OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

All the 'science' guys out there.. without the exsitence of a supreme being, one that supercedes the laws of nature.. how is it possible we are here? I mean if matter cannot be created nor destroyed.. where did it come from? Before I get 'the big bang' back as an answer.. the big bang only dispersed.. it didn't create.

Quite the question. Indeed, why should there be anything at all? On this question, I think God might simply be an answer to an unknown. That is to say, by way of illustration, back in antiquity, before man understood the eclipse, it was a god doing it. That is to say, there is a conception of god which isn't really anything more than a cop-out answer to a question.

I don't believe God is necessary for the universe to exist. However, I also do not see how the conclusion God isn't necessary leads to the result: Therefore He doesn't exist. Illustrated simply, BKB isn't necessary and yet.. here I am.

Brew - if God is "the alpha and omega" as is said... if he is truly infinite (all that is, and all that is not) do you still require a cause for God, or can we say he just is, was and will be? I can certainly see why the answer would be yes. But, just wondering what your thoughts are.

 

[sandgk]

All the 'science' guys out there.. without the exsitence of a supreme being, one that supercedes the laws of nature.. how is it possible we are here? I mean if matter cannot be created nor destroyed.. where did it come from? Before I get 'the big bang' back as an answer.. the big bang only dispersed.. it didn't create.

OK -nobody liked the Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy Answer .. how about this instead? (Note the URL)

 

[Brewtus]

Quite the question. Indeed, why should there be anything at all? On this question, I think God might simply be an answer to an unknown. That is to say, by way of illustration, back in antiquity, before man understood the eclipse, it was a god doing it. That is to say, there is a conception of god which isn't really anything more than a cop-out answer to a question.

I don't believe God is necessary for the universe to exist. However, I also do not see how the conclusion God isn't necessary leads to the result: Therefore He doesn't exist. Illustrated simply, BKB isn't necessary and yet.. here I am.

Brew - if God is "the alpha and omega" as is said... if he is truly infinite (all that is, and all that is not) do you still require a cause for God, or can we say he just is, was and will be? I can certainly see why the answer would be yes. But, just wondering what your thoughts are.

If you want to define God as infinite then can't we do the same for the universe (or universes)? If the base argument is that every cause needs an effect then why does that cause have to be God? Why not just a random quantum fluctuation in spacetime that caused an expansion of matter, anti-matter, dark matter and everything else in the universe that when combined all together nets out to zero? Therefore the universe was created from nothing and when everything in the universe is added together it still nets out to nothing. This is just as plausible as "God did it".

And even if some supernatural power was required to create the universe, then that still doesn't offer any evidence that God still interacts with His creations and has any emotional involvement in humans. Why couldn't He have just created this universe and then disappeared someplace else or decided to just sit back and see what happens over the next 30 billion years?

And finally, I do agree with your "God of the Gaps" or "Argument from Ignorance" analogy. Saying that "God did it" because humans don't currently have sufficient knowledge to explain everything is not based in logic and answers nothing. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If you want to define God as infinite then can't we do the same for the universe (or universes)? If the base argument is that every cause needs an effect then why does that cause have to be God? Why not just a random quantum fluctuation in spacetime that caused an expansion of matter, anti-matter, dark matter and everything else in the universe that when combined all together nets out to zero? Therefore the universe was created from nothing and when everything in the universe is added together it still nets out to nothing. This is just as plausible as "God did it".

What if God is the universe? Sparing discussions of consciousness for the moment, as well as discussion of whether God is just the universe or the universe plus something else (And for the sake of ease, speaking of only one universe where I really mean an infinite amount), if God is the very fiber of the universe itself, then my theory is "correct" and all science, all study, all everything is God. God is... something of a collective consciousness, if you will (Before Bgrad balks, let me make clear, I do not say this to explain the full nature of God, but merely a part). If that were true, if God's "body" if you will, or his "mind" if you prefer" are observed by us as the universe itself, the begining as random quantum fluctuation in spacetime is the same as the "God as first Cause" So, I guess what I'm saying is, while I would - as is probably by now obvious - agree that the God described in the Bible is something of a "super-man" would you conceed that there is nothing which would preclude God from being the universe itself?

To further the concept, when I say the universe itself, I mean the physical things in it, but also the "rules" by which it is governed. I tend to think of it as a thought which is later developed in to some sort of physical reality. I recognized I just "poo-pooped" the Bible, so let me say, I do believe the Bible is a collection of people contemplating the nature of God (much the same as is this thread) and I also believe that there is wisdom available in it... in a mystical (I guess) sense... So, where a Biblical philospher says "Man was created in God's image" (See, Gen 1:27) I take that to mean by looking at our nature, the things we do.... we can understand something about what God might do if he was an actual thing.....

So... I think. In my head, I on occasion "see" things that I want to turn in to real objects. For example, I thought I might build a corn-hole set, and then I set out to make that set a reality. I see the universe and God as akin to this concept. God thinking "I'm gonna create the universe" and then setting out to do so... of course, this understates my true understanding of it, since I above suggest the universe was God itself (his "body") But, bringing it back, if we assume that the universe is here, and we assume that it has "life" (in that it is not a stagnant thing, but instead evolves (as the concept of Time itself seems to require), God's Mind and God's body are the same thing.

I don't know... it's not without it's holes this theory of mine, but I try to evaulte everything I see as it affects other things... or describes other things... chaos theory like. Everything is a replication of itself. So, while I am my body, and my mind is my brain, I must confess to being confounded by the belief that my "mind" is something different than my brain.... people refer to this as "the soul" In any case... if the Soul exists.... and if it is energy, then it seems to me the soul should survive physical death. (I'm begining to ramble, I think....)

Anyway.... What if God and reality were the same thing? Doesn't the issue(s) of first cause go away? Or, in any case, become the same question as "how did the universe begin?" as a quantum physicist migth ask and seek to answer?

And even if some supernatural power was required to create the universe, then that still doesn't offer any evidence that God still interacts with His creations and has any emotional involvement in humans. Why couldn't He have just created this universe and then disappeared someplace else or decided to just sit back and see what happens over the next 30 billion years?

On this point, my Mom and I disagreed. She believed God was personally involed with man (and all life (read: alien life)) I, on the other hand, believe in a more passive understanding of God. That is, I don't think he cares about the goings on on Earth.. day to day... He "set it in motion" and now just sits back, as you say. I think he's - should he exist - capable of acting (and would do so within the confines of the rules governing his creation (that is to say, without the appearance of magic)) but is not required to act. In as much as what I say above may be true, God would act much like I act with my body. I pretty much just let it do what it does... but, I can also control it when I want to (walk to a new location)*... change it when I want to (get a hair cut, for example)... make sense? This, I think, is also consistent with the "In his image" idea viewed through the lense of Chaos theory - or my understanding of it that everything is a replication of itself.

* Edit - and, if we imagine an observer living in my hair (the folicle itself), what would it look like when his universe is suddenly - and as far as he is aware, for no reason whatever - shorter? Wouldn't that be a "miracle" to him... or mystiftying, anyway? Wouldnt' he seek to explain why every X amount of time, the universe shrinks? (I thank the pot smoking scene in Animal House for this idea ) He might well call my hair cut an act of God. And, if he never came to understand that he was a thing living inside of.. indeed, was himself simply a part of another larger thing... he would always, I think, describe the shortening of his universe as an act of God. Until, of course, his universe died (that is, my body died).

And finally, I do agree with your "God of the Gaps" or "Argument from Ignorance" analogy. Saying that "God did it" because humans don't currently have sufficient knowledge to explain everything is not based in logic and answers nothing. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science.

Yeah, I'm fairly convinced that the average man, historically and now, understands God not as a being at all, but as an answer to questions they don't believe science can explain. Ironically, these same people also tend to be biblical literalists. By that I mean, to them, God must act in a way that they can appreciate. He must physically do things as a man might. He must fly in to jealous rages... he must kill the bad guys... negotiate agreements.. it give these people a charecter to accept or deny. A person, but with super-powers. Much as we might accept Luke Skywalker for purposes of Star Wars, or we are unable to suspend belief and think the movie is pure fantasy and rubbish. To me, that is not God, and in my way of thinking is precisely the same by its nature as, say.. Zues or Thor or any other 'god.' The God of the Bible (literalist) isn't any more impressive than any "pagan" God.. certainly not by acts.. If you ask me, anyway. People can reject Zues' control of the universe and do so on sound (that is, accepted) rationale... and yet, you attack their own version of the magician in the sky, and they get quite upset.

 

[kinch]

All the 'science' guys out there.. without the exsitence of a supreme being, one that supercedes the laws of nature.. how is it possible we are here? I mean if matter cannot be created nor destroyed.. where did it come from? Before I get 'the big bang' back as an answer.. the big bang only dispersed.. it didn't create.

The best candidate right now is M-theory. You can google it and probably find something that explains it somewhat, but if you are interested in it it is best to first read about string theory, from which M-theory blooms.

Quick summary:

String theory posits 10 dimensions, now maybe 11, with little vibrating strings representing the smallest parts of everything. The "tones" of the vibrations of these strings give different characteristics to the matter. String theory largely unifies Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which governs big stuff, and Quantum Mechanics, which governs little stuff, into one working framework. It it still very rough and to many seems too contrived.

M-theory is similar to string theory, and like the theories of supergravity boasts 11 dimensions. Yay! What M-theory says about the Big Bang is that there may have been two membranes, or universal planes, if you will, and when they touched the resultant outpouring of energy and matter was our Big Bang. The equations could also explain the rippling of the cosmic microwave background radiation (the branes themselves ripple and wave).

If you are interested in this stuff I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe," which is a great and interesting intro into string theory and all this jazz.

(The real answer may be that we don't know yet, but, if you believe in Science, more is known each day, and the door to, and through, the Big Bang has been opening wider and wider over a few short decades. . .)

 

[Bleed S & G]

The question I'm asking, if matter can not be created nor destroyed where did matter come from?

Maybe I've misread the couple of answers I've got, but I don't think any of them address where matter orginated.. i think the big bang is likely, just as I think evolution is likely.. but if the first rule is matter cannot be created, where did the world come from? By natural means, matter cannot be made. I guess the case could be, matter just was.. but thats the same as me saying God just was, unproven.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The question I'm asking, if matter can not be created nor destroyed where did matter come from?

Maybe I've misread the couple of answers I've got, but I don't think any of them address where matter orginated.. i think the big bang is likely, just as I think evolution is likely.. but if the first rule is matter cannot be created, where did the world come from? By natural means, matter cannot be made. I guess the case could be, matter just was.. but thats the same as me saying God just was, unproven.

And supports my theory that God (the alpha and omega) is (at least in part) all that is (matter)

 

[kinch]

The question I'm asking, if matter can not be created nor destroyed where did matter come from?

Maybe I've misread the couple of answers I've got, but I don't think any of them address where matter orginated.. i think the big bang is likely, just as I think evolution is likely.. but if the first rule is matter cannot be created, where did the world come from? By natural means, matter cannot be made. I guess the case could be, matter just was.. but thats the same as me saying God just was, unproven.

Ah. I guess that rather than answer your question, I just changed it. The idea that the singularity was created from a collision of membranes includes a number of smaller, incomplete and sometimes conflicting theories as to how the matter "leaked" into our brane: it could have been through decay, explosion, or other means.

Of course, all this does is turn the question to where did that matter come from, or where did that other brane come from, and so on. Of course, I think we (mankind) will be chasing the answer to that question, from one progenitor to the next, for well past our lifetimes.

One of my favorite aspects of M-theory, as an aside and before I bow away from this mostly theological discussion thread, is that the force of gravity is largely explained. Under the theory, only gravity interacts between the branes. This would explain why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces (think of how a small magnet can lift a paper clip away from the gravitational pull of the entire Earth). We only get as much gravity as is leaked to us from the other brane. . . (or as dark matter, perhaps).

Anyway, carry on, sorry for any distractions. . . (and I enjoy reading this thread)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Actually, Kinch, I think your information on M-Theory is important for this thread. I know it is in my conception of what God is.

I should add, above when I was talking about creating, I failed to mention that the thought itself is something that exists. That is, if I think to build an object, but fail to do so, the thought to do so is 'real' none-the-less. When say God set out to create the universe, I don't think he went to some kind of shop like a clockmaker might. The thought - at least the way I view it - was the creation itself. More of a mind of God idea than a body of God idea. Indeed, I don't believe God would have a body.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Matthew Chapter 1 discusses the geneology of Jesus. The author of Mattew "testifies" to this without indication of where he allegedly learned of this information. It's - according to the testimony, anyway - not something to could be in his common expierence, or something he observed. This is best exemplified in Matt 1:20 - 21 where Matthew testifies:

Matthew isn't competent to testify as to what visions Joseph has had. These events occured before Matthew had any association with Jesus, which was some 20 to 30 years after Jesus' birth. Matthew's inclusion of the testimony - of which he is NOT a witness - cuts towards the bias or believability of other remarks. He is more likely to testify in favor of the resurrection because he's on record as having "made up" testimony seeking to establish meaning in the alleged resurrection.

I'm not arguing within the context of a legal debate (as we have established our agreement that it really gets us no where as the faith of the jury means everything), but simply to correct a big assumption being made here. You say that Matthew was not privileged to know the information he provides because he did not come to know Jesus until 30 years after the events of his birth.

This of course misses two plausible and believeable sources from whom he could have gained the information.

First, would be Jesus himself. One must realize that ancient civilizations were obssessed with one's lineage. This is not unique to the Hebrews, but it would be the exception to find an ancient text/writing that did not contain such geneologies as found throughout the Bible. Hence, it would be surprising for Jesus to not know his lineage going back multiple centuries, especially if it was connected to King David!

Second, would be Mary. As Mary fellowshiped with the apostles before and especially after Jesus' death, it would not be surprising if she shared the events around his birth (especially after the resurrection) with them. In addition, Mary would also be very aware of the geneology issues.

I was watching a program last night called "the lost years of Jesus" on... the History Channel, I think it was... anyway... a interesting point was brought up with respect to the "testimonies" regarding the life and times of Jesus, and is one which I would attempt to elicit in this trial.... here's the jist of the point that was made:

Despite the fact that there were historians on the Emporer's payroll (charged with recording all sorts of important things) in Jesus' time, and despite the fact that the authors of the Gospels spend so much time outlining the relative importance of the man Jesus, his life and death, there is no mention of Jesus in any other texts from the time. What is the signifigance of this silence?

Let me ask you this: If you look at an American history book prior to 1960, why is there no mention of Jewish, Latino/a, or Asian contributions to the United States? Why is the discussion of Blacks limited to their slavery? Of course the answer is that the predominant culture did not believe their contributions were worth recording. Therefore, why should we be surprised to not find Jesus mentioned in official Roman histories? After all, think what Jesus represents to a Roman perspective: a peasant, from a far-flung region of the empire, of a people with a stubborn religion that insists on being distinct from Roman culture. Why would they write about him?

Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that Jesus said he had come to minister specifically to the Jews. His earthly ministry did not concern the Romans or any other gentiles, that only occurred after his resurrection. Therefore, it can be assumed that his contact with these Roman historians would have been non-existent. (In fact, it was against Jewish law to enter into the house of a gentile, so we can see how limited his contact would have been.) Also keep in mind that Jesus continually instructed his disciples to keep big events secret (e.g. the Transformation). Finally, although Jesus acknowledged on several occassions he was the Messiah, he never did it to a large public gathering for all to see. In other words, there was no marching into the temple complex and proclaiming, "I'm the promised messiah, everyone come and worship me"--something that may have been worthy of writing down!

Of course, if we look at the history written by a Jew of the first century, Flavius Josephus (granted he wasn't an exact contemporary of Jesus as he lived during the last 2/3 of the century), but in it we find a mention of Jesus. It is true that the passage in Josephus' work has been debated in academic circles as to whether or not it is authentic, but some recent discoveries have suggested that indeed it is genuine:

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testimonium.htm

On a somewhat related topic, I have to ask everyone, why has the historical accounts of the Bible been dismissed as providing truths over the last 200 years? I ask this because this morning I was reading an article on the dating of the Book of Daniel. In the article, it mentioned how Nebuchadnezzar was thought to be a a non-historical figure by many historians until archeology proved he existed. The reasoning of the historians' argument went that because Herodotus made no mention of Nebuchadnezzar in his Histories, then the man never existed and was an invention of Jewish writers. Now my question is why was Herodotus' history, or any other Greek/Roman history considered more valid than the one given in the Bible?

John seems to think it happened... See, John 18:33-19:12 for his testimony.... But, John isn't competent to testify about this... he wasn't there. (Modern Experts think John was a non-witness) John is on record as admitting his purpose in writting, specifically the miricales (which he didn't witness) is to convince people Jesus is the Son of God.... John 20:30-31. A clear example of his bias.

I'm lost, how is John a non-witness, how was he not there? He was the only disciple standing at the foot of the cross with Jesus' mother. He also ran to the empty tomb with Peter on the morning of First Fruits when they heard the report of Mary Magdalen that it was empty.

Plus, you had best reread John 20:30-31. It states that there were many miracles of Jesus after the resurrection that he (as one of the apostles) witnessed, but did not record. It says nothing about him not witnessing the miracles.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Brew - if God is "the alpha and omega" as is said... if he is truly infinite (all that is, and all that is not) do you still require a cause for God, or can we say he just is, was and will be? I can certainly see why the answer would be yes. But, just wondering what your thoughts are.

This kind of gets to my argument that God existing is just as rational a place to begin as God not existing.

Since there is existence, we have to assume one of two things: either existence just is or there is something that caused/created existence that just is. Either one of these positions is an equally rational place to begin.

 

[Brewtus]

What if God is the universe? Sparing discussions of consciousness for the moment, as well as discussion of whether God is just the universe or the universe plus something else (And for the sake of ease, speaking of only one universe where I really mean an infinite amount), if God is the very fiber of the universe itself, then my theory is "correct" and all science, all study, all everything is God. God is... something of a collective consciousness, if you will (Before Bgrad balks, let me make clear, I do not say this to explain the full nature of God, but merely a part). If that were true, if God's "body" if you will, or his "mind" if you prefer" are observed by us as the universe itself, the begining as random quantum fluctuation in spacetime is the same as the "God as first Cause" So, I guess what I'm saying is, while I would - as is probably by now obvious - agree that the God described in the Bible is something of a "super-man" would you conceed that there is nothing which would preclude God from being the universe itself?
.
.
.
Anyway.... What if God and reality were the same thing? Doesn't the issue(s) of first cause go away? Or, in any case, become the same question as "how did the universe begin?" as a quantum physicist migth ask and seek to answer?

This is the version of "god" that I'm most inclined to accept as being a possibility. But if a personal God doesn't exist and this "god" does, then I'm not concerned about his/her/its existence anyway since everything is merely speculation. If a personal God exists, one who answers prayers, performs miracles, interacts with and accepts humans into heaven, etc., then that's the supreme being I'm interested in studying since there would be some direct evidence of this God. It would be theoretically possible to study the physical results of miracles, measure how the soul interacts with the brain, record conversations with God, etc. But alas there is absolutely no evidence of a personal God and belief in one is entirely built on faith.

However, if an initial creator-of-the-universe type god does exists but chooses to now just sit in the background unseen, I really have no interest in specifically attempting to discover this god (how could I if he wants to remain hidden). I'd prefer to stay in the realm of science and continue to see how our knowledge and understanding of the universe develops. Perhaps some discovery might be made in the future that provides some sort of overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the existence of a "creator", but for the moment extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[buckeyegrad]

But, didn't Jesus' views contradict the "scripture" of his day? Why is he to be believed?

In one word: NO

Jesus never contradicted the written Torah. His disagreements was with the oral torah, which he considered the additions of man's ideas to God's commands.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm not arguing within the context of a legal debate (as we have established our agreement that it really gets us no where as the faith of the jury means everything), but simply to correct a big assumption being made here. You say that Matthew was not privileged to know the information he provides because he did not come to know Jesus until 30 years after the events of his birth.

This of course misses two plausible and believeable sources from whom he could have gained the information.

First, would be Jesus himself. One must realize that ancient civilizations were obssessed with one's lineage. This is not unique to the Hebrews, but it would be the exception to find an ancient text/writing that did not contain such geneologies as found throughout the Bible. Hence, it would be surprising for Jesus to not know his lineage going back multiple centuries, especially if it was connected to King David!

Second, would be Mary. As Mary fellowshiped with the apostles before and especially after Jesus' death, it would not be surprising if she shared the events around his birth (especially after the resurrection) with them. In addition, Mary would also be very aware of the geneology issues.

Well, of course one could rationally believe Matthew got his info from either of these two sources (a third being, as Tbuckeyescott has claimed before, there was a written genealogy at his disposal). But, Matthew doesn't tell us and so (nor does anyone else, and certainly not Mary or Jesus, neither of whom wrote anything, so far as I can tell.) Thus, questioning his competence to testify about this is certainly reasonable and I argue cuts against believability. But, you are saved by faith. You dont need reason to have faith.

Likewise, and I know you said you're not trying the legal argument thing, but if it is as either of the two possibilities you've mentioned, then I would object on hearsay grounds. You might be able to convince a judge, however, that you're not offering the testimony for the truth of the matter, but then I would say "fine, it's irrelevant" (as it relates to resurrection) In any case, you asked how I'd attack these claims, and I hope I have done a good enough job exposing some of the weaknesses and offered some rationale as to why the information can be disbelieved.

Let me ask you this: If you look at an American history book prior to 1960, why is there no mention of Jewish, Latino/a, or Asian contributions to the United States? Why is the discussion of Blacks limited to their slavery? Of course the answer is that the predominant culture did not believe their contributions were worth recording. Therefore, why should we be surprised to not find Jesus mentioned in official Roman histories? After all, think what Jesus represents to a Roman perspective: a peasant, from a far-flung region of the empire, of a people with a stubborn religion that insists on being distinct from Roman culture. Why would they write about him?

This represents an excuse for the failure of any "official" documentation. It is, of course, a perfectly reasonable excuse. To be believed or not to be believed by the jury. But, it doesn't prove anything, and does not make any doubt raised "unreasonable" (again, you earlier said the standard was beyond a reasonable doubt.)

Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that Jesus said he had come to minister specifically to the Jews. His earthly ministry did not concern the Romans or any other gentiles, that only occurred after his resurrection. Therefore, it can be assumed that his contact with these Roman historians would have been non-existent. (In fact, it was against Jewish law to enter into the house of a gentile, so we can see how limited his contact would have been.) Also keep in mind that Jesus continually instructed his disciples to keep big events secret (e.g. the Transformation). Finally, although Jesus acknowledged on several occassions he was the Messiah, he never did it to a large public gathering for all to see. In other words, there was no marching into the temple complex and proclaiming, "I'm the promised messiah, everyone come and worship me"--something that may have been worthy of writing down!

But, if what you're saying is true (Can't enter the house of a gentile) why would the Gospels mention him being brought before Pilate? See, Mt. 27:24; Mk 15:9-11; Lk 23:14; Jn 18:33-40; 19:12 You can't have it both ways. He had contact with Pilate, if your Gospels are to be believed. And yet, Pilate's historian? No mention whatsoever. Jesus was to Pilate a phantom (that is, never happened) or some crazy bum he didnt think much about, much less important enough to mention his contact with Jesus to his historian (even after a finding of innocent the man was ultimately crucified... Pilate's opinion? Eh.. who cares... Not worth mentioning in any of his official documents).

Likewise, Jesus didn't have to make these bold claims, the accusers of him did. Clearly the Romans (Or Pilate, anyway) didn't think much of it.

Of course, if we look at the history written by a Jew of the first century, Flavius Josephus (granted he wasn't an exact contemporary of Jesus as he lived during the last 2/3 of the century), but in it we find a mention of Jesus. It is true that the passage in Josephus' work has been debated in academic circles as to whether or not it is authentic, but some recent discoveries have suggested that indeed it is genuine:

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testimonium.htm

On a somewhat related topic, I have to ask everyone, why has the historical accounts of the Bible been dismissed as providing truths over the last 200 years? I ask this because this morning I was reading an article on the dating of the Book of Daniel. In the article, it mentioned how Nebuchadnezzar was thought to be a a non-historical figure by many historians until archeology proved he existed. The reasoning of the historians' argument went that because Herodotus made no mention of Nebuchadnezzar in his Histories, then the man never existed and was an invention of Jewish writers. Now my question is why was Herodotus' history, or any other Greek/Roman history considered more valid than the one given in the Bible?

Personally, I'd say one text standing against another proves nothing (classic he said, she said). True of the Greeks as well as the Bible.

I'm lost, how is John a non-witness, how was he not there? He was the only disciple standing at the foot of the cross with Jesus' mother. He also ran to the empty tomb with Peter on the morning of First Fruits when they heard the report of Mary Magdalen that it was empty.

Even your own experts cannot agree on who the Author of the book of John is and when it was written.. much less that it was the disciple John himself.

Plus, you had best reread John 20:30-31. It states that there were many miracles of Jesus after the resurrection that he (as one of the apostles) witnessed, but did not record. It says nothing about him not witnessing the miracles.

Again, prove to me first that the Book of John is written by the Apostle John. I respect your education in this area, but everything I have ever researched on the Book of John indicates there is even to this day no agreement on who wrote it.

You make the remark about obsession with genealogy being common, so I think it's fair for me to dangle this one out there as well (though, I'm citing a source - which I happen to be reading, so I'm more than dangling, I guess).. it was also common for authors of this time to "attribute their works to famous dead people in order to gain acceptance for their ideas" "The Missing Books of the Bible, Volume I" p.9 (Explaining why it is likely that the Aprocryphal books of Esdras was not written by Ezra, nor the Wisdom of Solomon written by Solomon.)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

In one word: NO

Jesus never contradicted the written Torah. His disagreements was with the oral torah, which he considered the additions of man's ideas to God's commands.

Remember the sabbath to keep it holy. Exodus 20:8-11
v.
Jesus healing people on the sabbath. Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6

Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.

14Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." 15The Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?"

Ironically, I agree with Jesus here - God would rather man help man regardless of the day.. just saying he wasn't following a literal translation (or understanding) of the Torah...

Edit: I anticipate a response noting that nothing I've cited mentions healing being considered work. Yet, Jesus himself notes that the orthodox rules would require that people not even untie oxen. So....

Maybe that's not irony... after all, my position on the Bible leads to this result rather easily (No need to believe it a divine decree).