Were the Gospel accounts a mythology of Jesus?

[RedFan]

The High Priest always retained the title of High Priest after he was too old or removed. Remember Annas and Caiaphas. Annas(old) was High Priest and so was Caiaphas. Ahimelech was High Priest(old) and so was Abiathar. Usually past down Father to son.

I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, many facial inconsistencies in Scripture can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them? The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy. But the presumption itself lacks any logical support. Whence cometh the axiom that every factual detail in the Bible, no matter how insignificant, must be literally true?

Ask an inerrantist whether Jesus sent his apostles out with sandals and staff (Mark 6:8-9) or without them (Matt. 10:10), and the answer will come back “The gospels must have been describing two different missions.” Ask where the “must have” comes from, and the answer ultimately comes back, in words or substance, that the consistency of Scripture is a given.

Even for the inerrantist, it is not crucial to know whether the disciples were sent out with or without sandals for a particular mission. They don’t care which instruction was given, any more than they care whether the law requires driving on the left or on the right side of the road. But they care deeply that only one instruction was given, for otherwise their world would be as chaotic as a world in which the law allowed driving on both sides of the road. If the texts of two gospels give two different answers to any question―even to the issue of apostolic footwear―they care deeply that one of them be explained away.

It’s a slippery slope thing with them. It’s a Luke 16:10 thing. Most of us would not be scandalized in the least by one of two gospel authors getting a theologically-irrelevant detail wrong. But the inerrantist demands literal historical truth on every detail, however minor, because for him, there aren’t two gospel authors. There is only one, and He cannot err.

I do not see the point in downplaying the human element like this. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details.

 

[Lambano]

You kinda have to do a lot of unnatural acts with the text in order to maintain the inerrancy presupposition. You have to ask yourself: Why should this even be necessary?

 

[Rockerduck]

That's a good workaround, but what do the passages in question indicate?
What authority did a retired priest have in the matter of eating the consecrated bread?
Did Abiathar make the decision to allow the eating the consecrated bread? See below.

Mark 2:25-26 NIV
He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?
26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread,
which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

--- COMPARE ---

1 Samuel 21:1-5 NIV
David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked,
“Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
2 David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me,
‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’
As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place.
3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”
4 But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however,
there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.”
5 David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever[b] I set out.
The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!”

[

The High Priest was aware of David's closeness to Saul. David told Abiathar/Ahimelech he was on a secret mission. He got the bread and Goliaths sword. The High Priest also knew David was a prophet and talked to God, therefore had authority for the priestly bread, as a prophet. Ahimelech was of the house of Eli. Doeg was there too and ended up killing all the Priests, except Abiathar escaped. In 1 Samuel 3:12 God Judged the house of Eli. Doeg carried it out. Doeg was an Edomite/Amalekite. King Saul was supposed to wipe out the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. It all ties together.

 

[Behold]

Discussion on another thread about the potential mythology of the Old Testament
raised questions for me about the Gospel accounts. Were they mythology as well?

Consider this:
- Questionable authorship.
- Remarkable sameness of synoptic accounts. (copied) ???
- Written decades after the events.
- Based on an oral tradition. (like Genesis)

Seems to be a case for the idea.

--- ADDENDUM ---

I should clarify that I am not questioning whether the people in the Gospel accounts were real people.
History shows that they were. The question is whether the stories about them changed due to the length of time it took
to record the events. We read the words of the recorded oral tradition as if they are fresh eye-witness accounts.
That's not what happened. Check the estimated writing dates of the Gospels. 40 AD as the earliest date. (70 to 140 as latest)

[

You are still trying to cast doubt on the word of God.

How many Threads now?

Find another Ministry, @St. SteVen .

 

[St. SteVen]

The High Priest was aware of David's closeness to Saul. David told Abiathar/Ahimelech he was on a secret mission. He got the bread and Goliaths sword. The High Priest also knew David was a prophet and talked to God, therefore had authority for the priestly bread, as a prophet. Ahimelech was of the house of Eli. Doeg was there too and ended up killing all the Priests, except Abiathar escaped. In 1 Samuel 3:12 God Judged the house of Eli. Doeg carried it out. Doeg was an Edomite/Amalekite. King Saul was supposed to wipe out the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. It all ties together.

In context, the point Jesus was making was that the consecrated bread was lawful only for priests to eat.
The disciples and Jesus by inference (David and his companions) were caught gathering food on the Sabbath.
You can posit that David was a priest (even though God would not allow him to build the Temple) but certainly
David's companions weren't priests. Unless I am missing something here.

Mark 2:25-26 NIV
He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?
26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread,
which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

[

 

[Rockerduck]

In context, the point Jesus was making was that the consecrated bread was lawful only for priests to eat.
The disciples and Jesus by inference (David and his companions) were caught gathering food on the Sabbath.
You can posit that David was a priest (even though God would not allow him to build the Temple) but certainly
David's companions weren't priests. Unless I am missing something here.

Mark 2:25-26 NIV
He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?
26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread,
which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

[

Yes, I agree. Abiathar was probably intimidated by David, seeing how he was famous for killing Goliath and part of the Royal family because he married Michal, Saul's daughter.

 

[Stumpmaster]

St. SteVen said:
"... I regret that I have made them." - vs 7

Sorry. Your post gave me a chuckle. (I'm not laughing AT you) "... just like this conversation." - LOL (sigh)

I agree that if taken as history, it appears to have been part of the plan, although a very questionable part, as plans go.
I think the God is better than that. Especially when you weigh the cost.

- As history it means: a botched plan with planetary genocide as the solution/cover-up. ???
- As mythology it means: A dramatic story with a spiritual lesson. ???

Interesting that the church/Bible has tried to take the edge off this story by tacking a rainbow at the end. Happy, happy...

[ cc: @RedFan

Accusing God of anything doesn't bode well. It's not something I need or desire to do.

 

[St. SteVen]

Accusing God of anything doesn't bode well. It's not something I need or desire to do.

Well okay. In that case, which is the better choice?

- As history it means: a botched plan with planetary genocide as the solution/cover-up. ???
- As mythology it means: A dramatic story with a spiritual lesson. ???

If God would not have done that historically, then the myth serves his character better, right?

[ cc: @RedFan

 

[Stumpmaster]

Well okay. In that case, which is the better choice?

- As history it means: a botched plan with planetary genocide as the solution/cover-up. ???
- As mythology it means: A dramatic story with a spiritual lesson. ???

If God would not have done that historically, then the myth serves his character better, right?

[ cc: @RedFan

To me that's Strawman Fallacy stuff, since God doesn't botch anything, doesn't reside in mythology, and is not answerable to mankind for His actions.

 

[St. SteVen]

To me that's Strawman Fallacy stuff, since God doesn't botch anything, doesn't reside in mythology, and is not answerable to mankind for His actions.

The problem with that is you just described a tyrant.
Is God a cosmic playground bully? Our a celestial gangster godfather making us "an offer we can't refuse"?
Does God hold us to a higher standard of morality than he holds himself? Is godly character subhuman?

[

 

[Stumpmaster]

The problem with that is you just described a tyrant.
Is God a cosmic playground bully? Our a celestial gangster godfather making us "an offer we can't refuse"?
Does God hold us to a higher standard of morality than he holds himself? Is godly character subhuman?

That god is a myth. My God is none of the above, and in the Bible He is a Righteous Judge and Merciful Saviour.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
The problem with that is you just described a tyrant.
Is God a cosmic playground bully? Our a celestial gangster godfather making us "an offer we can't refuse"?
Does God hold us to a higher standard of morality than he holds himself? Is godly character subhuman?

That god is a myth. My God is none of the above, and in the Bible He is a Righteous Judge and Merciful Saviour.

Really?
Here's what you wrote.

God doesn't botch anything, doesn't reside in mythology, and is not answerable to mankind for His actions.

You described a tyrant.
The global genocide wasn't a myth? = Tyrant.
Doesn't botch anything? Here's the quote below.
Is this history, or mythology? History = botched.

Genesis 6:5-7 NIV
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth,
and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth,
and his heart was deeply troubled.
7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—
and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—
for I regret that I have made them.”

[

 

[Stumpmaster]

St. SteVen said:
The problem with that is you just described a tyrant.
Is God a cosmic playground bully? Our a celestial gangster godfather making us "an offer we can't refuse"?
Does God hold us to a higher standard of morality than he holds himself? Is godly character subhuman?

Really?
Here's what you wrote.

You described a tyrant.
The global genocide wasn't a myth? = Tyrant.
Doesn't botch anything? Here's the quote below.
Is this history, or mythology? History = botched.

Genesis 6:5-7 NIV
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth,
and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth,
and his heart was deeply troubled.
7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—
and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—
for I regret that I have made them.”

So, in those verses God is following His Perfect Plan.

Scene1: In the Creation Account the Universe God created for humanity is good because God is Good.

Scene 2: In the Fall Account everything God created for humanity is corrupted because humanity is corrupted.

The redemption of fallen humanity was always part of God's Plan, just as was giving mankind the ability to choose in some aspects of destiny, all the while knowing exactly what choices mankind will make.

His Judgement of Mankind is always righteous.

Fast forward to the Apocalypse for the Outpouring of God's Wrath on Wicked Humanity

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
The problem with that is you just described a tyrant.
Is God a cosmic playground bully? Our a celestial gangster godfather making us "an offer we can't refuse"?
Does God hold us to a higher standard of morality than he holds himself? Is godly character subhuman?

Really?
Here's what you wrote.

You described a tyrant.
The global genocide wasn't a myth? = Tyrant.
Doesn't botch anything? Here's the quote below.
Is this history, or mythology? History = botched.

Genesis 6:5-7 NIV
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth,
and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth,
and his heart was deeply troubled.
7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—
and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—
for I regret that I have made them.”

So, in those verses God is following His Perfect Plan.

Global genocide as a cover-up for a botched plan is part of a perfect plan?
Wow. Are we that gullible?

Scene1: In the Creation Account the Universe God created for humanity is good because God is Good.

Yes, God said it was good. Apparently it wasn't great. ???

Scene 2: In the Fall Account everything God created for humanity is corrupted because humanity is corrupted.

The Fall corrupted EVERYTHING God created? Then EVERYTHING was not good?
God put the Tree in the middle of the garden. (orchard)
What did he think would happen? Botched.

The redemption of fallen humanity was always part of God's Plan, just as was giving mankind the ability to choose in some aspects of destiny, all the while knowing exactly what choices mankind will make.

I agree that "The redemption of fallen humanity was always part of God's Plan".

His Judgement of Mankind is always righteous.

Not the way you understand it. You say God is not answerable for His actions.

[

 

[Jack]

The problem with that is you just described a tyrant.
Is God a cosmic playground bully? Our a celestial gangster godfather making us "an offer we can't refuse"?
Does God hold us to a higher standard of morality than he holds himself? Is godly character subhuman?

Everyone will learn to FEAR God, now or in Hell.

Psalm 111:10
10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;

 

[Stumpmaster]

You say God is not answerable for His actions.

Guess where I got that idea . . .

Job 36:22-23 "Behold, God is exalted by His power; Who teaches like Him? (23) Who has assigned Him His way, Or who has said, 'You have done wrong'?

Isa 40:12-15 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, Measured heaven with a span And calculated the dust of the earth in a measure? Weighed the mountains in scales And the hills in a balance? (13) Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has taught Him? (14) With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him, And taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, And showed Him the way of understanding? (15) Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket, And are counted as the small dust on the scales; Look, He lifts up the isles as a very little thing.

Rom 3:3-6 For what if some were without faith? Will their lack of faith nullify the faithfulness of God? (4) May it never be! Yes, let God be found true, but every man a liar. As it is written, “That you might be justified in your words, and might prevail when you come into judgment.” (5) But if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what will we say? Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath? I speak like men do. (6) May it never be! For then how will God judge the world?

Rom 9:20-24 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" (21) Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (22) What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, (24) even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Rom 11:33-35 Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! (34) “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (35) “Or who has first given to him, and it will be repaid to him again?”

 

[Lambano]

Not the way you understand it. You say God is not answerable for His actions.

Like the old punchline, "Is there anybody else up there?"

 

[St. SteVen]

Guess where I got that idea . . .

= Tyrant.
Are you sure that is the God you serve?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Like the old punchline, "Is there anybody else up there?"

--- PARODY ---

God: Welcome to the afterlife.
Person: Who are you?
God: I created you for my own purposes.
Person: Like what?
God: For destruction.
Person: What does that mean?
God: You will be annihilated.
Person: Why?
God: It was my choice for you.
Person: What did I do to deserve this?
God: You were born a sinner.
Person: Not by my choice.
God: Right. By my choice.
Person: Was that fair?
God: It doesn't matter. You can't stop me.
Person: Who did you say you were again?
You sound more like the Devil than God.

/

 

[Stumpmaster]

= Tyrant.
Are you sure that is the God you serve?

[

Let's just say Paul the Apostle and I are in agreement that God is not a tyrant.

--- PARODY ---

God: Welcome to the afterlife.
Person: Who are you?
God: I created you for my own purposes.
Person: Like what?
God: For destruction.
Person: What does that mean?
God: You will be annihilated.
Person: Why?
God: It was my choice for you.
Person: What did I do to deserve this?
God: You were born a sinner.
Person: Not by my choice.
God: Right. By my choice.
Person: Was that fair?
God: It doesn't matter. You can't stop me.
Person: Who did you say you were again?
You sound more like the Devil than God.

The Antihuman Uprising: