Science v Religion BBC Debate

[pauldominic]

Re the 'did Jesus actually exist' questions. I might be wrong but I remember reading of a reference to him in a Roman's letter or report from that time.
And the reason the Gospels seem to be different is that each individual approached the telling of the events from different angles, in other words with the emphasis on which events were the most important to them.

Same point as I was going to make such as national newspapers adopting different viewpoints.

If anything, any contradictions emphasise the genuine nature of the bible to me.

 

[SWP's back]

Re the 'did Jesus actually exist' questions. I might be wrong but I remember reading of a reference to him in a Roman's letter or report from that time.
And the reason the Gospels seem to be different is that each individual approached the telling of the events from different angles, in other words with the emphasis on which events were the most important to them.

No mackenzie, the 12 gospels strongly disagree with each other on many things. Such as the genealogies of Joseph (Mathew and Luke stating that he is decended from David - to fit in with prophecy whilst the others disagree with this) but they all claim a virgin borth which nullifies this, where as Paul states that Jesus was born of the "seed of David" .

I could go on but it's not a case of "which was the most important for them" as they are very clear on these things.

Mary and the Virgin birth are sacrosanct in Catholicism even though only 1/6th of gospels mention this (which is more than likely a mis-translation of the word for "young woman".

then you have the fact as to where he was born and the supposed census ordered from Herod, even though Herod dided in March 4BC and the Census took place 10 years after his death.

Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus. Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea.

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel)

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Clearly the bible is,by any reasonable definition,a historical document.
However,the fact that is woefully inaccurate in terms of timescale,contradicts itself with monotonous regularity, was ghost-written by authors unknown on the basis of Chinese whispers,third-hand rumour and after the fact reconstructions of events which probably didn't happen and that would shame a low-budget episode of Crimewatch,tend to suggest that it is hardly the basis for any credible religious doctrine.
Unless,of course,you are a Creationist.

Thats a bit rich NF.

Have you studied it?

As I've already point it is the most scrutinised book ever written and still continues to be translated into other languages and distributed round the world.

It must be very dispiriting for all you atheists.

Of course I have studied it - I had little choice as an impressionable child.
I probably know it as well as you do.
Jeffrey Archer sells a lot of books - that doesn't make him the doctrinal basis for indoctrination,sectarianism and wholesale slaughter.
However many copies of your book of fairy stories are sold is of little interest to me.
I am not dispirited,as I don't possess a spirit,and neither do you.
Billions of flies live on turds,so I think I see your argument through majority disappear in a flurry of strawman.
And I notice you failed to address my point about disregarding the Old Testament when it suits you.
Funnily enough,this does not come as a great shock.

 

[SWP's back]

Re the 'did Jesus actually exist' questions. I might be wrong but I remember reading of a reference to him in a Roman's letter or report from that time.
And the reason the Gospels seem to be different is that each individual approached the telling of the events from different angles, in other words with the emphasis on which events were the most important to them.

Same point as I was going to make such as national newspapers adopting different viewpoints.

If anything, any contradictions emphasise the genuine nature of the bible to me.

Well that's lucky.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Re the 'did Jesus actually exist' questions. I might be wrong but I remember reading of a reference to him in a Roman's letter or report from that time.
And the reason the Gospels seem to be different is that each individual approached the telling of the events from different angles, in other words with the emphasis on which events were the most important to them.

Same point as I was going to make such as national newspapers adopting different viewpoints.

If anything, any contradictions emphasise the genuine nature of the bible to me.

Well that's lucky.

'It must be authentic,because it contradicts itself'!
Utterly priceless.
I'm glad Pauldominic doesn't write the operating manuals for nuclear reactors.

 

[xenon_]

Re the 'did Jesus actually exist' questions. I might be wrong but I remember reading of a reference to him in a Roman's letter or report from that time.
And the reason the Gospels seem to be different is that each individual approached the telling of the events from different angles, in other words with the emphasis on which events were the most important to them.

Same point as I was going to make such as national newspapers adopting different viewpoints.

If anything, any contradictions emphasise the genuine nature of the bible to me.

Well that's lucky.

pmsl

 

[pauldominic]

The Gospel contradict each other at every point. That's something I can't work out. How someone like PD or JC can rationalise these contradictions.

It also makes the saying "take it as Gospel" literally men "I've made it up"

Catholicism is based on the virgin birth yet only Matthew & Luke are the only one's that mention it. Plus they can't decide where Jesus was born and Bethlehem is only mentioned to fit in with Jewish prophecies.

And yet we swear an oath to 'tell the truth,the whole truth,and nothing but the truth' on this laughable work of fiction in court.
You may as well testify having pledged over a Jeffrey Archer novel,or an MP's expenses claim.
But that's just it - the god squad pick and choose which bits to believe.
Pauldominic renounces the entire Old Testament when it suits him,or when it says something daft,which is most of the time.
Or,(my personal favourite),say - 'well,what god actually meant to say was..'
Because trying to reinterpret what your supreme god and creator was really getting at seems a tad presumptious to me.

I've never renounced the OT, but its very dodgy to select specific verses, take them out of context and mix them with other verses from the NT.

Matthews gospel traces the ancestry of Joseph and the possibility of divorce because Jesus was concieved out of wedlock.

It also shows why they travelled to Bethlehem because the Romans wanted a census.

When they got there, all the accommodation was used so the little boy was born in a stable.

The point I'm making is that the geography of the Bible, the events that took place at those times and the utter humanity of the people is clearly demonstrated time and time again.

It's a messy story that like I say adds to its credibility.

 

[SWP's back]

The Gospel contradict each other at every point. That's something I can't work out. How someone like PD or JC can rationalise these contradictions.

It also makes the saying "take it as Gospel" literally men "I've made it up"

Catholicism is based on the virgin birth yet only Matthew & Luke are the only one's that mention it. Plus they can't decide where Jesus was born and Bethlehem is only mentioned to fit in with Jewish prophecies.

And yet we swear an oath to 'tell the truth,the whole truth,and nothing but the truth' on this laughable work of fiction in court.
You may as well testify having pledged over a Jeffrey Archer novel,or an MP's expenses claim.
But that's just it - the god squad pick and choose which bits to believe.
Pauldominic renounces the entire Old Testament when it suits him,or when it says something daft,which is most of the time.
Or,(my personal favourite),say - 'well,what god actually meant to say was..'
Because trying to reinterpret what your supreme god and creator was really getting at seems a tad presumptious to me.

I've never renounced the OT, but its very dodgy to select specific verses, take them out of context and mix them with other verses from the NT.

Matthews gospel traces the ancestry of Joseph and the possibility of divorce because Jesus was concieved out of wedlock.

It also shows why they travelled to Bethlehem because the Romans wanted a census.

When they got there, all the accommodation was used so the little boy was born in a stable.

The point I'm making is that the geography of the Bible, the events that took place at those times and the utter humanity of the people is clearly demonstrated time and time again.

It's a messy story that like I say adds to its credibility.

But 10 others disagree with Matthew and Herod dies 10 years before the census was conducted and it was never practice to travel to your place of birth.

 

[pauldominic]

Same point as I was going to make such as national newspapers adopting different viewpoints.

If anything, any contradictions emphasise the genuine nature of the bible to me.

Well that's lucky.

'It must be authentic,because it contradicts itself'!
Utterly priceless.
I'm glad Pauldominic doesn't write the operating manuals for nuclear reactors.

Why are you attempting to reference me incorrectly?

Are you a spin doctor NF?

Alistair Campbell would be proud of this post :-P

 

[pauldominic]

And yet we swear an oath to 'tell the truth,the whole truth,and nothing but the truth' on this laughable work of fiction in court.
You may as well testify having pledged over a Jeffrey Archer novel,or an MP's expenses claim.
But that's just it - the god squad pick and choose which bits to believe.
Pauldominic renounces the entire Old Testament when it suits him,or when it says something daft,which is most of the time.
Or,(my personal favourite),say - 'well,what god actually meant to say was..'
Because trying to reinterpret what your supreme god and creator was really getting at seems a tad presumptious to me.

I've never renounced the OT, but its very dodgy to select specific verses, take them out of context and mix them with other verses from the NT.

Matthews gospel traces the ancestry of Joseph and the possibility of divorce because Jesus was concieved out of wedlock.

It also shows why they travelled to Bethlehem because the Romans wanted a census.

When they got there, all the accommodation was used so the little boy was born in a stable.

The point I'm making is that the geography of the Bible, the events that took place at those times and the utter humanity of the people is clearly demonstrated time and time again.

It's a messy story that like I say adds to its credibility.

But 10 others disagree with Matthew and Herod dies 10 years before the census was conducted and it was never practice to travel to your place of birth.

A very fair point.

Who are these 10 others? Could they include other people in the NT?

The Calendar we have today is probably a few years inaccurate and wasn't in use when Jesus was born. It's almost certain he wasn't born 25/12/01 and ten years isn't that large a gap.

That doesn't damage the quality of the narrative IMO.

 

[SWP's back]

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

Peter
Paul
Judas
Thomas
Mark
Phillip
Mani
Gospel of the Savior

And no, the ten year difference is a big one PD, we know when the census took place and when Herod died, the Calendar is not the issue at all as it was originally the Roman calendar that was used to note the death and the census. Herod, did not and could not have ordered the census. Not to mention the fact that no one was EVER ordered back to their city of birth for a census. It would have been a bureaucratic nightmare and served no purpose. No historical (roman) account has ever suggested as such and only 2 of the original 12 gospels staet that this happened. And they were only to fulfil jewish prophecies as stated earlier.

 

[pauldominic]

Clearly the bible is,by any reasonable definition,a historical document.
However,the fact that is woefully inaccurate in terms of timescale,contradicts itself with monotonous regularity, was ghost-written by authors unknown on the basis of Chinese whispers,third-hand rumour and after the fact reconstructions of events which probably didn't happen and that would shame a low-budget episode of Crimewatch,tend to suggest that it is hardly the basis for any credible religious doctrine.
Unless,of course,you are a Creationist.

Thats a bit rich NF.

Have you studied it?

As I've already point it is the most scrutinised book ever written and still continues to be translated into other languages and distributed round the world.

It must be very dispiriting for all you atheists.

Of course I have studied it - I had little choice as an impressionable child.
I probably know it as well as you do.
Jeffrey Archer sells a lot of books - that doesn't make him the doctrinal basis for indoctrination,sectarianism and wholesale slaughter.
However many copies of your book of fairy stories are sold is of little interest to me.
I am not dispirited,as I don't possess a spirit,and neither do you.
Billions of flies live on turds,so I think I see your argument through majority disappear in a flurry of strawman.
And I notice you failed to address my point about disregarding the Old Testament when it suits you.
Funnily enough,this does not come as a great shock.

I'm not disregarding your comment about the OT at all. It has an entirely different historic position, context, purpose and from a Christian perspective only makes sense in the light of the NT.

 

[mackenzie]

Re the 'did Jesus actually exist' questions. I might be wrong but I remember reading of a reference to him in a Roman's letter or report from that time.
And the reason the Gospels seem to be different is that each individual approached the telling of the events from different angles, in other words with the emphasis on which events were the most important to them.

No mackenzie, the 12 gospels strongly disagree with each other on many things. Such as the genealogies of Joseph (Mathew and Luke stating that he is decended from David - to fit in with prophecy whilst the others disagree with this) but they all claim a virgin borth which nullifies this, where as Paul states that Jesus was born of the "seed of David" .

I could go on but it's not a case of "which was the most important for them" as they are very clear on these things.

Mary and the Virgin birth are sacrosanct in Catholicism even though only 1/6th of gospels mention this (which is more than likely a mis-translation of the word for "young woman".

then you have the fact as to where he was born and the supposed census ordered from Herod, even though Herod dided in March 4BC and the Census took place 10 years after his death.

Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus. Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea.

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel)

And, as I said earlier, each Gospel emphasises the part of the message they wanted to get across. And any deviation on hard facts is understandable given the time lapse of some of the Gospels. However, the underlying message of each writer is the same; that of the Ministry of a man called Jesus Christ.
And I'm well aware of the seemingly over importance that the Catholic Church places on Mary; it's the reason I ended up in an argument with a 'cradle Catholic' who was tasked with welcoming me back into the Church when I approached them again in my early 30's.
Their refusal to acknowledge my skepticism and answer my doubts is the reason I didnt eventually go back.

 

[pauldominic]

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

Peter
Paul
Judas
Thomas
Mark
Phillip
Mani
Gospel of the Savior

And no, the ten year difference is a big one PD, we know when the census took place and when Herod died, the Calendar is not the issue at all as it was originally the Roman calendar that was used to note the death and the census. Herod, did not and could not have ordered the census. Not to mention the fact that no one was EVER ordered back to their city of birth for a census. It would have been a bureaucratic nightmare and served no purpose. No historical (roman) account has ever suggested as such and only 2 of the original 12 gospels staet that this happened. And they were only to fulfil jewish prophecies as stated earlier.

Ok as I understand your argument, many other writers were considered as part of the canon of scripture and not included. How is that unreasonable?

If you reference the other gospel writers, I'll give my understanding.

I agree about Herod. As a Jew he couldn't have ordered and was essentially a puppet. This was always the Roman way - conquer, colonise and assimilate.

The point is that Rome would have no concern at all about bureaucratic nightmares.

Pontius Pilate must have dredded being sent there. No wonder they flattened the temple.

The ten years is important because Herod died 4 BC but the general consensus is that Jesus was born about 7/8 BC.

We have after all gone from Roman to Julian to Gregorian, Pesky Romans eh.

 

[pauldominic]

Re the 'did Jesus actually exist' questions. I might be wrong but I remember reading of a reference to him in a Roman's letter or report from that time.
And the reason the Gospels seem to be different is that each individual approached the telling of the events from different angles, in other words with the emphasis on which events were the most important to them.

No mackenzie, the 12 gospels strongly disagree with each other on many things. Such as the genealogies of Joseph (Mathew and Luke stating that he is decended from David - to fit in with prophecy whilst the others disagree with this) but they all claim a virgin borth which nullifies this, where as Paul states that Jesus was born of the "seed of David" .

I could go on but it's not a case of "which was the most important for them" as they are very clear on these things.

Mary and the Virgin birth are sacrosanct in Catholicism even though only 1/6th of gospels mention this (which is more than likely a mis-translation of the word for "young woman".

then you have the fact as to where he was born and the supposed census ordered from Herod, even though Herod dided in March 4BC and the Census took place 10 years after his death.

Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus. Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea.

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel)

And, as I said earlier, each Gospel emphasises the part of the message they wanted to get across. And any deviation on hard facts is understandable given the time lapse of some of the Gospels. However, the underlying message of each writer is the same; that of the Ministry of a man called Jesus Christ.
And I'm well aware of the seemingly over importance that the Catholic Church places on Mary; it's the reason I ended up in an argument with a 'cradle Catholic' who was tasked with welcoming me back into the Church when I approached them again in my early 30's.
Their refusal to acknowledge my skepticism and answer my doubts is the reason I didnt eventually go back.

I've been 'evangelised' as well mackenzie.

It's offensive to a bright person.

My PP has always emphasised that we always come to mass out of choice :)

 

[mackenzie]

No mackenzie, the 12 gospels strongly disagree with each other on many things. Such as the genealogies of Joseph (Mathew and Luke stating that he is decended from David - to fit in with prophecy whilst the others disagree with this) but they all claim a virgin borth which nullifies this, where as Paul states that Jesus was born of the "seed of David" .

I could go on but it's not a case of "which was the most important for them" as they are very clear on these things.

Mary and the Virgin birth are sacrosanct in Catholicism even though only 1/6th of gospels mention this (which is more than likely a mis-translation of the word for "young woman".

then you have the fact as to where he was born and the supposed census ordered from Herod, even though Herod dided in March 4BC and the Census took place 10 years after his death.

Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus. Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea.

In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel)

And, as I said earlier, each Gospel emphasises the part of the message they wanted to get across. And any deviation on hard facts is understandable given the time lapse of some of the Gospels. However, the underlying message of each writer is the same; that of the Ministry of a man called Jesus Christ.
And I'm well aware of the seemingly over importance that the Catholic Church places on Mary; it's the reason I ended up in an argument with a 'cradle Catholic' who was tasked with welcoming me back into the Church when I approached them again in my early 30's.
Their refusal to acknowledge my skepticism and answer my doubts is the reason I didnt eventually go back.

I've been 'evangelised' as well mackenzie.

It's offensive to a bright person.

My PP has always emphasised that we always come to mass out of choice :)

It was annoying Paul. When I asked the question and aired my doubts anyone would have thought, from the reaction of the group, that I had just farted.

 

[pauldominic]

And, as I said earlier, each Gospel emphasises the part of the message they wanted to get across. And any deviation on hard facts is understandable given the time lapse of some of the Gospels. However, the underlying message of each writer is the same; that of the Ministry of a man called Jesus Christ.
And I'm well aware of the seemingly over importance that the Catholic Church places on Mary; it's the reason I ended up in an argument with a 'cradle Catholic' who was tasked with welcoming me back into the Church when I approached them again in my early 30's.
Their refusal to acknowledge my skepticism and answer my doubts is the reason I didnt eventually go back.

I've been 'evangelised' as well mackenzie.

It's offensive to a bright person.

My PP has always emphasised that we always come to mass out of choice :)

It was annoying Paul. When I asked the question and aired my doubts anyone would have thought, from the reaction of the group, that I had just farted.

Yes but were you the only potential 'victim'?

I go to mass because it makes intellectual, common and spiritual sense and don't feel any guilt if I miss any,

 

[mackenzie]

I've been 'evangelised' as well mackenzie.

It's offensive to a bright person.

My PP has always emphasised that we always come to mass out of choice :)

It was annoying Paul. When I asked the question and aired my doubts anyone would have thought, from the reaction of the group, that I had just farted.

Yes but were you the only potential 'victim'?

I go to mass because it makes intellectual, common and spiritual sense and don't feel any guilt if I miss any,

The group totalled about 6 people with only 2 of us that were thinking of rejoining.
I wanted to find some faith again but I walked out and never went back; decided later to just follow my intuition and find solace in things that made sense to me.
I guess I'm a Pagan at heart really.

 

[pauldominic]

It was annoying Paul. When I asked the question and aired my doubts anyone would have thought, from the reaction of the group, that I had just farted.

Yes but were you the only potential 'victim'?

I go to mass because it makes intellectual, common and spiritual sense and don't feel any guilt if I miss any,

The group totalled about 6 people with only 2 of us that were thinking of rejoining.
I wanted to find some faith again but I walked out and never went back; decided later to just follow my intuition and find solace in things that made sense to me.
I guess I'm a Pagan at heart really.

Catholic to Pagan
Catholic to Atheist
Catholic to Catholic

We have much to discuss.

 

[Bluebee2]

It was annoying Paul. When I asked the question and aired my doubts anyone would have thought, from the reaction of the group, that I had just farted.

Yes but were you the only potential 'victim'?

I go to mass because it makes intellectual, common and spiritual sense and don't feel any guilt if I miss any,

The group totalled about 6 people with only 2 of us that were thinking of rejoining.
I wanted to find some faith again but I walked out and never went back; decided later to just follow my intuition and find solace in things that made sense to me.
I guess I'm a Pagan at heart really.

Check out the Alpha course Mackenzie maybe you can find some answers there ?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50FS8BzgqWM[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n28E8F7BmFM&feature=related[/youtube]