St. Paul was the only human who lived in the first and second centuries AD

[alfred russel]

It is like watching some apologist explain how the two Genesis stories really can work together...

To be fair, from very early on those stories were treated symbolically (though not universally of course). Augustine viewed them as highly symbolic truths that didn't describe how the world literally came into being. He hypothosized god created the world instantaneously.

[Berkut]

Anyone creating a consistent and rational religion would probably rather the line never exist to begin with - after all, it doesn't square well with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, does it?

I see what you mean.  I agree.  The biggest problem for Christianity is that it isnt coherent for the very reason that so many people contributed to the formation of what became the Bible and it took centuries to come to any agreement on what would be accepted as orthodox and even then there were significant disagreements amongst those works.

Exactly.

This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.

It really is quite amusing.

[crazy canuck]

I agree.  But we dont even have to look for something that dramatic.  Take the gospel of Thomas or even the gospel of Judas. Same themes as the Gospels in the Bible but delivered to communities that didnt win the theological war.

[Valmy]

As I recall the impetus for this question was:

"Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") - Mark 15:34

God is omnipotent so of course he can forsake himself.  He can do anything.

[Berkut]

It is like watching some apologist explain how the two Genesis stories really can work together...

To be fair, from very early on those stories were treated symbolically (though not universally of course). Augustine viewed them as highly symbolic truths that didn't describe how the world literally came into being. He hypothosized god created the world instantaneously.

Sure, why not? That is a standard response to those things in the Bible that simply do not make any damn sense at all. It is just another example of the need to square the circle that is biblical apologism.

Although you still see plenty of people insist that no such symbolism cop out is needed, and in fact Genesis is not only literal truth, but both contradictory versions are in fact literal truth.

[alfred russel]

So essentially in the church's view he was schizophrenic between human and divine characters? (that is a serious question, even if it may not seem that way)

That's always been my interpretation of it, yeah.  God the Father is God the Son, but in creating the Son aspect God apparently gave his Son some degree of autonomy while still remaining inextricably fused to him, and the differing aspects reuinted once God the Son was Resurrected.

That makes no sense. Why would the human Jesus then speak to the divine God, if they were present in the same body? Why not have an inner dialogue, if they were really two beings?

[Valmy]

This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.

You mean how all four gospels give conflicting stories and have entirely different events occuring in each one yet are all somehow authoritative and literally true?

[Caliga]

This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.

It really is quite amusing.

To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.

To fahdiz's great credit, while he was in his Catholic phase he never claimed that the Bible was the literal word of God.

[Caliga]

That makes no sense. Why would the human Jesus then speak to the divine God, if they were present in the same body? Why not have an inner dialogue, if they were really two beings?

I suppose you could argue that that quote represents an inner dialogue, or maybe that Jesus just liked to mumble his thoughts aloud.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

There was no one in Rome with the title of Pope during that time.  The whole notion that the Pope can trace his line from Peter in Rome is all revisionist propoganda. 

isn't the line generally traced through the title 'bisshop of rome' rather than 'pope'?

[Caliga]

You mean how all four gospels give conflicting stories and have entirely different events occuring in each one yet are all somehow authoritative and literally true?

I don't think they are generally contradictory or include different events (though some provide more detail with respect to specific events), but I always thought it odd that all four are included in the orthodox Bible.

[crazy canuck]

Exactly.

This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.

It really is quite amusing.

Reading Ehrman's books is interesting to see his thinking evolve because of this very problem.

[Berkut]

This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.

It really is quite amusing.

To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.

To fahdiz's great credit, while he was in his Catholic phase he never claimed that the Bible was the literal word of God.

Yeah, but even if you accept that it isn't all literally true, it still has to make coherent sense, as a message.

Sure, teh genesis stories (for example) can be figurative, but then you ahve to figure out what that means, what message it is trying to send *instead* of being a literal account of creation - and half the time those messages are contradictory!

"My god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?"

That is pretty damn hard to square with the central theme of Christianity. It is fun to see the hoops people will jump through to make it work, somehow.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think they are generally contradictory or include different events (though some provide more detail with respect to specific events), but I always thought it odd that all four are included in the orthodox Bible.

This is my day for disagreeing with you.

Just compare the resurrection stories.  Look at who sees Jesus first, who was with them etc.  a small example but all the stories conflict.

I once wrote a long post on a number of areas in which the Gospels conflict but that was on the old site and I dont think I could reproduce it now.

[Berkut]

This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.

It really is quite amusing.

To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.

You know Cal, on one level, I actually have more respect for the "nutty" Christian who just jams their head in the sand and refuses to even think about the contradictions, and insists they do not exist. At least they are simply refusing to be critical, and relying purely on obstinance and faith.

On the other hand, you see extremely intellgent people doing what is, IMO, basically the same thing, but doing so under the guise of "scholarship". So you see the creation of this incredible complex theology, this creation of an entire realm of study that people spend their lives tweaking, studying, understanding, revising, all based on this fundamentally irrational premise.