Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Hopeless: From Newsweek: (excerpts, emp add) The Christmas Miracle
Most Americans believe the virgin birth is literally true, a NEWSWEEK poll finds
Seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that, as the Bible says, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a human father, according to a new NEWSWEEK poll on beliefs about Jesus.
Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmas—the Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the East—is historically accurate.
Sixty-two percent say they favor teaching creation science in addition to evolution in public schools; 26 percent oppose such teaching, the poll shows. Forty-three percent favor teaching creation science instead of evolution in public schools; 40 percent oppose the idea. We won't go into the details here, but both Matthew and Luke's stories about the birth and early life of Jesus are a complete invention. They were crafted to persuade a Jewish audience (birth in Bethlehem because that's where King David was born, trip in-and-out of Egypt to create a parallel with Moses, etc.)
posted by Quiddity at 12/08/2004 08:45:00 AM
5 comments
James, I'm happy to believe what I believe in the religious context, and I love the Nativity story the way it is. At the same time, my rational thought tells me that Matthew and Luke, written (recollection of Catholic school here) circa AD 85 were not exactly eye-witnesses of the Nativity. Did it ever strike you as odd that Jesus only existed as an infant, a 12-year-old in the Temple and a 33-year-old?
Let belief be a matter of faith and an inspiration for your daily life, but not a coded edict for regimenting others. Render unto Caes... oh, nevermind...
Not to mention the obvious problem - some of the Bible, particularly the Gospels, tell CONFLICTING STORIES about the same events. But let's not let critical thinking get involved here...
Not to mention the obvious problem - some of the Bible, particularly the Gospels, tell CONFLICTING STORIES about the same events. But let's not let critical thinking get involved here...
Historical Jesus was a Nazarene, not a Bethlehemite. Problems with traditional story:
1) We have pretty good records of the Roman Empire. We have no record from any other source saying all the world must be taxed and you had to return to your hometown to be taxed. Think of the logistical nightmare that would have caused if immigrants from all over the empire had to return to the town of their birth.
2) No one else seems to have noticed a bright star in the sky. Yes, I know that three planets were close together at that time. You would think that it would have attracted some attention.
3) Matthew contradicts Luke; Matthew says the holy family was already in Bethlehem, Luke says they had to travel to Bethlehem. Both can't be the "word of God." Does God contradict Himself? No other gospel has the birth story.
4) All gospels refer to Jesus as a Nazarene. It even has to be explained away -- "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" This makes it likely that Jesus being from Nazareth was a known fact that had to be dealt with.
It is generally believed by scholars that the gospels and epistles were put into their present form in the late first and early second centuries. They are believed to be based on earlier lost sources, which may have been oral. Scholars look at the agreements between all the gospels as the most reliable information as to what Jesus actually said and did.
James: Miracles demand a higher than normal level of evidence. Simply reporting that something happened outside the laws of nature is not enough. As to going into the details, Matthew commits several errors (such as the lineage of Jesus) which should make one cautious about other statements by him. Luke refers to a census - the reason for traveling to Bethlehem - but no Roman census required people to register at their birth location, nor is any census recorded for that time in Roman records. Just for starters, those are facts which make the birth/childhood segments of those two gospel writers suspect.
Other aspects of the story which don't jibe: There is no discussion of Jesus' early life in Paul's epistles or in any of the teachings recorded in the four gospels. If Jesus was born of a virgin, don't you think that would be something mentioned by the apostles, or even Jesus himself?
For the record, I find the evidence convincing that Jesus existed, whose life more-or-less followed the trajectory recorded in Mark. And the Quelle material found in Matthew and Luke also seems genuine. But the pre-adulthood, and post-crucifiction material doesn't meet the test of credibility. For starters, the gospel writers don't agree on what happened - which is what you'd expect if it was not based on fact.
Some points you might want to ponder: Are you aware that the story of the woman taken in adultery in John is not found in any texts before the late 4th century? That Mark 16:9-20 is also not found in the earliest versions? (the additional portion is where we find the 'snake handling' verses)
If you are not prepared to closely examine the materials which are the source of your faith, then no discussion is possible about those beliefs which may be called into question.
|
