I do not need to visit a website in order to take out pen and paper, note the sequence of the events, and realize that they contradict. At least one, if not both, of the first two creation stories cannot be taken as literal or historical fact. That opens the door up for interpretation as allegory. Moreover, there are plenty of allegorical texts in which the characters of the stories state that everything must be believed literally. That is the only way to draw someone into the story; it is a stylistic device that gets people to detach from the world that they are actually in and enter the world of the story.
When you are taking you pen and paper our, and then listing sequences of events... It may make sense to get the input from experts in the Hebrew language's tenses... lol I mean, if you're on a quest for reason and truth and all...
Negative.
Negative the Bible states not to take it as allegory, or negative you are breaking hermeneutical rules. Hermeneutics are the study of literature. The first rule is to seek what the author expected his audience to get from the writing. For instance, John wrote the gospel of John, which you quote from. In 1, 2, 3 John, he makes explicit what he means. You ignore his plain writing.
There is a substantial change.
Saying it again does not make it true. There are many references to God's wrath and judgment in the OT and NT. Conversely, there are repeated references to his love, care and grace in both the OT and NT. You are inventing a contradiction. There is no change in God, just a revelation in the NT how He chose to combine both preexisting attributes together in Jesus Christ.
I will trust the sources that are unbiased;
No, you are trusting the sources of the biased skeptics sites around the interwebz that have no clue what they are talking about.
e.g., the histories of the patriarchs in Rome, the histories of the census (do you think that records of a census that took place across the Roman Empire just magically disappeared).
LOL.. The writings of the 1st century Jews, his detractors, aren't enough? Again... A lack of evidence is not evidence.
Why don't you just say "prove to me that Jesus is not God"? Prove to me that Krishna is not God.
Wouldn't dream of it. You made a substantive claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up. I am asking for the evidence that "the census never happened..."
Why does context matter if we are taking the bible literally? If we are going to interpret, let us interpret the bible in the manner in which it makes the most sense and provides the most insight.
I would make the recommendation that you first make a study of what the text actually says, hermeneutically that means finding context to seek the truth. And for the record, allegory based on personal interpretation does not provide the most insight. Seeking author's intent within context does.
Again, Jesus makes both statements and added to the forgiveness he grants to non-believers (those that crucified him) as well as the forgiveness that Stephen requests for non-believers (those that stone him) (as well as the passages where Jesus clearly states that individuals will be judged by their deeds, and that one can be forgiven for blaspheming Jesus but not the Holy Spirit (which has been interpreted as conscience for the past two-thousand years)), and I am going to state that what Jesus says contradicts with what Paul says: faith is not necessary for salvation.
You obviously ignored the doctrinal position in the context, as well as the doctrinal position exposited by those who recorded the original statements (i.e. apostolic epistles). Thus, no contradiction.
I have and the only way that I keep it from being both a contradiction with itself and with history is to interpret it allegorically (minus the epistles of Paul).
That is your prerogative. You are wrong, but that's beside the point.
Yeah, I have read that. This is why faith in Jesus plays no part in salvation.
That's an interesting, closed-eyed response.
The Holy Spirit is conscience; speaking against Jesus is forgivable. That much is quite explicit in the passage you are referring to.
Show where the Holy Spirit is called conscience. Actually, repeatedly, He is called a HE, a person of the trinity. I mean, let's go back to what it actually says, as opposed to what you wished it said.
John is the easiest writer to take allegorically; he is steeped in Plato and by referring to Jesus as the Word, I take that to be reason from the beginning. You should read both the Republic and the Pheado and then compare those two texts with the gospel of John. John is using the same phrases as Plato is to speak of Truth and Reason.
He wrote specific things, with specific commands, with specific words. Writing your own beliefs back into them is not truth, it is preference.
Not my problem since you deny Roman historical records and science.
How can I deny something that either could or could not have existed. You seriously take issue with someone asking for evidence to back up proof statements? have you found the evidence that proves the "census never happened"?
The author of the Gospel of John is not the author of the Epistles of John (heck, the First Letter of John is not even written by the same author as the latter two). Of course, you probably reject textual criticism, so you probably think that the same person was writing all three just with absolutely foreign writing styles and different grammar rules.
Oh, please... Do tell! Are you falling back on higher criticism arguments that were disprove 50 years ago? Heck, not even liberal theologians are dumb enough to use those worn out arguments.
This is another truth statement I'll ask for evidence. Go!
I am not going to simply accept something as literal truth that obviously contradicts with historical records. Give me a reason why I should put more validity in the historical claims of Luke than in the historical records of the Roman Empire?
You mean the historical records that do not exist? Great logic.
And, I suppose you believe in all the miracles recorded in the Mahabharata? Can you tell me why you do not believe in them, or why you do not believe in Krishna? Those in the Mahabharata, and those who wrote the Mahabharata, claim that it is history; that it is literal fact. Many of the places are actual places in India; some of the battles line up with actual wars. So, why do you not believe in Vishnu, Krishna, Siva, etc.? Do you think there is anything of value that can be gleaned from the Mahabharata?
I do not disbelieve them based on a refusal to believe in miracles. Amy have happened. May not have. Where you and I differ is that I do not believe them impossible just based on a priori assumptions.
Correction, Jewish writings 100 years later. There is an absolute dearth of contemporary writings regarding Jesus and/or his miracles. There were plenty of well-educated scribes in Jerusalem and the Roman Empire placed great value in recording history. Why didn't anyone write about these events? Thousands of people turn out to listen to a man preach on a hill and while he is preaching he feeds everyone with a handful of loaves and fish? Nobody recorded this? Then, it happened again. And...nobody recorded that. Then, this man is crucified by Pilate, a decision that he is obviously not completely happy about. He never writes about it?
There is not a lot of contemporary evidence supporting any of the stories in the Gospels.
There's another one of those proof claims that will require evidence to back up. The evidences that I have researched put the writings within a few decades of the crucifixion. I would link out, but you've already expressed a disinterest in the findings of experts in their respective fields.
I am expecting either Pilate to write about it or anybody else. Using a lack of evidence to make such fantastic claims such as "God came down in the form of a Man, resurrected dead individuals, cured the blind, walked on water, turned water into wine, was crucified on the day that a solar eclipse and an earthquake occurred, etc" is absurd.
Check the talmud and mishnah.
Jesus might have been God; but, it is going to take more than the bible to ever convince me of that. If it only takes one ghost story, then why not just believe in all-ghosts, all-gods, all-myths, etc.? Why should I simply give preference to one because I happen to have grown up in a culture in which most people give preference to that one story?
