Major plot holes in the bible

[Bucken]

Stop saying it's the jews, we cant be mad at the jews for everything bad in the bible.

But it's true, at least the admit their mistakes.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

Stop saying it's the jews, we cant be mad at the jews for everything bad in the bible.

But it's true, at least the admit their mistakes.

I was joking, everyone knows (or should know) it was the Romans.

[Squiggle]

Well we can look at Matthews example of the same thing. Which really reinforces that Jesus is not talking about some distant generation thousands of years in the future. It is stated explicitly which generation he means. And the way it is phrased makes it even harder to interrupt it to means just a happening in the heavens, as how could those not yet dead see it?

Err..nope. http://www.thingstocome.org/Matt.html

you dont know your bible at all.

This theme of the imminence of God coming to create a kingdom of heaven is a repeated theme in the New Testament and I have plenty of other examples to provide if need be. Much of which is the great concern early Christians placed upon it, showing rather clearly how they interpreted these passages. But I was hoping to avoid all that and get to the heart of the question which is; way would Jesus tell of a coming apocalypse when there wasn't one?

Yup, the end is coming soon, the apocalypse is at hand. So? Soon could be a thousand years given the time scale of the Universe, it could be a hundred thousand. Its imminent nature is repeated because 1) Jesus as already stated, doesnt know exactly when its coming, and more importantly 2) you should live as if it could come any day, and make sure your with God.

Doesn't sound like it from what Jesus is saying.

Yes it does.

This is just another example of 'colorful interpretation' of the Bible.

No.

i.e. Christianity in a nutshell.

Not at all.

[black-dragon]

Err..nope. http://www.thingstocome.org/Matt.html

you dont know your bible at all.
Yup, the end is coming soon, the apocalypse is at hand. So? Soon could be a thousand years given the time scale of the Universe, it could be a hundred thousand. Its imminent nature is repeated because 1) Jesus as already stated, doesnt know exactly when its coming, and more importantly 2) you should live as if it could come any day, and make sure your with God. Yes it does. No. Not at all.

Great, so pulling a bunch of vague verses from the Bible and reading meaning into them constitutes knowing your Bible? It's hilarious how when Jesus says x, he actually means y. This is meant to be a religion for the weak, poor and stupid (by its own admission!), so theological gymnastics are not only red herrings, but they don't even have a place in the framework of such a belief system.

[SigniferOne]

Great, so pulling a bunch of vague verses from the Bible and reading meaning into them constitutes knowing your Bible? It's hilarious how when Jesus says x, he actually means y.

No, you're the one who's read the "y" into the statement. The article explains quite simply, using the original Greek nonetheless, what he meant.

[black-dragon]

No, you're the one who's read the "y" into the statement. The article explains quite simply, using the original Greek nonetheless, what he meant.

No, it really doesn't. The verses it cites to 'clarify' the words of Jesus only do so if you accept their conclusion beforehand. It's consistent with their interpretation, it just doesn't imply it.

And anyway, are you telling me that Jesus wasn't capable of making himself understood on important points like the second coming? lol.

[SigniferOne]

are you telling me that Jesus wasn't capable of making himself understood on important points like the second coming?

He was. But some guy in the 13th century decided to split up the Bible into chapters that he seemed to like, which introduced conceptual ambiguities that now guys like you are latching onto.

[black-dragon]

He was. But some guy in the 13th century decided to split up the Bible into chapters that he seemed to like, which introduced conceptual ambiguities that now guys like you are latching onto.

He might have been divinely inspired, like the authors of the Bible

[SigniferOne]

He might have been divinely inspired, like the authors of the Bible

No one is divinely inspired, after the authors of the Bible.

[black-dragon]

No one is divinely inspired, after the authors of the Bible.

There's no basis for that in Christianity.

[Squiggle]

There's no basis for that in Christianity.

Uhhh...what? How about the fact that no one has been accepted as divinely inspired since the writers of the bible? Certainly theres no basis to outright claim there will never, and cant be others who are divinely inspired towards certain acts. But Christianity as a whole does not recognize anyone after the bible writers.

[removeduser_487563287433]

How about the fact that no one has been accepted as divinely inspired since the writers of the bible?

About a billion people accept Mohammed. What's your definition of "accepted"? Accepted by you?

[SigniferOne]

Accepted by Christians.

[Silver Guard]

Uhhh...what? How about the fact that no one has been accepted as divinely inspired since the writers of the bible? Certainly theres no basis to outright claim there will never, and cant be others who are divinely inspired towards certain acts. But Christianity as a whole does not recognize anyone after the bible writers.

Wrong, absolutely wrong.

1) Every saint... EVER. That's kind of what makes them saints.
2) The Pope. Also kind of what makes him the pope, and as such, infallible.
3) Christianity no longer has a monopoly on who is inspired, it competes with Islam and numerous others for the right to the last prophet.

[basics]

" My favourite plot hole in the Bible has Herod trying to kill Jesus ten years after his own death. "

Ferrets54,

This is a typical example of the flow and context being missused. Therefore we have to look at these things beginning with Herod because we do know when he lived and died so that means what can be assumed regarding Jesus must interlock with the dates of Herod's life and death. Once that has been established the supposed problem disintegrates.

There is no record of when Jesus was born in terms of time but there is plenty about the surrounds and circumstances of His birth so we have to consider these. We know that He was born during the reign of Herod. We also know that Herod on hearing of His birth commanded that all males up to two years of age were to be eliminated so from that we can establish that Jesus must have been anywhere between the age of 1 and 2 years of age then.

That would in effect place the birth of Jesus somewhere in the region of BC 5 or 6 meaning that He was nearer 40 when He died which surprisingly is more of a Biblical figure than 33 or so which is established by Josephus' record of His death. Therefore since all theologists now accept that His birth was earlier than first thought it becomes the searcher not to mock but to accept that there is nothing to mock at.

Remember that not one of the writers were around at the time so what they recorded would have been learnt when Jesus had reached manhood and in the case of Mathew and John when He called them to follow Him. Luke and Mark's writings could only have come from listening to the two formers and most likely Mary herself. Does that mean that their recollections were wrong? No, of course it doesn't. All that it means is that four guys wrote in their own styles what they knew from the sources that provided them, Mary of course being the most reliable.

And that's what's so wonderful about the Gospel, that men and women have recorded from Genesis on what their experiences have been around the name and person of Jesus Christ. The core message has never changed in spite of the disparate persons and time. Of course the unbeliever will turn somersaults to point out what appears to be faultlines in Scripture, that is the nature of fallen men and women, but the fact remains that they have no answer to people still being called out by the same name that is Jesus Christ.

[Squiggle]

Wrong, absolutely wrong.

1) Every saint... EVER. That's kind of what makes them saints.
2) The Pope. Also kind of what makes him the pope, and as such, infallible.
3) Christianity no longer has a monopoly on who is inspired, it competes with Islam and numerous others for the right to the last prophet.

Wrong, absolutely wrong, saints are not considered divinely inspired, just extremely pious individuals who are in heaven. That even goes to Roman Catholicism, even with all their saint worship. I said Christianity only recognizes the authors of the bible as divinely inspired, as a general whole. As you may or may not be aware...only Catholics view the pope as divinely inspired. And 3 is answered by anyone with a grasp of common sense.

Bad post.

[Silver Guard]

Wrong, absolutely wrong, saints are not considered divinely inspired, just extremely pious individuals who are in heaven. That even goes to Roman Catholicism, even with all their saint worship. I said Christianity only recognizes the authors of the bible as divinely inspired, as a general whole. As you may or may not be aware...only Catholics view the pope as divinely inspired. And 3 is answered by anyone with a grasp of common sense.

Bad post.

Saints are considered divinely inspired. In fact most of them claimed to be, and in accepting those claims the church had them canonised. Learn your history of religion before simply contradicting. Contradiction is not debate.

I am aware only Catholics see the pope as divinely inspired. The largest Christian church is Catholic so it's a fairly important position given the point of debate.

Well gift us with some common sense then?

[removeduser_487563287433]

This is a typical example of the flow and context being missused.

No it's not. The Bible specifically refers to the Biblical census as that of Quirinus and to the Herod as Herod the Great. We know the date for the census and the death of Herod for certain thanks to archaeological and literary evidence. It's a gaping plot hole that only a fundamentalist could defend. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has admitted the Christmas story is pure fiction.

[basics]

" No it's not. The Bible specifically refers to the Biblical census as that of Quirinus and to the Herod as Herod the Great. We know the date for the census and the death of Herod for certain thanks to archaeological and literary evidence. It's a gaping plot hole that only a fundamentalist could defend. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has admitted the Christmas story is pure fiction. "

Ferrets54,

Then the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a born again Christian, neither can he admit anything as it is only his opinion. His problem like others of religion is that they want to be Christians, play out the part, yet miss the most important element, the indwelling that comes with regeneration by the Spirit of truth.

As regards Quirinius the controversy there comes down only to Luke but since he undertook to investigate all the things appertaining to Jesus Christ for the benefit of his friend, I would doubt that he has got this wrong. You rely on the earnest endeavour of researchers but as we can see from the birth dates of Jesus that they were wrong on that and so what makes you think that they are right regarding this Roman?

Luke infers that the man was in charge during the time of the first cencsus so is he quite intentionally wrong? I mean the work of that person in regards to the Gospel is totally irrelevent but Luke puts it in and others thousands of years later claim the opposite. So let's put the thing into context and then to bed.

In those days Rome worked as an institution on the hoof. Commands went out and then counter commands went out all across the Empire for that was the nature of the beast who sat at the top in Rome. As a point worth considering, is it not possible that Quirinius was announced to be governor of the region, yet never got there because of other demands?

If that were the case then Luke is not wrong. Another point is that at least one theologian has established that Quirinius served two terms in that office whether he was actually there or not. Just as an example when I was manager at one plant, I was made manager at another, it being told weeks before I got there, my bosses being inclined to hoof it as well. It is the nature of running things.

So I wouldn't put too much store on what happened in Rome or Qurinius unless of course you're determined to make something out of not being there at the time. Luke had no necessity to include Qurinius if only because in terms of the Gospel he has nothing at all to do with it, so why would he lie about it, or at best be wrong about it? Luke's subject was to prove to himself and to his friend that the things done by and to Jesus Christ actually happened. This he achieved to his own satisfaction.

[War lord]

I will leave it to another Romanophile to explain why there is no error with Quirinius,I will just say that Rome's bureaucracy from Augustus right up to Claudius(Covering most proposed dates for Christs birth) was far more organised then you give it credit for.It is also are best source for rubbishing much of the early New Testament and for spotting additions to the text from the early middle ages(It is no coincidence that the last king of Jews,a Roman collaborator and rumored Atheist is the villain of the piece.)