Atticus Finch wrote:
I understand the logic behind your question. The problem, however, and as I realize, it is not that it's God's purpose we're reviewing and debating but rather the means in which He acted it out.
I was wondering during the 3 years Jesus walked His way till the cross; He travelled intensively among the peoples; if he would be to write down His diary and teaching, He had to bring along with himself tools of writings;
what were the tools of writing those days? Writing existed from at least the third B.C; Records were scratched on stone, clay, potsherds (known as 'ostraca') , wood and ivory. Cuneiform script was the earliest form of writing; it was made by impressing a wedge-shaped implement onto wet clay. Later papyrus (made from the papyrus plant growing along the Nile) was used and made into scrolls. The famous Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 included copies of every Old Testaments. The pages were stitched together and the 'book' known as a 'codex'.
Is it convenient for Jesus, travelling intensively away from his home (Joseph and Mary's) in Bethehem, carrying with himself these 'tools of writing'?
You are not going to suggest, after Jesus resurrection and His re-appearing to His apostles, He might have found some places, settling himself down patiently writing down what he did and stitching them onto a scrolls, are you? Is it probable? I never said it is improbable. but i suggest a reason that if such writings exist, they could be quite minimal.
If I were in Jesus's position, hustling about healing, teaching, and praying with little sleep, I sweated so much and got so tired, and I put myself settling in a quiet place writing things down like a boyscout in his adventurous trip, it would've been the most wonderful experience I have ever heard.
Atticus Finch wrote:
If God planned to beget a Son (Jesus) and that this man would be great at would through His death clear the people's sins, then why did He only allow this man three years to accomplish his worldly purpose of non-worldly teachings? Isn't it true that while Jesus' life was known to many in that region, in comparison to a major event of today's world it would have only been a mere murmour which travelled of the man's life?
If non-worldly teachings durng the 3 years is already enough for salvation purpose, I find no reason why number other than "3" is more meaningful.
Neither do I think, the longer the account about Jesus's life the better the preaching is to the people in the world. It sounds sort of irrelevant.
Atticus Finch wrote:
As my reasoning and logic wishes to tell me, God would not come to earth in the body of a man (whilst still remaining fully God, etc -- by the way this is such a difficult point to grasp theologically) and only be known to a certain group of people and not that many at all before the word spread. We have so many accounts of Jesus' life; the few that we know best and then the "others" which present a totally different view of Jesus and his teachings and his life. What would happen if the Council of Nicea had chosen not the books which we know now? They had the decision to shape and define christianity for all ages to come. The book we hold now we call "Holy" and "Divinely Inspired" because an inspiration alone is from the mind whereas a Divine inspiration is straight from God to a person. When I read Paul's contributions I feel a simple human inspirational writing. Many people are not so sure about Paul. Thomas Jefferson wasn't either.
If the Bible was collected by men as they sought to find the inspired writings how can we fully trust that the christian doctrine and theology which we follow is not a man-made one and not the Divine one? I read that the final decision for the NT books was decided by throwing the books on a table and the ones which fell off weren't left in. That's probably a rumour but it still seems relevant when looking at the NT objectively. Jude: cool name but is that letter really needed in our Bible? It takes up less than a page as does a few of John's writings. It seems something of a random choice when looking at it. I can't deny this anymore.
You sound like suspecting the books chosen in a fashion people manipulated to shape a religion which deviates from what it originally means, right?
Suppose we likening the archaelogical findings about Jesus accounts to pieces of puzzle describing Jesus's life. Suppose only 75% of puzzles jigsawed together to give an account of the Bible which is circularized throughout the world and the remaining 25% is never divulged or probably hid away somewhere else, e.g. in Vatican.
Are you suggesting that, with our hands to re-jigsaw the puzzle we could get another pictures of Jesus's life which is not the face of bible as we see now a day? It is a suspicion and probably you are right, but another picture of Jesus's account puzzle never emerges great enough to outweight the present Jesus's account puzzle so alarming and amazing to realize He is God.
Suppose you are the scientist discovering Red-shift in universe, but you still doubt if the scientific results are false, you are searching some other evidence to falsify what you had found, does it make sense?
Atticus Finch wrote:
People say that the entire Bible is the literal inspiration from God. They say this even when authors of the NT are in grave doubt as to being the real writers. From my observations of the world and as I live the hermit's life, I've seen that everyone has an agenda. I don't watch the news because it is simply the view of someone who wishes to express their own view. People will often say to children, "Don't play with that kid. He stole an eraser from school! He's a bad kid!" but what is this really? It probably has more roots in some petty conflict between the parents of both children. Everything we were taught as children was based on the truths which our parents had gained through their lives. It goes in circles. We will pass on to our kids what we believe and they to theirs. There doesn't seem to be any objective reality or morality or truth which one person can say and another agree on. Christians refute other religions but those of those religions also refute christianity. Can we place a patent on truth? If you say this is the truth then how can I being of different mind follow along?
If three people lay on a hill and observe the clouds in the sky they will each form their imaginative opinions of the shapes in which theu perceive the clouds to take. Only once person #1 expresses his views will #2 and #3 conform their ideas to suit it. Person #3 might influence #1 to change his mind and then #2 will follow suit once again, ever playing the sheep and conformist to others. Only when their own views are not spoken can they each establish their own and personal objective truth. It becomes subjective once the other people chime in with their thoughts. Such is the case with religions. To one person he has the truth, to another it is a fabrication and a lie. Which is truth?
I bet that every religion teaches to follow only that one and to avoid the false teachings of others. What makes the Bible different to this? Paul seems the most avid in proclaiming that message. Is it not somewhat reasonable to say that religion is unreasonable unless one receives a personal revelation of the Divine? Who can trust someone from the past who has no history?
You remind me of Isaace Newton when he discovered the gravitational force after apple fell down to hit his head; and his discovery we call... "Laws" like the Newton 1st, 2nd and 3rd laws. Do you consider that Newston's three laws are eternal unaltered and truth generally in nature and in the universe (putting aside motion in velocity of light) ?
If you read over Roman 6:7-25, Paul discovered another laws - a spiritual laws which sounds eternal and true like Newton's laws of nature - applicable to human beings of the past, present and future, unless these are of unsound mind or insane, do you consider that it is truth? even though Paul has died for 2000 years, his discovery of this spiritual law (if you would like to call them laws but from religious viewpoints, they are virtually Jesus teachings), is great and still applies to you and me, and other fellows we meet.
If what bible says is related to law which is true anytime, anyplace and for any person, it is no more a matter of "exalting a religion at the expense of others" which is political mean other than truth.