the bad guys" against "the good guys".
When I put "why Mormons are still right" in quotes, it was due to it capturing the various arrogant attitudes that many Mormons take about how "true" our gospel is and how "right" we are.
It was supposed to get a laugh because I waned to lighten the mood.
Originally posted by socool8520
How can they be strongly based on true events? No one has proven that most of those stories ever actually happened. I do think Jesus existed, but he was probably no more divine than a preacher on the 700 network.
That question is best answered by your own research.
I refer you back to my previous words:
"Jesus the man probably existed." The majority of the things you read about (not the divine stuff) in the New Testament either happened or are based on events that actually happened. As Digi stated, it is not about if Jesus the man existed, but if Jesus-God existed.