Trevor, they knew God intimately. He spoke with them. He’s the one who commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They did because they wanted to be like God. They wanted to know what he knows.
- Per my comment on one of the never-ending Adam and Eve threads, I find the be “as gods” supposition unsupported. From a literal perspective: neither had any idea what being “as gods” meant and thus could not desire something they didn’t understand, and the plain text of the temptation (in the Douay) shows it is the succulent nature of the fruit that finally draws Eve to eat. And after Adam eats, the next event mentioned in Genesis is that Adam and Eve put on “aprons” to cover their nakedness, which implies that the first actual thing they did after Adam ate the fruit was engage in sex.
If they are right , then the Bible is wrong. Which means that Matthew and Luke don’t know their geography and being so close to the action, still got it wrong. And if they can get it wrong, there is no reason to trust what they wrote is true and correct which all this while has been supposedly the word of God. That someone 2000 years later can get it right and placed Jesus birth in Bethlehem of Galilee with evidence that says “Jesus was born here”.For the sake of argument, what if they’re right?
I can’t get the original article but I read that Aviram Oshri said Jesus was born in Galilee instead of Judea is described as a rogue and his employer for the IAA dismissed his proposal “worse than a joke”If they are right , then the Bible is wrong. Which means that Matthew and Luke don’t know their geography and being so close to the action, still got it wrong. And if they can get it wrong, there is no reason to trust what they wrote is true and correct which all this while has been supposedly the word of God. That someone 2000 years later can get it right and placed Jesus birth in Bethlehem of Galilee with evidence that says “Jesus was born here”.
And of course there goes the religion and we can all pack and go home or switch to Judaism.
But seriously do you think that is likely? If you think that is unlikely, then we shouldn’t be wasting time wondering whether God is an astronaut and that kind of stuff. The Jews and Romans would have killed Christianity on the spot if such error was detected. There is no need to wait for a modern Jew to do it. N
Those who are looking for errors in the Bible only need to consider why didn’t the Jews and Romans latched onto the error and expose Christianity as a fraud? Matthew came out pretty early and evidence to prove falsifiability is within reach for those anti-Christians. If those Gospels were wrong, it won’t have survive all these years. Modern day folks have an uphill battle proving the Bible wrong because evidence for that is hard to come by and relying completely on perceived differences, omissions, silence, projections, whatifs, language ambiguity, and lack of knowledge about local customs, history and usages of those times etc Relying on enemies is usually a good move to filter out pretenders and errors. Just look at the Presidential elections. Their opponents won’t give anyone benefit of the doubt if they can. How would the Apostles handle hecklers accusing them of error then?
And…“anyone who does research and deals with this says that Jesus, the person was born in Nazareth…The whole story of Bethlehem of Judea was just to tie him to the house of King David. It’s just a religious excuse.”I can’t get the original article but I read that Aviram Oshri said Jesus was born in Galilee instead of Judea is described as a rogue and his employer for the IAA dismissed his proposal “worse than a joke”
And “there’s no connection, there’s nothing to suggest Bethlehenm of Galilee could be connected, calling Oshri’s thinking impossible, there’s nothing scientific to prove it.”
But it also said Jesus was born in Nazarath.
Again the comments I made earlier still applies. If Luke and Matthew were wrong, the opponents of Christianity would have given no quarter. But the glaring thing is this, ZERO evidence have been provided that Jesus was born in Nazareth. ZERO. Zero in Bethlehem of Galilee too. If you can find your article again, just zoom into the part that they tout as evidence. You will find nothing there.And…“anyone who does research and deals with this says that Jesus, the person was born in Nazareth…The whole story of Bethlehem of Judea was just to tie him to the house of King David. It’s just a religious excuse.”
Caesar Augustus issued the census. I’ve heard, can’t remember the source (possibly theWe often hear that the Bible is not a science book but can it have historical errors? In particular, I’m thinking of whether Quirinius was the one who issued the census just before Jesus was born or was he not governor just before Jesus birth?
Lily, I’d like your opinion: What about those wlscholars who say Jesus was was born in Nazareth and someone added Bethlehem to make the OT true?Historical errors, errors of recollection, translation errors, errors made by scribes, etc. However, you are right, none of those errors changes the fact that Jesus was the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. In matters of faith, the Bible is inerrant.
Do the writing of Pope Paul VI help you confirm that inerrancy of the Bible? It appears those who claim other than what is reported in Scripture are attacking the Church.Lily, I’d like your opinion: What about those wlscholars who say Jesus was was born in Nazareth and someone added Bethlehem to make the OT true?
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
…Again the comments I made earlier still applies. If Luke and Matthew were wrong, the opponents of Christianity would have given no quarter. But the glaring thing is this, ZERO evidence have been provided that Jesus was born in Nazareth. ZERO. Zero in Bethlehem of Galilee too. If you can find your article again, just zoom into the part that they tout as evidence. You will find nothing there.
*“How would a woman nine months pregnant travel 175 kilometres on a donkey all the way to Bethlehem of Judea? It makes much more sense that she would travel 14 kilometres,” *Oshri states.
If this counts as evidence, that is “worse than a joke” state The Israel Antiquities Authority. And who said she rode a donkey? This is not mentioned anywhere at all. Only people with a personal agenda will broadcast folk stories, not serious scholarship.
Proper understanding of what inerrant and inspired actually mean is really important.“It is absolutely wrong and it is forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of the Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. . . . The system of those who limit divine inspiration to matters of faith and morals cannot be tolerated.” Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus.
A great article on this subject: catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-everything-in-the-bible-true
God bless~ StElizabeth
Th a catechism really trip me up. Can you condense it and tell us in English what it says?Proper understanding of what inerrant and inspired actually mean is really important.
Here is what the Church teaches in 2015 (the living Magisterium)
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
Or so she said……
A scholar/archaeologist I correspond with believes He was born in Nazareth because two Gospels don’t mention birth narratives and the other two artificially insert birth narratives which are different from each other in a clear attempt to…connect Jesus with David.
No I can’t I’m sorry.Th a catechism really trip me up. Can you condense it and tell us in English what it says?
That is a frequently used excuse. But I am surprised that a scholar would accept silence as constituting error. In a debate, that would be laughed at. That is not scholarly. What is needed is evidence contrary to what the Bible said in Matthew and Luke, not what Mark and John didn’t say. To have the 4 gospels copy/paste each other would make it even less credible. Imagine if all 4 gospels all cover the same topic, same words ,same everything. Accusation of plagiarism will come fast and furious and and we actually just need one.…
A scholar/archaeologist I correspond with believes He was born in Nazareth because two Gospels don’t mention birth narratives and the other two artificially insert birth narratives which are different from each other in a clear attempt to…connect Jesus with David.
We often hear that the Bible is not a science book but can it have historical errors? In particular, I’m thinking of whether Quirinius was the one who issued the census just before Jesus was born or was he not governor just before Jesus birth?
Jimmy Akin covers the question of the census in this article:It can, and it does. The bible has a lot of historical errors–hundreds, say some historians.
The example you give of the census is one of the most well-known ones; there is no record of any Roman Empire-wide census at that time.
We have good records kept for the reign of Caesar Augustus at that time, and there is no mention anywhere, in any of them, of a census like that where everyone had to go back to their ancestral home from a thousand years earlier to register. In fact, there has never been a census that required such a thing.
Imagine the pandemonium. And not a single reference to it in any ancient source except in the gospel named Luke.
.
John does contradict the nativity stories found in Matthew and Luke. John 7:41-43:That is a frequently used excuse. But I am surprised that a scholar would accept silence as constituting error. In a debate, that would be laughed at. That is not scholarly. What is needed is evidence contrary to what the Bible said in Matthew and Luke, not what Mark and John didn’t say. To have the 4 gospels copy/paste each other would make it even less credible. Imagine if all 4 gospels all cover the same topic, same words ,same everything. Accusation of plagiarism will come fast and furious and and we actually just need one.
Now we need evidence from that scholar establishing a Nazareth place of birth. Otherwise, anyone can make up any story to tell, just need to weave the story in and out of the Gospels to make it sound real. Again, repeating what I wrote previously, if Matthew/Luke are wrong, why didn’t the enemies of Christianity didn’t use that erroneous info to discredit it? That is the best weapon to use.
How do you think she would travel 100 miles in 4 BCE? In a luxury sedan? She would have two choices: on foot or on a donkey and neither is feasible for a woman a few days or weeks from giving birth. Quirinius held a local census, but not in the year Jesus was born. No one would have had to travel. People in that time in Palestine registered where they lived, not where they were from. The “beloved disciple,” John, knew Jesus was from Galilee, and he wrote it in his gospel.Again the comments I made earlier still applies. If Luke and Matthew were wrong, the opponents of Christianity would have given no quarter. But the glaring thing is this, ZERO evidence have been provided that Jesus was born in Nazareth. ZERO. Zero in Bethlehem of Galilee too. If you can find your article again, just zoom into the part that they tout as evidence. You will find nothing there.
*“How would a woman nine months pregnant travel 175 kilometres on a donkey all the way to Bethlehem of Judea? It makes much more sense that she would travel 14 kilometres,” *Oshri states.
If this counts as evidence, that is “worse than a joke” state The Israel Antiquities Authority. And who said she rode a donkey? This is not mentioned anywhere at all. Only people with a personal agenda will broadcast folk stories, not serious scholarship.
I don’t have time to go all through it now, either, Faith, but take note of this part:Th a catechism really trip me up. Can you condense it and tell us in English what it says?
The verse you quote does not contradict Matthew and Luke both of which states that Jesus was raised in Nazareth. The quoted scripture is what that people believed not what was truth. Just as the people asked isn’t this the son of Joseph, it was their error for Jesus was not born in Nazareth nor was Joseph his father. You do not find John agreeing with what these people said only that it caused a disagreement. John was explaining the controversy but not taking sides in it. John wasn’t saying they KNOW Jesus was born there but that He was raised there therefore thought to be a Nazarene.John does contradict the nativity stories found in Matthew and Luke. John 7:41-43:
Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.
People today automatically believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem, so they read the Johannine verses wrong. They feel John, who was an eyewitness to all of Jesus’ ministry, his crucifixion, and death, and Resurrection, is feeling pity for the people who don’t know Jesus is from Bethlehem. But such is not the case. John is saying they KNOW Jesus is from Galilee. Perhaps some of them even witnessed his birth.
.
Know? Not quite take a look at Act 1:6-7John takes a different view of the Messiah than Matthew or Luke. The prophecy of a Davidic messiah born in Bethlehem also decrees that he will be a warrior-like messiah, who will restore Palestine to the Jewish people. However, we know this did not happen, and Jesus knew the Romans would destroy the temple. It was to the destruction of the temple, etc. that he was referring in Matthew 16:28, and John was still living when that occurred
The prophecies were generally misinterpreted. Jesus will come again it is then that these prophecies will be fulfilled.6 When they had gathered together they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He answered them, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.