Why do Christians NEED the Bible to be Written by God?
If you want to see some truly faulty logic, torturous reasoning and mental gymnastics at work, confront a believer with a blatant Biblical contradiction, then sit back and watch them attempt to jump through the hoops of explaining how a contradiction isn't REALLY a contradiction. Accepting these baffling explanations essentially amounts to nodding in agreement at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party conversations.
This leads to the obvious follow-up question: "Why?" When confronted by obvious contradictions in any other facet of life, no attempt is made to explain away the contradiction. When police are questioning 2 partners in crime suspected of theft, and the 2 alibis don't jive, the cops don't look for ways to make both of the explanations true. They simply accept that at least on of them must be necessarily false.
Believers adhere rigorously to this same modus operandi in their lives...until it comes to the Bible (or Quran, or Book of Mormon, etc.) My question is: Instead of saying, "Contradictions are present, therefore this couldn't have been written by God," why do believers say, "Since this was OBVIOUSLY written by God, it must not REALLY be a contradiction"? Why do they so NEED to believe that their book was divinely authored that they willingly reject the very reason and logic they find it useful to employ in other aspects of their life?I think it's so they feel they have some 'authority' about it
What do you consider the best example of a Biblical contradiction and it's specific theological ramifications?
Examples of contradictions of a theological nature would be:
1. the verses stating that God cannot be - and has never been - seen nor heard vs. the myriad of verses stating that various people saw or heard God.
2. the contradiction about whether or not Jesus is a judge: He states that, "I judges no man." (John 8:15); and, "I did not come into the world to judge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47)
vs. "For judgment have I come into the world." (John 9:39); and "The Father judges no one but has committed all judgments to the Son." (John 5:22, which is itself a contradiction of the verses that say God the Father will be the final judge)
Those are just a couple out of the hundreds of examples.Hmm, not to stir the pot, but:
a. I have not come TO JUDGE v. b) I have come FOR JUDGMENT are two completely different things.
If you read the text correctly, you can see even though judgment WAS commissioned to him, did not execute that right, instead, to fulfill the judgment of the The Law, took all condemnation upon himself --therefore removing ALL judgment based on The Law & The Prophets, which was the obstacle.
Religion didn't like it then (note the Pharisee ripping their clothes, trying to stone him and eventually having him killed by hired thugs) and certainly, religion doesn't like it today.
It kills every doctrine.
James.It doesn't sound like you solved the problem. Or if you did, you created another one to take its place. IF your explanation about Jesus removing all judgment is correct is (and not just theorizing), it renders the passage about his coming for judgment inaccurate. There's a BIG difference between coming into the world for judgment [what was written] vs. coming into the world to REMOVE judgment [what you've asserted]. Furthermore, what (or whose) judgment was he removing since it states that the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son?
Incorrect again,
"coming or "going" is irrelevant.
The "Judgment" in question was the authority to condemn or free --by the rules of Covenant Law. What is written, that is the law, had to be judged -meaning the events pro or con the elements of that Law. The Law handed down by/to Moses is what he came to remove. The obstacle of rule, the obstacle of penalty of the rules, by the collective elements of the Law itself.
So, when he says he came "for judgment", he came "in place of" and as the "spokesman of" said Law. So, all the Law, its requirements and pro or con effects (judgments) rested on him. Now accordingly, even though he could have enforced all judgment per individual, chose not to enforce or commit the "requirements" of the Law --the judgments therein-- to humans. This was promised to occur long before Moses received the Commands. By not judging humans based on the requirement of the Law (to keep it completely) nor the effects of the law (not keeping it == death), he, by placing himself as mediator, and in essence null-void the requirements and the judgment of it. This was exemplified at the Mosaic event and 2nd highest Hebrew Holiday "Pass Over".
So, the Law --and all its parts (requirements & judgments) are complete and no longer held against humans --as doing right or wrong. It has been superseded with a New Law, a New Judgment of Righteousness (by works of Faith) based on the foundation (rules/requirements) of Mercy.
This is exemplified by the Arc of the Covenant --that sealed in the Rod of Authority, the Commands, The Manna & Moses Writings --then, set upon it was the Mercy Seat, where the Spirit resides.
In short, the Law is beneath Mercy and Judgment now resides, is ruled by, comes through, is committed, convicted and accomplished by Faith.
James.Thanks James. I wasulling over those 'apparent' contradictions on my drive to work this morning, but you have summed up the solution most eloquently.
This has to be one of the most convoluted explanations for anything I've ever read! Aside from the fact that you've clearly read into the text an inordinate amount of material that's nowhere to be found, you're still missing the main point altogether: Regardless of whether or not Jesus came TO judge or to "remove" judgment 2000 years ago, the fact still remains that everyone IS supposedly going to face ACTUAL judgment at some point in the future. Some verses state Jesus will be this judge, others state that he won't. And even if your overly-elaborate explanation is correct - that he removed whatever judgment was in place - it means that there WAS a judgment previously in place by God, which contradicts the passage that says God judges no man but has committed all judgments to the Son.
If nothing else, the sheer confusion induced by trying to understand these unnecessarily complex explanations should be enough in and of themselves to instruct a careful reader that God - who supposedly does not author confusion - did not author this literature.Dear me,
sorry to ignite your pre-post (and no doubt hugely gaping) -theologically (misinformed) brain, there, fella.
What I "clearly" read "into" wasn't reading into anything. To understand what He was talking about, you have to understand Covenant. To understand Covenant, you should sit with a few Hebrews who actually understand it --in their tongue-- not your good-ol-boy King James version, as well as, can translate it quite well. The material of the Covenant is in the Ark of It.
The books say so.
Those objects were symbols of the Law/the Judgment --and all its parts.
The "Judgment" parallel, you are trying to create a contradiction from, is false. So, it is only natural and quite understandable why you are angry. Seems your prefab doctrine is just as useless as the others, who's text the doctrine belongs (supposedly).
The Judgment you are expecting is not one of "reprimand".
Righteousness does not Judge by rules of right/wrong. Sin judges sin. Perhaps this is where the confusion is. You appear, like many, to have been taught of judgment as reprimand. If that were the case, the Law would still be in effect.
No one is facing anything, dear boy. That is the irony of both sides of the pro-con --the duality-- the Ism regarding Hell, Judgment, etc.
This man (whom they titled Jesus --which is not even close to his name) is now Judge of the Law of Life, not the Law of Sin/Death, even though he possesses the authority of both (not actually he, but the birthright to it --which is another conversation all together.
The "commitment" of Judgment was not "to judge" but a commitment to the "Judgment" itself -- the "Law" and the commitment to fulfill it. (is that clear enough or do you need a tutor?)
James.Thank you, "fella," for offering your tutorial services, which I'm sure are no doubt far superior to such trivial and inconsequential institutions as Christ For The Nations Bible Institute, from which I derive most of my Biblical understanding.
(I'm sure Protestants the world over will be quite pleased to learn that they can save themselves the 2-year tuition for learned and accredited Biblical scholarship in favor of the esteemed - not to mention FREE - theology available at HubPages.) Their commentary on our passages in question had this to say:
"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (John 5:22-23).
'The Bible does not reveal the reaction of the Jews to this discourse, but it must have been shocking to them. Jesus boldly tells them that God the Father judges no one, but have given that responsibility to the Son. Jesus was telling them that He was the One who would be judging them at the final judgment. As the Judge, Jesus tells them He should be honored in the same way that the Father is honored. He makes the emphatic statement that those that do not honor the Son do not honor the Father. There can be absolutely no mistake that Jesus was proclaiming Himself to be equal with God in that He was deserving of the same honor due the Father.'
Now, I realize that it is a favorite Christian pastime to insult and deride as ignorant anyone who doesn't happen to share their particular interpretation of a book that even the devoutest of theologians have been arguing over the meaning of for a couple millennium, but it would behoove you to realize that the problems lie - not with my "ignorance" - but with your religion's apparent inability to reach any agreement on what that book of yours means. But you're probably right. Those fluent Hebrew scholars at the Bible Institute are probably wrong in their understanding, and subsequent teaching, and all of us are quite fortunate to have someone like yourself come along and quell all the confusion. Thanks for straightening me out.
[insert sarcastic/snarky sign-off]ha!
That says it all in a nut shell. Thanks for affirming that for me. ( FYI, fella, I too have my credits from Bible Schools, A well established university for Philosophies & Physics, so I am not impressed --at all, nor surprised at your reply. But just the same, am curiously entertained.
Now, let's put the needle on the record and slow this "beat down".
a.) I am no "Christian", nor "A/theist".
b.) Your 'ignorance' is none of my concern. The propagation of that ignorance is.
inq: "Why does the Father judge no man"?
resp: "Because the Father is of Righteousness. Righteousness cannot judge by laws. Laws are designed for conflict, opposition and rebellion ( aka choices). Righteousness judges by Faith (right thinking, Free Will) and the evidence of the Faith, the fruit of righteousness.
inq: "What does it means to have 'committed' all judgment then to the Son?"
resp: "The 'commitment' was just that. An 'agreement' between the Father and the 2nd Adam. An agreement that gave authority to him to judge (reason, weigh, determine and execute consequence) the works of Faith under the Law --as noted in Abram and many others and to plant the seed of Faith, which supersedes the Law and all its parts."
inq: "How does that honor the Father?"
resp: "Honor is only valid in the fruit of it --like a harvest. If there is no fruit on the tree, the tree brings no honor; in the same way, if he, being Righteous, does not fulfill his commission, he cannot bring honor to the Father. He would have no fruit of righteousness, no power over the Law, no authority. This authority was granted as a First Fruit under the New Covenant, granting the firstborn son --first of many mind you-- this authority and all sons alike this authority, so long as they produce a harvest of righteousness. "Today I offer you Life or death, choose Life that you may live. This offer was Righteousness or the Law. Man chose the Law. And also, this is what the command expressed: Honor your father & mother, so you many live long in the land promised. We understand this not only to be a limited moral life, but a limitless life eternal --body, mind & spirit. So it is the responsibility of all the sons of Creator to commit to the same concept, method and action of judgment. As it was clearly stated: "all authority has been given to you in heaven & earth -whatever you allow is allowed, whatever is not allowed is not."
inq: "So what exactly is being judged and whom?"
resp: "Ah, good question. The Law judged sin. It is the only thing the Law can judge. The purpose of the Law was to judge all sin AND its consequences. Righteousness does not judge the Law, since the Law IS sinful --meaning it cannot be kept by works of it -- 'doing the law' so to speak. The Father cannot look up sin and therefore does not judge sin. Instead, he judges the fruit of righteousness --as he is righteous. What is being judged are the works of righteousness (faith) during the time the Law was in place. The Law and its judgments could not find a way to made men righteousness. So, as a symbol, the Law was "sealed up, along with the temporary righteousness (manna) and the "rod that struck the rock/the rod of discipline", as well as, the original scripts by Moses. They were sealed in the ark, the Mercy Seat placed on top of it and was carried away. The 2nd Adam did not come to judge the Law itself. He came to judge Righteousness --which comes only by faith. This is the commission granted/given him. As it is written, without faith it is impossible to please (make happy; bring honor) to the Father.
inq: "So, wait, we are not being judged by right wrong anymore?"
resp: "In truth, humans never were being judged for right/wrong, they were --the entire time-- being judged by their measure of faith --the fruit it produced or didn't. This is covenant. Oddly, some of the Hebrews knew this and used it to their advantage. Other did righteousness --even to a small measure-- as seen many places, namely Abram, the three teenagers, heck, even Peter to a degree. Still, before the Law was superseded --again not destroyed-- but covered by Mercy/by Grace --even with those examples of faith, man was still under the judgment of the Law. But after, after, man is only being judged by Grace. The Laws authority has been superseded and the effects of the law --as symbolized at Passover. Now, the commission to judge rightly is granted to all man, so they may become vessels of honor --once more mirror reflections of Righteousness, just as the Father is righteous. For it is written: be like the father in every way. and also, if my words [righteous creation] is in you, you are in me and the Father also --meaning you also supersede the Law, have authority over it, can actually passover death while producing fruit of EL.
"Righteousness has been replaced with doctrines, idolatry of a man, clinging to the Letter of the Law(the scripts) and more. A severe leprosy that is still killing people, while the self-righteous feed the flock the same fruit they have --plastic fruit."
James.
I think there is a certain level of free will which goes into the process, otherwise God would have just made the book appear in every language to every house.
The Bible was inspired by God who is perfect, but written by men who are fallable. People make misteaks even when they are doing their best to be guided by God.
That is a monster hoop to jump through, I suppose it may take a tad bit of faith to believe that stuff.Christians do not NEED the Bible to be written by God. The Bible was written by God, says 2 Timothy 3:16.
When Timothy said that .. OUR bible hadn't been written yet.
He must hve been talking about what we call the Old Testament.
I'm not saying that the "New Testament" was or wasn't inspired by the God of Abraham; Just saying that Timothy didn't either.2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."
That's like saying the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was written by Tom Sawyer and didn't need to be written by Mark Twain, all three of which are mythical names.
Sam Clemens and his input need not be mentioned.
Nice try, but no cigar. 2 Timothy doesn't say the BIBLE was WRITTEN by God, It says ALL SCRIPTURE is INSPIRED by God. Big difference. Writing something yourself and inspiring someone else to write are 2 completely different animals. Also, there are a multitude of "Scriptures" out there, so for all we know 2 Timothy may have been referring to them as well.
Lastly, using this this passage to validate divine inspiration is circular reasoning. If this passage wasn't written by God, then it might not be true in the first place.It is easy enough to write a book that is "inspired by god"
You only have to say so in the inspired book and hey presto! It's inspired by god.
My next book will be inspired by god, because I will say it was.
Oft times when we see the word ‘word’ in scripture it is translated from the Greek logos (or Rhema but that is a different message). Your answer may be found in the definition of the Greek word Logos. It is used in verses such as…
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
II Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I Jn 2:14 14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.
Sorry about the bunch of verses but it is sort of necessary to see how great a variety the word Logos is used.
The definition of Logos may be broken down into essentially 3 aspects which represent the full idea of Logos… which is not merely the thing written or spoken. The English reader sees something written or hears something spoken the impression is largely from a subjective view. That is we are concerned how we personally perceive and judge what was heard or read.
Here is how the word Logos is broken down in the Greek.
Logos is what was read or heard
Logos is also who wrote or spoke the thing… the personality if you will of the origin of the words
Logos (the Greek idea of Logos) is also the affect had on the listener or the reader.
So when we consider Logos from the Greek definition of Logos we must consider all three aspects of the Greek idea of the term… the thing or the words… the personality of the originator… and the affect incurred by personality of the originator.
When we read the Word the Logos of the Bible, if it was actually a God generated document, then the affect had on the reader is that of the intended affect of God Himself. which is why when we read the Word what we want to see is the writer of it in order that the intended affect may be received with in us… 2 Cor 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Does that help?Pay2cEM, in response to your original question, Scriptures like the Book of Mormon, and the Holy Bible were NOT written BY the hand of God, they were accounts (records) RECORDED BY His followers (by command). I know that for instance, in the BoM, there is the sworn witness of the people who witnessed the actuality of the Golden Plates, as well as the sworn witness of the translator and scribe. All signatories knew they were putting their very souls at risk that if they would falsify their witness, or machinate the record (by swearing as truth that which they knew to be false, or in respect to the translation, if any falsehood was added, or any truth omitted). They all surely knew that they would own that particular sin against God, and the sore consequence of that sin (by God).
Therefore, they were undoubtedly faithful in as much strength as they had, especially since they were RECORDING what they ACCEPTED to be the truth.
Furthermore, it states as part of the RECORD: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” (http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-tit … ere+faults)
The King James Version of the Holy Bible ALSO has at the beginning of that “book of BOOKS” (records): “TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES ; AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED, BY HIS MAJESTY’S SPECIAL COMMAND”. These men, commissioned of the great King James (a very noble King, who effected the Gospel to be more available to his subjects, under God) were also very aware that their souls hung in the balance, as they were aware that they were the trusted “instruments” of the LORD.
It may be construed that the Books mentioned above were “divinely authored”, simply because the people were recording what they had witnessed (i.e. their account), and they TRUSTED that God was not just the prime SOURCE, but they also believed that He was watching them. Also, they were all living the altruistic ways that they believed were going to save their souls.
In any court of Law, ONE upright, or eye witness is enough to have that court make a determination of truth. MANY upright witnesses, who swear the truth of the matter, under God, knowing of the seriousness of sin, then sign with their individual solemn OATH to testify of their accounts. These people know that God will not be mocked; the accounts and records then are duly recorded as TRUTH, and if there are any MISTAKES, they are the mistakes of men, NOT of God. Peace, and good tidings.I find it difficult to believe you don't know why.
To be fair, you don't have any idea whether or not I know why since you haven't asked me why I posed the question. And to be honest with you, I didn't do it because of reasons that struck me as obvious possibilities, I did it because I was curious to hear other people's honest answers. See how much more you learn when you ask questions?
based on the phrasing you had some answers that you were set on.
there are many items in the bible that seem in contradiction, if you do not know the framework it stands on.I must apologize, Ceciliabeltrel, on my "phrase-ology." It helps me if you let me know which parts of my phrase where ambiguous, and I'll be happy to correct them.
Well, I'm more than happy to be enlightened. If you visit my hub "Bible Contradictions," you'll find a list of Biblical inconsistencies that you can set right to work on clearing up for me.
"there are many items in the bible that seem in contradiction, if you do not know the framework it stands on."
.......and hundreds more if you do.
you are already judging them. meaning it is a rhetoric.it is not a question.
what you were saying is why are believers so dumb. some are. but the source of these religious superstitions are misinterpreted symbology. a simple look at the source, when it was written and the phrases used or even acknowledging that many of the terms used then do not have the same meaning now and you will see where the confusion began.
as for the entire christian community, did you poll everyone...each one? one must be careful of being prejudiced.Nice.
Essentially, one of the things I have been attempting to draw out of pay2cEM, is the "point" of "contradictions", based on non-subjective critique of the text. The hope was to inspire free thought against the "traditional" translation(S) --even that is hard for me to actually type
. As the translation itself is subjective, not to mention nearly impossible to translate from one language dialect into a similar dialect, let alone "1,600" years of multiple language filters. Granted, generally speaking, the topics are understood, but the lack of exercise, I think, is hindering his "exploration".
Sigh...
Okay, am going back up the tree. See ya'll soon.
James.James' point is well-taken, and I am open to listening to what he has to say in areas where his understanding of the original text surpasses mine. As someone who operated under the "Inerrant Bible" paradigm for most of my life, I have no particular agenda to "prove" that the Bible is in fact error-prone, it just seems to me like the correct view - absent any dogmatic beliefs - in light of what's actually there.
Case in point: the Associated Press released yesterday a story on a theological debate that has been going on for 2000 years, with no clear end in sight. Some theologians reconcile the passages claiming that Jesus will rise from the dead AFTER 3 days, with those claiming he rose ON THE 3rd Day by noting how the Jews at the time reckoned time: any PART of a day could stand for "a day," thus the alleged 40 hours or so that Jesus spent in the grave from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning still constitutes "3 days" since Friday, Saturday, and Sunday were all involved. What this explanation does NOT account for, however, is how it relates to Jesus' own declaration that, "Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 days AND 3 NIGHTS, so too will the Son of Man be in the earth 3 days and 3 nights."
Some have tried to reconcile THAT apparent contradiction by claiming Jesus was actually crucified on a Thursday (or even a Wednesday), but that explanation only creates new contradictions regarding his death in relation to the day of Passover.To my knowledge Em,
1. Given the nature of the Hebrew "calendar", based on the moon cycles and NOT the Gregorian Calendar, their months have 28 cycles.
2. a "day" is considered from sunset to sunset.
This year,
The First Sabbath begins Friday April 16 -sunset to Saturday April 17 -sunset.
The eve after the 1st Sabbath, he was arrested.
This would explain why Judas was not able to leave the house until sunset, according to Hebrew Law. After which, Saturday night, they went out to the Garden to pray. It is then he is arrested. According to Hebrew tradition, the lamb was prepared between the first & mid-sabbath (or Feast Sabbath).
So, from Saturday sunset to Tuesday sunset, he was flogged, tried and sentenced. Also the customary release of a prisoner as a gesture by the Romans.
*The Feast of Unleavened Bread begins Tuesday April 19 -sunset
This is significant, because it was the High Holy Mid-Sabbath where a unblemished lamb was sacrificed "whole".
By 9am he was in front of the crowd and sentenced.
By noon he was hanging in the midday sun.
Crucifixion took only an hour or two at most --in his case, after being flogged, beat up and made to walk a "mile" carrying his own log/cross, the time line of internal asphyxiation would have been shorter, due to blood loss and fatigue. So within an hour or so after being hung, he would have been dead. I think the story says, he died fast and just to be sure he wasn't faking, the soldier pierced him. Considering it would have taken about two to four hours to prepare the body for burial, before sunset that day he would have been in the tomb. Because after sunset Tuesday, they could do no work --including burial. So it is "Tuesday" sunset and the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
The Third Sabbath on Friday-Saturday April 23/24 {{ which just so happens to be my birthday this year!}}
Tuesday night to Wednesday night
Wednesday night to Thursday night
Thursday night to Friday night [ Friday begins 3rd Sabbath ]
Wednesday Day to Thursday Day
Thursday Day to Friday Day
Friday Day to Saturday Day
So the three full nights and three full days would be accurate.
Saturday sunset ends the Sabbath and begins the "first day of the week". According to the text, in the wee-hours of the morning of the First day of the week, Mary Magdalene (Magdala) went to the tomb and found the tomb empty and the Roman Guard no where to be found.
James.
ps, the Feast of Unleavened Bread carries a lot of significance in Johns Revealing of the Testimony. One in particular was a requirement to bring fire to the altar each day for seven days, and at the end of the seven days, to blow the last trumpet as a shout of joy --signifying Israels release from all bondage.Apologies for being slow, but I'm not following your explanation. First you stated that he was arrested, beaten, tried, and convicted from Saturday sunset to Tuesday sunset, but then you state that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb at dawn on Sunday, and found the empty tomb. If you maintain that Jesus actually spent 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb, this would require his crucifixion on a Thursday, but you stated that he was crucified within hours of being convicted (on Tuesday).
Could you please re-state for me on which days you are alleging Jesus was crucified and arose?
Other problems with the story:
1. To my knowledge, there are no known records of the Romans granting the release of a prisoner as the Bible alleges.
2. I hate to throw another wrench into your explanation, but the Biblical account contradicts both itself and your theory:
John 19:14 states both that Jesus was standing in Pilate's court at the 6th hour on the day of his crucifixion, and that this day was the day BEFORE Passover. All 3 Synoptic Gospels allege that Jesus' arrest happened AFTER Passover - which Jesus ate with his disciples as the Last Supper - and Mark 15:25-33 contradicts John (and you) by stating that Jesus was nailed up at the 3rd hour and still alive at the 6th (when he's supposedly in Pilate's court according to John). Thus, his crucifixion took longer than "an hour or 2 at most."You clearly are referring to the NKJ bible...
You haven't a clue that there are other bibles out there have you? You clearly don't know of the Lost Books of the Bible, the Gnostic Gospels, the Ethiopian Canon..........., the list goes on and on. I beg to ask, do you think God wrote the bible? Because, your arguments are base off this thinking.
Interestingly enough, just so you all know The Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were only four the gospels chosen at the Council of Nicea in 301 AD. The book of Phillip, Peter, Peter and Paul, the book of Saul, the Book of Jude, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, and many, many, many other books too numerous to mention are even going to contradict those gospels as well. As with all individuals, comes independent and individual writing styles, and ways of seeing things that occur. With that said, most of WE Christians realize that no one really knows the real story or truths to Jesus. These gospels that you are quoting from, they are merely tools for Christians to use. They are in essence a guide if you will, to a timeline of the far distant past to draw reference from. It is all we Christians have as a source of information. And to the one who originally ask this question, you do know that the Books you quoted from were stories orally past down. No one committed them to paper before a hundred years or so had passed by. So duh...., there are going to be contractions from anything that was first orally translated, and then wrote to paper.
_____________________________________________________________
It is abundantly clear that the original poster is writing about a group of people who are obviously Evangelical Christians, who WE all know to be over zealous believers in Christ. How many of you out there, think all Christians are the same? Because you should be aware that this "Christian" is very often, personally, offended by that line of thinking. It would really be helpful if and when posted remarks and comments are made about Christians that they are more clear. You wouldn't refer an Orthodox Jew, as a Reform Jew, any more than one would refer a Sunni Muslim to a Shite Muslim. I mean, that is just irresponsible, ignorance beyond comprehension. So why then does it go on here? Many folks around here only refer to Christians as they, them, all, we. Us "Christians" that happen to fall in the they's, them's, all's, and we's Christian groups only because we believe in Christ's message, and believe him to be the son of God- are not all the same, and our bibles are completely different too. We are about as different as night and day.No, I was referring to the KJV, but thanks for trying.
Nope. I'm intimately familiar with these other sources, as they're all currently residing on my bookshelf within arms reach.
Congratulations. You have distinguished yourself as one who has enough of a precursory understanding of the source material to merit admittance into a discussion.
_____________________________________________________________
Someone please explain to this scholastic genius WHY this forum isn't relevant to him.So I'm a him am I.....
Testy
By the way, did you get ordained on the Internet or what? You are in no way an ordain Minister. I don't believe you. I personally think you are lying. Because your knowledge of the bible, is substandard at best. You are clearly clueless to the other Christianity sects, and any ordain Minister would know better than to quote from the gospels, as if they were written in gold and then make claims of contradictions. I mean seriously. Please.........
Maybe you should start reading those books at an arm length, instead of letting just collect dust. That would be a start.
Okay, lemme start again.
This year 2011, the 14th day of Nisan is the day celebrated of the Firstborn Son -also very significant. The 15th day of Nisan, falls on Friday April 16. This begins Passover Week (eight days). In the Week of Passover is the Feast Of Unleavened Bread, usually half way through. From "evening to evening" refers to the full week -Sabbath Passover to Sabbath Passover. In addition to the 2 Sabbaths, a Third Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is included, making it a total of three Sabbaths in the week of Passover.
Friday sunset to Saturday Sunset is the First Sabbath, when the matzoh is eaten (which symbolically is when he dipped his hand into the bowl the same time Judas did). According to Hebrew Law, Judas could not leave the house until the Sabbath had ended (Saturday Night). That night, after sunset, they went out to the garden to pray. While they were praying, Judas goes to the Priests --who were all in the Temple, since it was the Sabbath. That night, was the arrest and taken to the High Priest. This would mean, this year 2011 it would be Saturday night in sunday morning, when the first Sabbath had passed.
This year 2001, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, begins on Tuesday April 19th, at sunset. So, from Saturday sunset to Tuesday sunset would transpire everything. (What john states is true, it was the day of Preparation of the Passover [Lamb], which would be the beginning of the FOUB).
Because Tuesday sunset begins the High Holy Sabbath, when the lamb, ungutted, was sacrificed each year to commence the Feast.
But for certain, by Tuesday sunset he would have had been crucified. After sunset on Tuesday begins a series of holy observances until the 3rd Sabbath ending Passover.
This year ( 2011 ):
Friday sunset-Saturday Sunset (1st Sabbath)
Saturday sunset - Sunday Sunset -ordinary day
Sunday Sunset - Monday sunset -ordinary day
Monday Sunset - Tuesday afternoon -final preparation for the FOUB
Tuesday sunset-Wednesday sunset (2nd Sabbath; FOUB begins; Lamb slaughtered just before sunset Tuesday)
Wednesday sunset-Thursday sunset -holy observance
Thursday sunset-Friday sunset -holy observance
Friday sunset-Saturday sunset (3rd Sabbath)
Saturday after sunset, this year, begins the first day of the week (symbolically when Mary went to the tomb).
James.That's a mighty fine explanation as to the Jewish calendar system, but you've danced around the whole issue in question:
1. Which day of the week was Jesus crucified on?
2. Which day of the week did he rise?
3. Was his trial BEFORE or AFTER Passover?
4. Where was he at the 6th hour on the day of his crucifixion: standing before Pilate, or hanging on the cross?Well if it were 2011, he would have been crucified on Tuesday afternoon, because Tuesday was the final day of Preparation (as John mentioned) of the Passover Lamb. Before sunset Tuesday the traditional Lamb was sacrificed.
He would have risen exactly 3 days/3nights later --on the Last Sabbath-- which is Friday sunset to Saturday sunset (this year)
The trial was AFTER the 1st Passover Sabbath and BEFORE the Passover Feast, when the lamb was traditionally sacrificed.
He was in front of Pilate twice, if you recall.
"Saturday Night into early Sunday Morning" he was in front of Annas, the High Priest. Peter & John following behind him.
He was in front of Pilate a second time ( 6 am ?? ) Tuesday then off to the cross. What transpired between Sunday Morning and Tuesday Morning seems to be where all the trouble is.
Either way BEFORE sunset "Tuesday (2011) He would be crucified just as the traditional lamb was sacrificed that very day. By sunset "Tuesday" everything had to be done, under Jewish law, before the Passover Feast (Feast of Unleavened Bread) began.
James.Well, this would make his resurrection on the 5th day, not the 3rd (if Mary came to the tomb on the first day of the week). You're not solving the problem, you're only highlighting it.
Oye. First, there were a few "6th hours".
1. 6 am in front of Hight Priest on Sunday
2. Monday?
3. 6 am in front of Pilate on Tuesday
4. 3 pm on the cross
5. 6 pm dead.
Tuesday sunset to Wed sunset 1 night; 1 day;
Wed sunset to Thurs sunset 1 night; 1 day;
Thursday sunset to Friday sunset 1 night; 1 day;
-that is three nights/days.
Friday sunset to Saturday sunset was the Last Sabbath of Passover. That would mean NO JEW could not go to the tomb until AFTER sunset Saturday. He would have risen somewhere on the Sabbath, not on the first day of the week. Mary went there on the first day of the week is what the text says, which makes sense since no could go, it was a day of rest.
1) Knowing the Day he was is critical due to when the event would have occurred --based on Hebrew Law and Tradition for the Passover (aka the calendar). 2)Do some bloody homework, man. Get out a Hebrew Calendar and look up the 15 Day of Nisan "AD 33".*shakes head*
you should start billing him for theology lessons.It remains to be seen whether James is qualified to do this professionally. There's a big difference between coming up with AN explanation, and coming up with a CORRECT one.
he has degrees (or master's) in theology and physics. I think however that you really need to just explore the topic yourself.
May I suggest some standard biblical history books?You absolutely may, and I will be happy to read them. (and am I correct in understanding you that a person with a college degree is incapable of being wrong about something?)
err...this one, i don't think so.
you got to hang around here long enough to see which ones know what they're talking about and there is no way to form that opinion unless your up to speed with the conversation of the thought leaders in that area.
I really think it will be more productive for you to read up on it first instead asking him to give you the burden of proof, it is rather unfair. the man has things to do other than educate you.
You have to have some basic understanding of the history.
if you want light reading, you could start with:
1. Don't know much about the bible.
But if you want to go straight to business
I suggest you read:
All of Richard Elliot Friedman's books. (he's a bit of a dork, personally speaking but he's got the basics of bible history down pat)
Then, you could go by Schniedelwind how the bible became a book
then read up on lurianic kabbalah, but it has to lurianic before you go to the Zohar.Thanks for the tips. "Light reading" bores the pants off me, so I think I'll skip the first one.
I'm familiar with Schniedelwind's work, but haven't heard of the others. Again, I'm genuinely grateful for the recommendations. I'll check them out and be sure to report back to you. May I suggest a book to you too? Check out "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Sieberman.
I'm working under the assumption that I have enough knowledge on the topics at hand to at least be taken seriously in a discussion. Nobody is demanding that James partake in any of these discourses, and I'm quite sure from what I've seen of him thus far that he doesn't need you to defend him. He is the one who suggested I raise questions of this sort, so I'm not terribly worried about stepping on his feet. I hope that you are not asking me to walk away from the table and not come back until I agree with you on everything on every point of contention. I'm not sure how one would ever hope to discover new things if they only insisted on dealing with people who agree with them on everything, and you don't come across to me as one who is that presumptuous. In the mean time, I am convinced that I have raised some legitimate questions - stated succinctly - and I remain convinced that James has as of yet failed to answer them satisfactorily.The thing is, you seem unfamiliar with the framework of Jewish literature. But your level of interest exceeds that of an ordinary bible reader. No doubt a seeker.
Don't know much about the bible is like an encyclopedia of stories that gives you an overview. Though not in depth, its a quick reference material.
I am suggesting that you read Kabbalistic texts precisely because the questions that you ask has a lot to do with understanding the underlying mystical references in the gospels.
I am not defending James. I am just pointing out that your discussion with him will be more productive if you understand the framework. It is not enough to know the history, you have to know the thinking.
There are lot of "fantasy" references like walking on water and such that you would understand if you only know the language--the metaphoric language involved.
Also the water and wine references during the wedding is highly misunderstood. The wedding may well be just a kind of Shabbat gathering. Because the bride refers to israel and the groom is G-d. turning water into wine means, turning ordinary people into people of substance. If you understand the language, you wouldn't be asking James those questions, because you would understand what they meant. It's a lot of knowledge that you want him to fill.
I think you are curious enough to do your own reading.I am definitely curious enough to do my own reading, and I intend to take you up on your suggestions.
That being said, it appears to me that your understanding of the Bible is not that of a traditional Christian, who this thread was started for. I have no doubts that you can offer some information that your average Christian isn't privvy to about decoding the Bible meanings, but if you're trying to correct my premise, you're arguing apples and oranges. It is evident that you ascribe to the belief that the Bible's language is highly symbolic. Most evangelical Christians do NOT ascribe to this belief, and believe that the words are to be taken literally. Given that paradigm, it is easy to point out contradictions in the text. I'm not arguing with you that certain passages shouldn't be interpreted symbolically, I'm stating that if they're NOT taken symbolically then they are in conflict. For example: your interpretation of the "water into wine" story falls outside the conception of most Christians, but MY point is that the details of the story are in conflict. The Gospel of John states that the wine-into-water event occurred on the 3rd day after Jesus' baptism WITH HIS DISCIPLES WITH HIM, while the other Gospels state that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days AFTER his baptism before he got any disciples. That's a contradiction, and the "hidden meaning" of water and wine doesn't make it go away.
On a side note: As I stated earlier to James, one of my best friends here in Nashville is Israeli, and an ardent follower of Kaballah. He also ascribes to the hidden/symbolic meaning of Biblical texts, but he states that no part of his religion involves interpreting the New Testament. Can you tell me why Kaballistic Jews are attempting to defend the NT?Well, as I said, I doubt you don't know why. You are baiting.
Obviously, the less informed Christian is a Christian for its archetypal value, what it offers as an interim for understanding. Employing logic to a psychic exercise is rather futile or cruel. Logic is not part of the equation. They are using the symbols as a means to get to their own psychic transcendence. This in itself is not wrong. It is merely a different set of objectives.
If you're going to settle contradictions hoping to bait as they put it here "believers" into applying logic where logic is not applicable, you are ego-tripping. And that was my point. You obviously want to find someone less knowledgeable than you to pick on. Do you want to disprove Christianity? Do you want to expose ignorance? What is your objective?
Now if you want to understand the framework, then discuss it like an intellectual. Don't say it was meant for stupid people. You know they're ignorant. Why challenge them. In other words, Pick somebody your own size.
Don't be a Jesus bully. Religious belief has a whole different aim. It has once again an archetypal function in the very same way Jews want to constantly escape EGYPT...a metaphor for escaping the ego.
That said, your ego did not escape me. (that is not an insult but added for effect)
The Zohar is an incredible read. I own a copy. I also enjoy the Testament of Solomon.
Isn't it? Can you believe it just came from one head?
Huh? I thought the third stratum was written by a separate author from the other two. And I also thought the third stratum was written sometime in the 14th century AD, wheras the other pieces were much earlier. Am I wrong? It was my thinking that the author of the third stratum pieced together the fragments of the first two books, translated them and then in the process wrote the third and added to the first two. Zohar, the Book of Splendor right? Or is that something entirely different? Hell girl- I could just go upstairs and grab the darn thing. I maybe wrong here, but, oh I guess I can google it.
Shimon Bar Yochai did it when he was in hiding from the Romans.
He claimed that he thought of all of it. I frankly think the seclusion must have driven him into symbolic hyper-drive.
You're "solving" the problem by inventing things that aren't in the Bible and ignoring things that are. Here is WHAT THE TEXT SAYS, so your explanation is going to have to take it into account if you have any desire to continue to be taken seriously.
(For someone so smug about their knowledge of Hebrew culture, it is astounding to me that you're unaware of the fact that the Jews did not reckon TIME like us, just as they didn't reckon DAYS like we do. They didn't use a 12-hour clock that started at Midnight and re-set at noon, they used a 24-hour clock (like our military time) that started at 6 am. Thus, the "third hour" would have been 9 am, not 3 am; and there weren't 2 different "third hours" in their day (am and pm). They would have called their 2nd "third hour" the "15th hour.") That being said, here is the text that you have to work with:
John 19:14-16: "And it was the preparation of Passover, about the 6TH HOUR (noon): and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King. But they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
This passage clearly states that on the day of his crucifixion, Jesus was standing before Pilate at the 6th hour (noon). Compare that to:
Mark 15:25: "And it was the third hour (9 am), and they crucified him.
Matthew 27:45-46: Now from the sixth hour (noon) there was darkness all over the land unto the 9th hour (3 pm).
Nobody would have bothered to point out this bizarre occurrence if they were referring to 6pm-9pm, as it would've been dark out already. I'm also convinced that you're willing to ignore what the Bible actually says in order to formulate your arguments because you stated that you believe Jesus died within 1-2 hours of being crucified, while the BIBLE states that he remained alive for at least 6 hours after his crucifixion (he was crucified at the 3rd hour and still alive at the 9th).
That would be all well and good...if anybody had any clue which year Jesus was actually crucified in. I Just randomly said "33 AD" because Jesus was allegedly crucified when he was 33 years old. But No historians or theologians can agree on his birth year since the Bible contradicts itself about that as well. Matthew states that Jesus was born while Herod was King, and Luke states that he was born while Quirinius was governor; but we know from both Roman records and the writings of Josephus that Herod died in 4 BC and Quirinius didn't become governor until 6 AD, so how in the word was Jesus born during both of their reigns?
But it now sounds like you don't have an answer to the question so you're trying to throw the ball back into my court. If Jesus arose on the Sabbath (Fri sunset to Sat sunset) as you claim, he would have to have been crucified on a Wednesday in order to have been buried for "3 days and 3 nights." You haven't figured out a way to make that happen yet. The closest you've gotten us is Tuesday.
I did try it using protosinaitic by rabbinical hebrew law...
Ha-erets....the strong first need. (or more aptly sucking force)
hashamayim...the fire waters/chaos the fiery chaos.
In a beginning the (Powers) create the fiery waters/chaos and something that sounds like gravity to describe "the earth" which at the time was not the planet but was plain dirt---matter.
(nervous laugh) and that is just the first passage.Good, good. Don't be nervous, yet.
I have said this before.
The collection of "dirt" as the "prim" or "lowest" measure of manifest ( aka elohim aka nature) has huge significance regarding humans.
Out of "fiery" chaos come a cooling breeze and a solidification of the elemental/fundamentals of Creator/creation.Fiery waters sounds like plasma. and if you decode it per letter it become
eat chaos and do chaos. meaning destructive/consummeable choas and active chaos...
we are talking potential and kinetic...choas. is it describing the particle age before the stellar era? makes you think.Absolutely!
The early Hebrews called Creator "The One of Consuming but Revealing Fire". That would mean projective-reflective. "Gravity' would be the optic view -the magnetic/neutral property of light/fire.
woop-woop!We should compare notes! El ohim, means the one? oh yes Alef is ONE, and then L is directional/towards then there is OHIM which energy/strength Hey is To reveal Yud is an Action and Mem is Chaos.
One towards one to reveal active chaos. yep...that would be the arrow time, the point alpha to point omega and then there is the purpose which is to reveal the creative principle of energy.
It is very very intriguing. WHO the jeepers wrote this song? any guesses.
you think ezra did it? you think he's P? it is oral, I know. but who wrote the text? I always thought it was ezra...but some people gossip about it being an aaron sort of priest.
you notice, everybody just went to another cafe... I guess its you and me again hijacking the end of a thread. always fun James.El Ohim means "The Seeing of One" or starting Point --the place where the x and y converge --the optic view.
Projective Muon Neutral Gluon converge "reveals" Negative Boson.
**reveals == chaos, explosion, impact, expression, direction from then on...
You got it!
ps, Cafe hubs? LOL. As always.sun and moon...
we can go on and on about it
also I think the song version is pretty good at preserving it by oral tradition, such that the phonetic values were preserved.
No, I'm not judging them, I'm merely making an observation. There's a huge difference. If you wore a red shirt every single day, it would not be a judgment on my part to state that "you like the color red," it would be an observation.
And I don't need to poll everyone. It is patently obvious that MANY people operate this way, so this is a question for THOSE people, not EVERYONE in the Christian community.I would say generally,people do not want to change their paradigm because of psychological reasons.
like if you use the bible to get through the day and somebody tells you its trash, you will really go berzerk. why, you count it to show you the way!
it's just believing that you will have retirement money if you become loyal to a company. If somebody told the recently retired 20 years ago that they won't get their money, they would not have believed that person. A paradigm is difficult to change especially when it is externally challenged.
Also, let me warn you that you are not supposed to plug your hub. it is against forum rules.Thanks for the warning; I was not aware of that. It's just that James suggested earlier in this thread that I start a hub listing contradictions in the Bible for people to go evaluate, and I was stating for the forum that I took him up on that, and where they could find it.
You used to be able to leave a link if it was relevant to the subject, has that changed?
That is bogus!! We are capable of thinking for ourselves but we use bible scripture to substantiate our beliefs and our thoughts.I don't find it to be bogus at all. Yes, you ARE capable of thinking for yourselves on a wide variety of issues, but you seem to be inconsistent as to when you employ it. People are generally content to accept without questioning anything that pertains to your particular religion. I would question the judgment of a person who blindly decided that Geico was the best car insurance based solely on the assurances of a talking gecko in the same way. The mere fact that hundreds of millions of people believe the exact same thing about a book many of them have never even read - let alone studied - demonstrates louder than words ever could that most people are content to turn off their thinking faculties when it comes to religious belief. Religious people spend more time deciding on the right fabric softener than they do deciding which of their religious dogmas are correct.
WE Christians don't need the bible to be written by God. What makes you think that all WE Christians think that?
I'm beginning to recognize a bad pattern/habit being formed here, and in other places- where people refer to "Christians" with the ASSUMPTION that we are the same. WE Christians are not the same, and the only real reason we are even classified as a Christian is because we believe in Jesus Christ. That is it. I'm a Christian who doesn't celebrate Easter but rather Passover, which is Monday for those who don't know. Who follows the preaching of the Gnostics and early Ebionite sects, with a Roman Catholic flair. I by no means think God wrote the bible. Most Catholics know that Paul wrote a big portion of the NT bible, and Moses the OT half. Christianity is vastly different and has many, many, many different sects. Take the Eastern Orthodox religion- when I attended one of their services one time I thought I was in a time warp. It was nothing like the Baptist Church down the street. And, have any of you ever been to an Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church??? OMG! All the Saints to pray for and to...., I was totally confused. I had to constantly remind myself that I was in a Christian atmosphere, sitting with other WE Christians. Now, I think you might be referring to a sect of Christians known as the Evangelist Christians, who might need the bible to be written by God, because well they are a little off their rockers with all the damnation and hoopla that goes on with those Churches, but that's a maybe too. I have by no means been to every Christian church out there. Have you 'ole wise one one? I mean, you do write as if you know what all WE Christians "have to" believe.
BUT.........,
Most importantly, you do realize that there are many different Christian bibles? Surely you knew this before asking a question such as this, you did didn't you? So by all means which bible are you referring to? The Mormon bible or the Jehovah Witness' Bible? The Gnostic Gospel or the (OLDEST Holy Bible known to man)Ethiopian Holy Canon? Or the NKJ Bible, which is a knock-off from the Holy Roman Canon? Or, or, or..... are you referring to the other Christian bible that another few million Eastern Orthodox followers use? Or better yet, how about the Torah? We cannot exclude the Torah. It was Christ's bible you know!?! So which is it?
Out of a billion or so Christians, only about 20% of those believe the bible was written by God. So please...
You clearly don't know what you're trying to discuss, because as a person who does know a thing or two about the bible, you're whole line of logic (to your thinking) is completely flawed.If it were simply written by another human being it wouldn't mean anything. Because humans are sinful, it has to be written by someone who knows us intricately, who created us. A book written by a man is just another book. The Bible written by an infinite almighty God shows us the true answers to life.
I don't think you understand the original question, which you haven't answered. You've told me WHAT you believe (which I already know), while my questions was WHY you feel that it's necessary to believe that since your holy book doesn't require that belief as part of salvation.
- just_curiousposted 13 years ago
0It's pretty cut and dry. The primary argument is that God inspired the Bible and he is perfect. He can't lie.
How do you resolve the claim of perfection with the facts of all the contradictions. It isn't possible. So you have to find ways to rationalize it.
It's pretty easy to rationaize, actually. I did it for years. If you're just in your head, the hoops are pretty large and spaced far enough apart that you don't get much exercise on the subject. If you go to church, you have a support structure to help you think it's all a great argument.
But if you start getting chased around about the whole concept and start thinking about it rationally, you slowly get boxed in and you're left with only two choices; you either have to come to grips with the fact that there is no rational explanation for your beliefs and you're going to hold to them anyway, or you accept the fact that you can't resolve it all to any logical conclusion, save one. Oh, make that three choices. If a god had come down and smote the atheists at any point I would have taken that as back up to my belief structure.Everything is written by god. If the bible weren't...now that would be a miracle.
I get what you're saying, and I agree with you that this is indeed what they do, but I don't think it answers the question of WHY they feel the need to do it in the first place. The idea that the Bible was written by God was not really formulated until the 4th Century at the Council of Nicea. And it's not really Biblical. I understand why Christians believe that one must accept Jesus into their heart to be saved - that's in the Bible - but the Bible doesn't require anyone to believe it was written by God, so why do they get so adamant on this point when there is so much cold hard evidence to the contrary?
They do it because that's what they've been told is true. It's part of the package. I suppose if someone would pose as a prophet and share a revelation from 'God' they'd change their stance. But you can't not believe in some form of divine inspiration, no matter how small, and be a Christian; by the standards probably 99% of them have. How would you justify some of the words of Jesus? He apparently believed they were the words of God. It would logically make him a liar. Just my opinion.
Except for the fact that even if jesus existed, (which I doubt very much) he never wrote a single word in his entire lifetime.
I agree with you to an extent. We know 100% for sure that the words, as attributed to Jesus, were not written be him. I believe, at this moment, there is no evidence to consider his existence impossible. You err on the side of caution, I suppose. But I have to ask. Have you ever quoted Socrates?
NO, but I have been copping a bit of it from one of the twins.
I have been known to delve into all the thinkers I feel had something credible to say. We live to learn, or some of us do. I have had a wonderful day, I hope you have as well.I just got up, but so far it looks promising.
And I do see your point. I like a lot of the philosophy of Jesus, but it is a dangerous can of worms to ponder, with all of the extra bs wrapped around it. There's definitely other sources to reference to share the same ideas.
The bible was written by people supposedly inspired by god, so it should be clear to those who have read the bible that this was a rewrite of the superstitions that had worked for the religious individuals to control the bone ignorant-recently-sun-worshiping unwashed masses.
Today religion is a massive business that has made a lot of worthless evangelists filthy rich and allowed them to lead lives that are debased. Are the people who follow Hinn as ill as he is? I suspect they are.
Religion is fantasy and should be tossed in the same box as Grimm's fairy tales in my view.Nice conversation to see this wonderful day.
I think this conversation is well formulated as far as what is said. Doesn't seem to be overstated. I think that there is a God. Yet, with there being 1000s of diferent religions, having as many claims as to WHO or What this "GOD" is ?? And what this God has said, ... SOMETHING HAS GOTTA BE WRONG with this picture.
Lets suppose that people had been incouraged to find their own meanings (to interpret) the writtings of Socatres in the same manner as people have done to scriptuure the wisdom that he was expressing might also have been lost, like a needle in haystack.
How can a simple truth NOT have been corrupted when having a 1000 different versons?
Generally speaking, where there is smoke, there is a fire.
Maybe ? religion is the smoke which incourges us to look or the flame. But the smoke has been bellowing for SOooo long, we can't seem to find the fire.
Religion is not God ,
some people seem to forget that.
Like I said earlier ... Not argueing with nuttun the two of you have said in this thread.That's good Jerami, I do try very hard to keep my conversations honest, ............ if a little forthright.
I sometimes get to apprecite seeing people discussing diffrent opinions than mine and each othrs, also seeing truth in that which they each are saying.
This was one such time. Thanks for the experience.
I think that truth is somewhere in the middle.
I wish people would quit moving where the the middle is.
- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
key word: inspired;
not a keyword: penned by "G-d", 2nd edition, "Random" House circa 5676 years ago. Updated hourly Wikidepia.I'm sure that was a very clever entry, but I have no idea what it means.
1. Scripture: emphatic means Torah only.
All Scripture was inspired not written by Creator.
Everything in the universe IS the "words" of Creator { the vibrato if you will }. So, how can a singular book, translated nearly ten times and compiled in the late 14th century be considered the "perfect, unabridged, inspired or absolute" "word" of Creator?
2. The "words" of Creator are written in human hearts and in human minds so they may do those words ~as ironically noted in Torah, the Four "Gospels" and the Letters.
It may be "profitable", but I assure you, the ones profiting are Random House, Dove Press and the ministers spewing the words from it, as if it were "god himself" speaking, while their flock suffers and the world suffers around them. No good fruit, just more rotten apples rotting the whole bushel.
mortified, elucidated, edified.
James.
When I think about it, I guess I am closer to Socrates than others I can bring to mind at least in my pragmatic approach to thinking. Yes, when you point it out I can see it in my replies, and I can gain from understanding that better. I have not read Socrates for a long time.
How very observant of you, and thank you for assisting me with my self knowledge, which I always appreciate, even if the looking hurts my ideas of myself.
I have seldom made psychological progress without some psychological pain. It may take me weeks to milk this newly discovered aspect of my persona! - I think. You were having a bit of fun at my expense. Correct?
No, I speak in earnest. That is, I am earnest by name and nature.
Seriously, I had a look through my posts and saw that many of the statements I have made seem to be succinct, but often incomplete. Socrates said many things in a way I see as pragmatic, but they are complete within themselves. I have already learned something from that, but see a great reason to read some Socrates again after a long break. I bet the meaning of it will have a different resonance with me than it did last time, thus I will learn even more. I do love learning about who I am, and as I said it is seldom painless, but so rewarding. Sincerely, thank you! One should always remember the importance of being ernest.
Indeed!
Being a wee bit eccentric, I accept that it is important to stay with who I am, no matter that it is hopefully different after each day. I like to keep up, at least with myself. Me too. I know people that haven't honed their understanding of things in years. I've never known whether to admire them (which I don't) for being so sure of their conclusions, or see it as a boring holding pattern until death.
Present time. I believe we need to spend more time in the present.
JC I have been looking for the author of a single piece that goes like this, I may have a word wrong, but the meaning is clear. "Say what you will, you can but say what you are."
I thought it was Willy Waveadagger, but I can't find it, so it is probably someone else. Any clues?
it may be "who you are"Why do Christians NEED the Bible to be Written by God?
But the fact is that Bible is neither written by the Creator-God nor by Jesus.
There is little in Bible from the Creator-God or from the mouth of Jesus or written by Jesus; all together it won't be more than a chapter or so.The books of the Bible are not written by God persay, they are written by man. They are inspired by God and written by man, that is why we see different styles of rhetoric, cultural references, and other characteristics of the Bible being written by multiple people. What binds them all together is the underlying theme of One God creating the universe and redeeming his Creation.
The writers of Bible were sinful scribes; they were not innocent people; Jesus never said that whatever the scirbes told is inspired by the Holy Spirit, they were much ordinary human beings and they erred profusely.
The Holy Spirit only can tell what is commanded to him by the the Creator-God.
The sribes ran away when Jesus was on the Cross; that shows they were not truthful believers even. Had they believed in the Creator-God; they would have stayed on the scene?First of all, when you say scribes, are you talking about only the New Testament, or both, because you seem to be focusing on the New? Also, yes, they were sinners. They were capable of making errors, its the lack of those errors found in the Bible that makes it so different.
What's your argument about the Holy Spirit? Are you trying to say that the only truth we can know is told to us by the Holy Spirit and not the Bible?
Your forgetting what happened after Christ had risen though. After they had seen that he had risen again, they went on to preach about the Good News, and all except 2 were tortured to death for there beliefs. Nobody dies for something they don't believe with there whole heart.
So at that very moment, no, they didn't have the faith to die beside Jesus. However, after they had seen the power of God, they believed and died for that belief.By Bible the Christians mean the NT unless the context shows it otherwise.
Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel; which is only a servant of the Creator-God , he does whatever is commnaded by the Creator-God. Holy Spirit is not a god bu a servant of God; like Jesus is not a god or son of god only a servant of the Creator-God whom Jesus used to address as God-the-Father.The Bible is considered by Christians as a collection of books divided into the Old and New Testament, one before the coming of Christ Jesus, and the other during and after his time on earth. Where did you learn that the Bible is only the New Testament?
Also, please show me the sources for your theology. What verse refers to Gabriel as the Holy Spirit? and which one states that Jesus or the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God? And what verse states that Jesus was not the son of God?For Gabriel:
[2:98] Say: ‘Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel — for he it is who has caused it to descend on thy heart by the command of Allah, which fulfils that which precedes it, and is a guidance and glad tidings to the believers —
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=97For Jesus:
[4:172] O People of the Book, exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of Allah anything but the truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah and a fulfilment of His word which He sent down to Mary, and a mercy from Him. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and say not ‘They are three.’ Desist, it will be better for you. Verily, Allah is the only One God. Far is it from His Holiness that He should have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah as a Guardian.
[4:173] Surely, the Messiah will never disdain to be a servant of Allah, nor will the angels near unto God; and whoso disdains to worship Him and feels proud, He will gather them all to Himself.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=172dude, we're using 2 completely different books here... I would use the Bible, as reference not the Quran. and Im sure you would prefer the Quran, not the Bible. So we'd have to either decide on which source is more reliable or a completely different source to even have this discussion.
Im guessing by your references, you're Muslim, and so our views on Christ and God are very different. this is a debate for another topicSure enough; that is the reason we are discussing.
We can rely on reason and rationality; common to all of us; guided by the truthful Word Revealed by the Creator-God; this wasy we can discern the Truth.
paarsurrey is obviously citing the Quran, and referencing his Islamic beliefs for reasons that I can't deduce since this is not a thread about WHAT Muslims believe, but WHY Christians have a particular belief.
Perhaps I should restate the original question. The idea that the Bible was either inspired by God or written by God is not KNOWLEDGE, it is a BELIEF. And for our purposes here, it doesn't matter which of the 2 stances one takes (inspiration vs. dictation). What I'm trying to find out is why it's so important to Christians that ONE OF these beliefs be true. Since there are no requirements unto salvation that the Bible be accepted as EITHER inspired by God or written by Him, when confronted with overwhelming evidence that the Bible is neither, why do Christians feel the need to defend it so strongly? It seems they are uncomfortable with even the POSSIBILITY that their book isn't divine, and I want to know why that is.
Oh my heavens, we are full of ourselves! I suppose there is no response whatsoever I could have given that would have surprised you, right? If I admitted to being only vaguely familiar with the Bible or Christian doctrine, I'm sure you would have casually noted how very surprised you weren't. Ditto if I'd claimed to be lukewarm Christian. Ditto again if I'd let slip that I just happened to also be from whatever highly esteemed institute you were too embarrassed to mention. (I don't fault you, though. Once you've been exposed to Christian prophecy, it's a bit difficult to break the habit of looking back in time and declaring, "Exactly as I expected!" to whatever it was you couldn't manage to point out beforehand.
But all that's neither here nor there. My point in all of this is that I am not making up things in order to find contradictions. The Bible at face value is full of them. And if it's not to be taken at face value, there are 106 different opinions on what it means, each voice clamoring as loudly as your own that you're the only one right and everyone else has got it wrong. And just to prove my point, I'll tell you what I'll do: I'll research 10 different commentaries on this passage, and report back to you on either the "consensus" everyone's reached, or else the various other hopelessly obfuscated explanations desperately seeking validation on the internet.Fine, I'll climb down the monkey bar a bit, just for you EM,
See, you just played yourself there. Your "accredited" school, is nothing but a short program "bible school" connected to another "church" of which you seem to have been indoctrinated well, and now "flipped the script".
Really? Ha! Maybe you do not actually read or thoroughly think before you type. Everything you are quoting from the text is being supported by your own lack of understanding. Kind of like the believing constantly quoting the text, without so much as a shred of what the words they are quipping about mean --by application/experience.
If this is true, then, do this: write a series of hubs listing EVERY contradiction from "Genesis' to "Revelation". Even better, write a book about it, submit to a philosophical publisher (if you need a list of a few houses, feel free to message me). Once you do this, we then can confirm you "know" those contradictions and can "testify" to them. Else, you are --as the saying goes-- straining at gnats.
Although, my guess is, like many post-theists, you are attempting to refute writings you really never thoroughly studied or understood in context. Writings you were taught by the same people you now refute. Which makes the teaching and the refuting of that teaching equally false. Plus, a leftover (habit of) doctrine you never fully broke away from (as you so clearly stated and expressed by the long winded concordance). The blind led the blind; Then one blind guy decided the other blind guy was contradictory. ( You know the Irish proverb of that? "Both of them dead, in the same bed, neither one knows the other is dead --or something to that effect)
The ACTUAL contradiction is theist or post-theist arguing the text that neither understand --yet both, vehemently use as their weapon of "choice **" for and against. Silly Ism ™©, doctrines for kids.
James.
**Choice the Bastard Child of Free Will
Oh dear. I've severely overestimated your capacity to detect sarcasm. I think where you went wrong was when you opted to quote only half of my remark (If I'm not mistaken, in apologetic circles this is what they call "taking something out of context"). On a positive note, I have correctly pinpointed your proclivity for inferring copious amounts of incorrect information into a text. I guess that's a wash on my part, eh?
If I were you, I'd just stick to the facts instead of postulating as to my methodology. You know what they say about when you Ass-u-me.
Now this is finally a good, constructive piece of advice. So good, in fact, that someone's actually already beaten me to the punch. Ever hear of "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy?" Admittedly, I have managed to find numerous contradictions and inconsistencies that that author missed, and I think it's a fine idea to post them in a hub.
Wow. You really are blinded by your own assumptions, aren't you! That "long-winded concordance" you mentioned isn't a bunch of doctrine I've been collecting over the years because it agrees with stuff I believe. I just did a generic Google search yesterday for "John 5:22 commentary," and blindly selected the first 10 search answers that came up without previewing their content first. In fact, when none of those 10 commentaries backed up your particular theology, I did another Google search specifically for a commentary in support of your claims. And you know what? I couldn't find one!
So, it would appear that your antagonism towards me is misdirected, and should be aimed instead at the entire scholastic body of divinity education. You can't fault me for believing what I believe about the Bible when every single voice commentating on the subject is teaching the same thing. It would appear that you and your special interpretation are the duck at the swan party.
I wondered momentarily why your interpretation of a passage that everyone but you agrees on the meaning of was so unique, and then I wondered if it couldn't have something to do with a noticeable trend across the internet: When someone with an Apologetic nature such as yourself is asked to explain a single passage of Scripture on its own, the forthcoming explanation is usually clear and concise enough that even a nonbeliever can follow it. The explanations only begin to sound complicated and confusing when one such as yourself is asked to explain the meaning of 2 otherwise clear passages in light of their apparent contradiction to each other. Ask the same theologian to explain 2 separate passages at 2 separate times, and he will give you 2 clear explanations and end up contradicting himself. But make the contradiction known to him up front and he'll quickly improv some needlessly complex solution that he'd never thought to invent absent the contradiction.Ha! you are delightfully entertaining, fella.
I have been called many things,but an Apologist is a new one. LMAO!
BTW the way, the shear admission on your part of "googling" only further proves my point. But nonetheless, shall play along and be the good-school-boy, fair enough?
However for the sake of epistemological edification, regarding the theist presentation you are using to substantiate explanation of text, I humbly ask the following, before engaging a full dialogue. Simple requests really:
1. What or Whom is Lucifer and from where did he come?
2. What is the meaning of born again?
3. When is Y`shua returning?
I would prefer your opine on the three, including a (non-googled) theological support, and if you choose to include it, a concordance either inline with your explanation --or at least a fair estimate.
James.If that doing on my part proved a point you were making, then I honestly have no idea what point you were making (It must have been as clear as that "judgment" explanation of yours.) It sounded like you were making the point that my understanding of this particular passage was probably the result of some well-meaning - but misguided - yokel Bible school and its affiliated church. Did I misunderstand you somehow? MY point is that the understanding that I have of that passage is the SAME understanding as everyone interested enough in the topic to bother writing a commentary on it, regardless of denomination or affiliation.
Alright, I'll play along as well, as infuriatingly patronizing as you may be. (seriously, is overbearing smugness and condescension a necessary prerequisite to sharing your religion with others? Just askin'...)
(For the record, my go-to concordance is usually Strong's)
1. It is my understanding that Lucifer is often mistakenly interchanged with Satan (Isaiah 14:12) due to the "fall from heaven" phrase. A more in-depth contextual reading leads me to believe that Isaiah intended Lucifer to refer to the ruler of Babylon.
2. My understanding of "born again" "derives" from Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, and consists of a spiritual rebirth and water baptism. (I put 'derives' in quotations since this entire concept actually originated with the cult of Horus in Egypt)
3. Since "no man knows the hour," is this a trick question? The Bible appears to be fuzzy enough on the matter that people have been arguing about it for 2000 years. Based on his own words about what events must take place before the "End Times" - and that some people listening to him would still be alive to see it - I'm inclined to think he was either a failed apocalyptic prophet, or else he was referring to the imminent destruction of Israel by the Romans, and actually has no return plans for the future. (Between you and me, I think the Second Coming is just something first generation Christians made up to explain away the embarrassing fact that he failed to fulfill a bunch of Messianic prophecies).No, you read correctly, and I thoroughly stand behind that statement of you carrying a misguided, but well meant doctrine. (ps, love that word yokel - good one!).
Exactly, and yet again reaffirmed. Your understanding == their understanding in whole or part. Why? Because you were spoon fed that teaching by the local yokel (sorry, couldn't resist), for a time and it satisfied. Then, like typical "chinese food", after eating it, you are quite bloated, but still unsatisfied --and no doubt a bit jittery from all the "MSG" (meaning the "MeSsaGe" within). The teaching was incorrect and therefore your understanding incorrect. This includes pile upon pile of concordances, biblical spin-off playbills and a host of leaflets that could fill an entire land fill. As a supporter of the belief, you gladly spread the same pamphlets until something changed. Now, using the exact same conclusions, testify the text is contradicting. But, anyone looking from the outside in, would agree, the text is not contradicting. Instead the pro or con interpretations of the text, based on whatever teaching was provided, are grossly and emphatically contradicting! Which is expressly my reason for rejecting the sciences of equation and sensation (what most folk call science and religion).
Am I correct? Well let's see. I asked you three questions, right. These questions were posed to determine just how deep your "thorough" study has been on the text and also to determine how much "leftovers" remained in the fridge that you would nibble on at will, from time to time.
This first point made me tilt my head, after your very passionate reply and googling of concordances to support but a single line of text. Why? Because, there is no such entity mentioned anywhere in the scripts -no where. The name Lucifer is false. The name Satan is also false. The actual Latin Vulgate translation (complied in the late 14th century) is lucem ferre or lucin ferre. The word in Hebrew means "messenger of light". It is a descriptive verb, not a proper noun. Fiber Optics are lucim ferre --if you catch my meaning. As well, the interchangeable (split personality) Satan, is also not a proper name of an entity "at war" with "God" and chasing 7.5 billion humans, making them "do things" called evil. Satan is also a verb from the Hebrew ha-satan. The word describes being in opposition, adverse to, out of sync, enmity. for instance, if I were to oppose you learning I would be ha-satan, or if I deliberately turned the one way sign the opposite direction, I would be ha-satan. This describes and is often described in Torah is the human void called choice/the mind which is adverse to the spirit. But yes, Isaiah did reference the ruler of the actual city-state Babylon. Which shows me you have a combo-meal left in the fridge.
Hmm, this is a twist. First, whom is this son of Zeus you are referring? If it is Immanu El, then okay. If not, tell me which version of the Antioch titled pagan order you belong to.
I find it interesting you mention "spiritual rebirth", which we agree on. Also the mention of Horus I am familiar with but does not completely adhere to the work of this particular man. So again, there are leftovers in the fridge.
Now, after reading the first two, I expected much of the same duality, but was surprisingly shocked. Because, the text is expressive in stating "that generation" and not a future coming. What's worse, many books, "scholars" and Strong's Concordances UNANIMOUSLY agree that John's vision (dubbed the Revelation of the End Times) is a complete front to back explanation of a fury against humanity the likes they have never seen! A series of catastrophes politely paused for the "Rapture" of some (also never mentioned anywhere in the text) and another "Great Tribulation" where billions are left to be eaten by birds or destroyed by natural chaos/disease. Yet, John's Letter clearly states in the opening line, what the entire context is in regard to. And if read in-context, one sees that at the End of the Vision, a surprising thing. This thing/event matches perfectly with another event --I believe it is called the resurrection...
Yes, I do agree the idea of a return was spawned to incite fear into the Romans, as they were preparing to crush the entire Judeo-Christian Provinces, an action which ultimately let to their own destruction. And I do agree that "prophecies" regarded Israel itself, since they --and only they-- were the keepers (possessors) of the Law. Which is exactly the purpose of Immanu El's work --to remove the burden of the Law and restore Righteousness (which, again is what he was commissioned and entrusted with (aka the Judgment).
There's a good sport. And it is all in sport, fella. It is not patronization nor smugness on my part, I assure you. So, perhaps, in kind, I will "drop" my sarcasm as well. But, my point is made. You still have deep seeded "leftovers" of your religion and are using those leftovers to make a case against the "chinese restaurant" that made you jittery, gave you food poisoning and left you hungry afterward. See what I mean. You can't use leftovers to made a perfect souffle. This I expressed by saying you were using "an opposing false doctrine" to argue "false doctrine". All the opinions are in contrast to the others, yet the text isn't. The text is not contradictory, only the interpretations of it. The only thing that was disheartening was your uneducated guess that I have some religion or am an Apologist when in truth, I am not defending the text or a belief, but merely pointing out how silly the belief or disbelief is. Your post-theist argument, to me, is just as useless as an atheist argument and certainly the theists argument regarding the belief or disbelief of the "interpretations" of the text. Again: "Silly Ism, doctrines for kids".
James.
Why do Christians NEED the Bible to be Written by God?
We don't; ... some of us just think that we are supposed to think like that!James, I humbly apologize. You know how they say, "misery loves company?" Well, it appears that I have so much company that I simply MUST be miserable (aka: WRONG). As promised, here are 10 commentaries on John 5:22, all of which have seemingly sided with me and my miserable company. I dare say you should truly feel elated, for not only have you proven to be a wiser man than me, you've proven to be a wiser man than every freaking person and publishing house who have ever ventured a gander at this passage. Consider:
John 5:22-23 Commentary
“The Divine power of the miracle proved Jesus to be the Son of God, and he declared that he worked with, and like unto his Father, as he saw good. These ancient enemies of Christ understood him, and became more violent, charging him not only with sabbath-breaking, but blasphemy, in calling God his own Father, and making himself equal with God. But all things now, and at the final judgment, are committed to the Son, purposely that all men might honour the Son, as they honour the Father; and every one who does not thus honour the Son, whatever he may think or pretend, does not honour the Father who sent him." -Matthew Henry Christ Notes.org
“5:20-23 What works does the Son do? The same that the Father does—and the same that the rabbis recognized as legitimate works of God on the Sabbath (see note above on 5:17).
(1) (5:21) Jesus grants life (just as the Father grants life) on the Sabbath. But as the Father gives physical life on the Sabbath, so the Son grants spiritual life (note the “greater things” mentioned in verse 20).
(2) (5:22-23) Jesus judges (determines the fate of men) on the Sabbath, just as the Father judges those who die on the Sabbath, because the Father has granted authority to the Son to judge.)
But this is not all. Not only has this power been granted to Jesus in the present; it will be his in the future as well. In verse 28 we have a reference not to spiritually dead (only) but also physically dead. At their resurrection they respond to the Son as well. “ – W. Hall Harris III Bible.org (13 book bibliography)
“THE SON: Made by the Father the instrument of Divine judgment: Joh 12:48-50.” - ChristadelphianBooks.org
“If that were not enough, the Father has already decided to give the responsibility of judging the world's sins to Jesus. Jesus is the best Man for the job because the criterion for salvation is one's relationship with Him. 23 Being a co-equal with the Father, Jesus deserves the same honor that the Father receives. His position as final Judge will guarantee Him that honor.” – John A. Marsh MarshCommentary.com
“This is not a contradiction of John 1:17f; for, in that place, the thing refuted by Christ was the false expectation that the Messiah would execute a military and political judgment against the Gentiles; and, with reference to that kind of judgment, Jesus came not to judge but to save. The judgment in view here is the eternal judgment, which God has made the exclusive province of the Son of God, all judgment having been placed in his hands. Here Christ plainly told his enemies that they were in the presence of the Judge who would judge them in the last day.” - James Burton Coffman (Abilene Christian U. Press) SearchGodsWord.org
“The Son has the same authority as the Father, including the authority to judge all. This is a prerogative of God only, and another demonstration of the deity of Jesus.” -David Guzik StudyLight.org
“22. Hath committed all judgment to the Son. In the 20th, 21st and 22d verses are given three proofs of the exaltation of the Son, all introduced by "for." The Son is loved of the Father, shall quicken the dead, and shall judge the world.” - B.W. Johnson “The New Testament Commentary: Vol III” (1886) ccel.org
“Ver. 22. Neither doth the Father judge any man. It is certain that God is the Judge of all, by divers places of the holy Scriptures; and to judge, belongs both to the Father and to the Son, as they are the same God: so that when it is added, that the Father hath given all judgment to the Son,[6] this is meant of the exterior exercise of his judgment upon all mankind at the end of the world, in as much as Christ then will return, in his human body, to judge all men, even as man, in their bodies.” - Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 ed. Haydock1859.tripod.com
“For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son. That is to say, the Father does not act injudgment without the Son, nor the Son without the Father, for in nowork is either isolated from the other. Resurrection is nearly alwaysassociated with judgment, and in this instance it is in reviving thatthe judgment is manifested or executed. See also John 5:29 . Note thatjudgment begins in this world ( John 9:39 ).” - BibleStudyTools.com
“God the Father has appointed Jesus Christ to judge humanity. Only He has ever lived a perfect life. In addition, He knows what it is like to be a human being and what difficulties His people have while living in this present, evil world (Hebrews 2:14-18). Thus, He is eminently qualified to be the Judge of all mankind.” - Forerunner Commentary BibleTools.org
SHEESH! What a sorry collective bunch of suckers!
No, I take that back. I'll drop the sarcasm and take this moment to address whoever else might be reading this thread: See, folks? James' incoherent, meandering, theology mash-up is EXACTLY the kind of preposterous lengths the faithful will go to in order to relieve their cherished book of the slightest suspicion of contradiction. Why? That's what this thread is here to discuss.Reason and rationality is common to all of us; guided by the truthful Word Revealed by the Creator-God; all of us can discern the Truth.
- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
And again. Torah, the 4G and even the Letters are peppered with symbolism. The creative expression of humans had no "social cap" at the time, and since "formal reason/education" did not exist, symbolism was used at great lengths. Take for example Water Baptism, which John the Baptist used as a symbol of the coming rebirth. Also note the symbolism of the Passover, the symbolism of Ezekiel's Wheel, the literal & symbolism of Sodom, where men were taken by force from their homes and raped by other men in public. The literal and symbolism of circumcision, and on and on.
There is no mandate to be born again by physical baptism but by mental and spiritual regeneration. Same as John's Letter symbolically shows a step by step order of the fulfillment of the "commission of Judgment" aka The Work, which removed the burden of the Law and restored Mercy/Grace, and access uninhibited to the "kingdom" of Righteousness within every human who negates choice (good-evil aka the self) and accepts complete unification/salvation between they and Creator versus "Hell, Fire & Brimstone reprimand. Humanity has never been judged by right-wrong, as the text point out extensively, yet doctrines teach just the opposite and support it by opinion. Humanity has always been judged by their faith (action of right thinking v reaction of reprimand).
James. Okay, your explanation of Lucifer and Satan is new to me and intriguing. One of our very dear friends is from Israel - and a devotee of Kabbalah - and I seem to remember him alluding to this a while back, but I never pressed him for more details. I'll have to open up that dialogue with him now.
I'm puzzled by your statement that, "There is no mandate to be born again by physical baptism but by mental and spiritual regeneration," in light of John 3:5 - "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;" and Mark 16:16 - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."My take on that, is pressed against the Gentiles receiving baptism of Spirit prior to water baptism. If I recall correctly (and do correct me if I am inaccurate), Peter was in-process of describing what the household should do in order to be "saved" when he was interrupted by the Spirit which fell on all the members --from Cornelius to the slaves/servants.
b.) birth by water comes at birth of a human. Birth of Spirit comes with the Spirit. I never really found or believed in any other way to be "saved" or an in-between method. Once those two elements occur, the rest (fruit) comes via obedient workings of Faith.I assume we're talking about the episode where Peter sees the vision of the sheet being lowered, and instructed to eat of the unclean animals, preempting his summons to Cornelius (or is there another one I'm missing?)? If so, then you have it right. He [Peter] phrases the suggestion of water baptism in such away as to imply that it might have been impermissible without the Spirit. I'm not aware of any Biblical precedent for this particular protocol, but if indeed the Baptism of Spirit is to come first, I still don't see the case made that Spiritual Baptism ALONE is sufficient. This example makes it seem like they both have to occur, just one preferentially preceding the other.
It also seems to me that Jesus couldn't have simply been referring to ACTUAL birth in his statement about water baptism, as that would render his remark the most obvious observation in history: (ie: one would have to exist (be born) to be REborn. Duh!) Is that what he meant? Paul certainly doesn't help clear up the matter when he declares that he, "was sent to preach salvation, but not to baptize." If water baptism is an integral part of salvation, how can Paul hope to achieve his mission? On the other hand, if water baptism ISN'T necessary, why would Jesus make such an obvious declaration that one must first be born from a womb to be saved? (and how would aborted or miscarried babies factor into that interpretation?) I'm not preaching, teaching, or arguing here. I'm just thinking out loud....Hey EM,
I recall the (bizarre) conversation he had with the man. And the mans question of "well, how can a person be born a 2nd time from his momma's womb".
The dialogue seems to suggest that the "kingdom of heaven" or "heaven-earth" (unified creation; see Genesis 1) only pertains to humans. Second, by being born (of water) the first of two requirements to have access is fulfilled. The 2nd requirement is Baptism by the Spirit. Which makes perfect sense. If a human being is going to have dominion over both the elements of the planet (the tangible) and unlimited connection to the supernatural (intangible) he/she would need both items.
And, if not mistaken, this was why humans were created, to have dominion over the tangible/natural while totally connected to the intangible/spirit. The entire purpose of the Law, Prophets, Cross, Resurrection --all events collectively structured to "restore" access to the original stasis human beings were in.
Call me crazy, but it appears correct especially noting the "glorified (resurrected) body" Immanu El had, which Thomas touched, that walked with the others on the road, sat and ate fish on the beach.
In short, a dip in the still water pool would really do little but give someone a much needed bath --especially back then with no indoor plumbing. (sorry bad humor).
James.I think we've got 2 stories mixed up here. The story of Peter and Cornelius is the one where Peter doesn't approve the water baptism of a Gentile until AFTER the baptism of the Spirit fell, but the conversation about being born a 2nd time from his momma's womb was between Jesus and Nicodemus, not Peter and Cornelius.
No mix, EM.
I was remarking on your "Jesus said" statement, in the same reply as the Peter story. Sorry for the overlap.
James.Gotcha.
Alright, James, lemme ask you this. Are you of the opinion that the Bible is error-free, or did you just find fault with this particular example?I haven't found the text to be faulty, no.
Again, it is just a book. Like other books --especially philosophy and even Shakespeare, the text is not at fault, only how it is interpreted or read. As we know two people can read the same line of a screenplay and express that line 5 different ways.
As for this example: neither element of the text mandates water baptism as a requirement for "salvation", although it seems Peter was recommending public baptism, as well as Saul muddling along those lines to do the same as public awareness/outward expression.
Birth as a person, yes; birth of EL by anointing, yes.
James.Wow, I see you grew down the tree a few steps. What happened?
I climbed down a few branches, recently, against my better judgment.
Don't know why...- shavasana, you are replanting your roots, as they say, you cannot stay in Binah consciousness or you'll go mad, you must go down into the realm of action to engage malkhut or should I say be malkhut.
I don't think its a bad thing at all, James. I am actually very excited to actually read it two or three steps down.
But, must admit, was comfortable staring up into the heavens.the lower worlds can be a little space challenged especially if you have to squeeze universals down to the level of specifics.
Agreed, which seems to be the purpose for the descent.
Although the 'bumping into others' or having the view obstructed by shadows peeved me just a bit too.That happens, but as they say (and you know who "they" are)we cast our own shadows.
My father before he died always thanked a beggar for the opportunity.
The beggars would be surprised and be taken aback but would say you're welcome.
Do you get it?
The writers of Bible were sinful scribes; they were not innocent people; Jesus never said that whatever the scirbes told is inspired by the Holy Spirit, they were much ordinary human beings and they erred profusely.
paar, you really really need to cut down on those war-prone statements.
Inspiration is only relevant to those who are already in receipt of Converse with the Creator-God; the scribes were not such persons.
The writers of Bible were sinful scribes; they were not innocent people; Jesus never said that whatever the scirbes told is inspired by the Holy Spirit, they were much ordinary human beings and they erred profusely.Paarsuuey, If the scribes "erred profusely" as you state - why believe ANYTHING they wrote? Everything you believe about "Converse" (whatever that means) with the Creator, and what Jesus said, was recorded by the people you say are unreliable. How do you determine what's reliable and what isn't?
The scirbes don't quote Jesus' exact words in the language Jesus spoke; so it is concepts of the scribes; nothing from Jesus. Jesus had Coverse with the Creator-God , not the scribes.
Jesus his mother Mary and his trusted friends spoke Aramaic/Hebrew his Revealed words are not in these languages. Jesus did not speak English.
You're missing my point, Paarsuurey. My POINT is that everything you think you KNOW about Jesus' life and it's accompanying theology is recorded by the scribes that you've asserted to be unreliable. How then do you select your beliefs?
The truthful account of Jesus life is mentioned in Quran; it corrects those mentioned in Bible.
In fact Jesus did not say anything in any language in the bible. Not a single word.
@ Twenty One Days: Okay. Would you humor me and evaluate some (of what appear to me to be) contradictions of historical/factual value, and thus not subject to subjectivity/interpretation? Perhaps you can point out if/how/where I've misjudged them (I've moved you up on my personal internet rating system from "annoying antagonist" to "respect-worthy peer").
Sure thing EM, fire away!
So me those non-subjective contextual variations!
James.
PS, moo-chase, grace-e-ace on the "up rank", `migoI took your advice and started a hub, creatively titled, "Bible Contradictions" listing them. I only have about 20 or 25 on there so far, but I've got hundreds more to put on.
This is off-topic to this thread, but you left a comment on my hub on contradiction about translations. I often use BibleGateway.com for passage look-ups because they have 25 English translations you can instantly convert to any other version. I usually start with the KJV, and if or when YE OLDE KING'S ENGLISH proves to be too cumbersome for me, I opt for NAS. But like you previously mentioned, that's how I was raised, so I can only tell you what's wrong with the others and not what's right with mine. What's your preference?
Bible itself is actually written by a human, but the message was sent from God and they had purpose to write these words in bible, so we can gain knowledge.
You are mixing two entirely different types of language in one sentence. Please listen to yourself: "Bible itself is actually written by a human." (This statement is a statement of FACT.)
"but the message was sent from God." (This statement is a statement of your personal belief a.k.a. CONFESSION.)
We can argue about the accuracy of information that deals with FACTS. We cannot argue about your belief and confession. So, I suggest that you don't mix them up in the future.
Q:Why do Christians NEED the Bible to be Written by God?
A: We don't...but we need to believe that it is the inspired Word of God!I don't think it matters much. I believe in God, but I take the bible with a few grains of salt.
1. It wasn't written by God.
2. Inspiration has no correlation with truth.
3. There are a lot of good lessons in the bible, learn from it - that is why it's there.
4. Out of the several languages I know, there are always words/terms etc. that don't match up completely. You have to go with the feeling of what is intended, not with an exact converting of words. Same with the bible.
There are contradictions in the bible. The bible comes from different people though, there will never be a 100% match on what people think or the reasoning behind it.
Interesting topic.
I dunno pay2cEM, I reckon you have done that a fair bit better than most, and certainly better than I could.
I've seen this same conversation so very many times that it's likely to induce nausea as I get older. It's very short sighted, and more biased than is explainable. Needless to say, there are contradictions - and one should look at who edited what. The Bible deals not in fact, but in truth; and there are so many differences between the two that it's ridiculous to be asked to explain.
I wonder myself why it is that those who chose to not believe what the Bible purports to be true spend so much of their lives fighting these ideas. It's laughable that such could think that they are trying to "help" anyone.
Allegories interpreted as literal events are the single biggest cause of these problems. It's ridiculous to take the Noah's arc story as anything but an allegory, and most of the Genesis IS allegory. It's even more ridiculous for supposedly intelligent persons to disregard a book because of those who aren't intelligent enough to see an allegory for what it is.
Regards,
WTSWhy do Christians NEED the Bible to be Written by God?
Bible is not written or authored by the Creator-God; sure it is not ; there is no such claim in the Bible or any reasons mentioned to that effect in the Bible.- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago0
Oh my, what did I miss?
Has Marcus become the good school boy after all?
James.I just pointed out that no matter how much you pound the round peg, it won't fit into the square hole.
*nods* We always seem to agree on that.
I just find him massively oblique, like the normal: "but brother, the bible says..."
He is trying to be emphatic no! yet cannot provide a support for the no! beyond objective-subjective.
Funny thing, my son is just 2 1/2, right. He is able to identify nearly 3/4 of the letters of the Alphabet. More than half of them, he can pronounce by phonetic. Now, I know this is just memorization by seeing the letters. To prove it, he can 'read' a book or see a word anywhere and immediately says: "A" or sees an apple and says "Apple". So, literally he is using this A to point to another A. Much like bible-ists use passage "A" to match passage "B". But, if "A" doesn't match "B", they attempt to turn "A" into "a" --much like the Satan v satan issue.
Now, ask my son to tell you what an Apple is, what it means to be an apple, how many varieties of apple, the taste, texture of each -- he looks at me like a deer in the headlights or gets upset and instantly deflects back to what he knows - "A" is Apple. Or points to the picture on my iMac and says apple! apple! I laugh and start reciting it again.
You and I can easily find 'inconsistencies' in any literature.
As 'outsiders' looking into the text, because we see it far more applicable than credential. Credence seems to be his motivation. Unfortunately it is credence ad emotum. And that is in question, at least to me. I explained this to him earlier: the text itself does has many linguistic contrasts (as it should, as any literature does), sure, but certainly is not lacking cohesion nor is it contradicting. The text is neither objective or subjective --it is literal expressive. I don't think he gets that. I don't think many 'believers' get that either.
Even after supplying out-text events, as historic referral, he is still in the A/a.
3 of the 4 issues I resolved quite simply:
When did the event happen. When did he arise. The 3days/nights.
The fourth one I admit is a challenge, since time lines of hours are in question. Unless I was there, it would be impossible to determine hour to hour. Which to me, does not require scrutiny. The days, yes. The overall event, yes. The application of the event, (ding-ding!) Yes. The A/a, no.
I am inclined to ask him what the yod is between the alef-tov, but I know everything between them, to him, is credence ad emotum. Thus, the point-of-revelation ( "big bang" -jeje) eludes him.
James.James, from my perspective you seem "massively oblique" as well. It does not appear that you're even clearly aware of WHAT the point of our argument is. It sounds to me like you were losing an argument you got involved with, so you just switched mid-argument to a different topic altogether that you could be right about. You initially challenged me on the point that, "There are obvious, non-subjective contradictions in the Bible," and you asked me to show them. I presented one about the hour of Jesus' death (and can provide hundreds more at your request), which you were unable to explain away, at which point you decided to make the debate about how well I understand Kaballistic interpretations of the Bible. You and Cecilia can <nudge,nudge,wink,wink> at each other all day long if it gives you the requisite ego boost, but merely pointing out that you have more understanding than me in one area doesn't help you solve the original problem: the Bible plainly contradicts itself on a multitude of occasions.
If you've conceded the one about about the hour of Jesus' death and would like to move onto another, just let me know and I'll bust one out.Em,
I appreciate your perspective.
First and foremost, as I said from jump street, there is no argument. If you would like to argue --philosophically of course-- by all means, set a date/time; we'll spark a Philly, down a Forty-O, over a game of double nil blind spades and argue any subject you prefer.
Second, since there was no argument, I nor you am losing anything. I might be wasting my time, but we'll soon see. In addition, there was no 'switching topics' as it was your initiation of the "5 items" posed. I extended the information from a non-subjective/non-objective view of the text, using a calendar and firsthand knowledge of Hebrew lifestyle. You in turn rejected them, but gave no formal applicable reason as to why. Then dropped the others to zero in on the last point which I have yet to thoroughly critique and then offered me a white flag of surrender (to a non-argument/dialogue).
Third, you claim there are countless non-subjective contradictions in the bible. I said to you, the text itself is not contradicting. The text is both non-objective non-subjective.
Continuing on...
I made no claim anywhere referencing Kabbalah, so please read thoroughly before jumping the fence. (just a suggestion).
As for myself, Cecilia, Julie (Intimate Evolution) and many others, who have studied quite extensively the various applications and designs of theology, what we 'wink-wink' about is none of your concern. I will say plainly,: I regard their posts highly because of non-argumentative clarity, innovation and certainly scholastic or even self-learned education --not the augmentation you present to solidify/defend your past-present-future beliefs.
Not very surprising, from your posts, it seems the only way for you to validate your claim/prove your position is to say someone else has not proven theirs by your desire of the result or else by not disproving your position according to your desired outcome. My strong 'feeling' is that you do not want to solve any of it, as it would dismiss your 'argument' entirely, leaving you with either self satisfaction of 'a-ha!' or a dismissal and an empty glass.
Now, moving forward...
On the present 5 points, of which I have given 4, which do you or do you not have validity/dismissal for?
James.Mismo! (which means exactly but i guess with more force)
Dude, now you're speaking my language. Your place or mine?
It doesn't appear to me that that's what you did. It appears to me that you invented things that are neither in the Bible, nor accurate about 1st century Jewish culture. You used the "am/pm" delineation to reconcile the text that says Jesus was crucified at the 3rd hour vs. the text that he was still standing before Pilate at the 6th hour, but anyone can tell you that "am/pm" are fairly modern inventions, and no Jews 2000 years ago reckoned time this way. They used a 24-hour clock - not a 12 hour one - that didn't start at midnight, it started at sunrise. So you have a contradiction between John's passage that Jesus was before Pilate at the 6th hour on the day of his crucifixion, and Mark's passage that Jesus was crucified at the third hour.
You also stated that Jesus was crucified on a Tuesday, rose some time between sunset Friday and sunset Saturday, and that this somehow constitutes "3 days and 3 nights" instead of 4.The issue, Em, you seem to have is this "time factor".
As stated, with a ? mark and off the cuff am/pm, I have yet to complete a thorough critique of that point.
But, make no mistake, according to their "culture" and "tradition", before that sunset, he would have been crucified. There would have been no other time frame until the Monday after the 3rd Passover Sabbath. By then, he would more than likely have been released or beaten to death by the Roman soldiers, who are historically noted for quite a savage thirst for blood and excessive violence.
As for the 3 days nights I again show you --and do pay close attention--
tuesday night to wednesday night = 1 full day
wednesday night to thursday night = 1 full day
thursday night to friday night - 1 full day
that is 3 nights and 3 days in any mathematical calculation.
So, sometime after sunset friday to sunset saturday (on the Last Passover Sabbath) he arose. That day is an all together different instance from having to spend 3 nights/days in the tomb (aka jonahs sign). But, according to prophecy, the Last Sabbath was the day he would have risen to usher in the new covenant, which is highly significant --and something most believers are unawares of...
JamesThe scribes were confused and could not fit all things together when they invented the myths or concocted the storey. The essence of the prophecy was that Jesus should have not died on the Cross and escacped death on the Cross; like Jonah did not die in the fish and prayed for his escape so should Jesus.
The scribes made a story to make a man god or son of god; they never were witnessed the event and ran away from the scene.They did not believe in Jesus; had they believed in him, they would have stayed at the scene.Okay, that's an adequate explanation of the days/nights (I'm still not sold on your explanation of him dying on a Tuesday though). I did some research into the "am/pm" thing and here's what I found (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-hour_clock): The Romans were using a 12-hour clock at the time these accounts were written, so it's possible the Gospel writers were aware of 2 different systems of time calculations. The Jews used a 24-hour clock that started at sunrise (6 am), so their "third hour" would have been our 9 am. The Romans used "am" ("ante meridiem"), but used their "am" reference counting BACK from noon, not FORWARD from midnight. Thus, "the third hour" was 3 hours before noon, which is ALSO our 9 am...both the Jews and the Romans have different methods for calculating the "third hour," - one forward from 6, and one back from 12 - but in either event it refers to our 9 am. I suppose you could solve this problem by stating that John's reference to Jesus standing before Pilate at the 6th hour was on the Roman's reckoning of time (6 am), while Mark's reference to him being crucified at the "third hour" (9 am) was by the Jewish reckoning, but then you'd have to explain if/why/how you know John was using Roman time. Anyways, I'm learning new stuff as we go along, and I appreciate your input.
Shane
"Kaballistic Jews are attempting to defend the NT"
This might have something to do with the alternative. God forbid that a Jew or Jews defend an Islamic belief. Defend a Christian belief, and get the whole vast American army at your side to do your dirty work, such as killing Muslims. The Jews need our Christian, I mean military power. I think an Israeli would kiss Jesus' butt if we asked them too. Especially now.
I think there are much more political implications in your friends defensives, than there are "good" intentions. Look at you. He's got you convinced.In a nutshell, the number 40 has a significance as does the wilderness. That is why you have to understand the thinking behind it.
Even the positioning of the two criminals, the INRI, the fact that it is a cross and not a pole. All these questions will be answered and you will see, that to expect it to be historically accurate is rather ridiculous.
Much of the gospels is patterned after the Oral tradition, for added effect. If you know the history, you will know the motivations of the gospel writers who wrote some 50 years or so after his death. And they were not written BY the apostles. They were written by the "House of"
TO clarify, it was a Jesuit priest who first told me about the forgotten context followed by a priest who was slated to serve at the Vatican. I then began my own research and it led me to the study of the esoteric and then mythology, where it all became clear.
Christians do know about it. But not all, it is only revealed to those who ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.
Have intellectual integrity. Don't bait. IF you truly want to understand, you will.Cecilia, I thank you for your insights. We certainly agree on a large number of topics, but I think you might be missing something if you haven't followed this thread from its beginning. The reason I am having the conversation with James is genuinely puzzling to me, and something I'm trying to get to the bottom of. It is evident from your conversation with him that he also does not ascribe to a typical American Evangelical Christian interpretation of the Bible, yet he is attempting to defend it from that positions for reasons I can not decipher.
And I am not intentionally baiting anyone. I am genuinely curious as to why people feel required to have a belief that the book their whole religion is based on doesn't require them to have.Why is it essential to ascribe to a typical American Evangelical Christian interpretation of the Bible ? Why a certain interpretation of Bible?
I did follow and was a little frustrated that he was offering you gems and you were like not getting the point. Then I figured you don't want him to show you HOW to understand it, meaning not literally. You are trying to establish a fiction/nonfiction category. It is neither. It is myth. Myth is not fiction, it has symbolic quality that represents something utterly real. You have to understand what it is saying in order to FORGIVE the logic leaps.
Pick up the books, realize you stumbled into a whole different world of understanding and pursue it like a true intellectual.I'm not doing that. Some would say that I blaspheme, and that my beliefs are heretical. I think I see the meaning of it in the clear light of day. I could be wrong. I encourage anyone to read the gospels and make their own decisions, but, they need to be read carefully, because there is a lot there which is not written. If you can't read between the lines, you'll never see it.
That was in response to Paar, not you, Cecelia.
TO add to that, (and I did review the whole exchange with James)
I hope you understand, that just because a text is using symbolic language, that it is not true. that is what he meant by literal-expressive.
I had poetry that had these lines: "I exploded into pieces for my heart was torn apart, the moon that belonged to someone else watched me."
See, it is account of a very real event but in symbolic language.
"Destroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days"
temple=body (the very bottom)
raise it up = to G-d's will (the very top)
in three days = waters will gather to produce form. (new manifestation of consciousness)
I will raise consciousness from the body towards G-d, so that a new consciousness will emerge...that is what it means.
and that is why the three days was a significant number. it doesn't matter if happened or not. the literature is saying it to symbolize AN EVENT that marked the rise of Christianity.
Here's a few more problems with the resurrection accounts:
MATTHEW states that Mary Magdalene and another Mary came to the tomb as it was getting light out, that the Angel of the Lord descended amid an earthquake, frightened the soldiers guarding it into falling over as though dead, rolled back the stone and sat on it. He then told the women to enter the tomb to see where Jesus had laid, that they would see Jesus in Galilee, and to go tell the disciples. Jesus then appears to the women before they reach the disciples, and we are told the women held Jesus. Then the women - overcome with joy - run off to tell the disciples.
VS
MARK states that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome came to the tomb, found the stone already rolled away and nobody outside, so they entered and discovered a young man sitting on the right side of the tomb. He instructs the women to go tell the disciples, but they run away in fear and say nothing to anyone. Later, Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene.
VS
LUKE states that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women all came to the tomb together. They get to the tomb, find the stone rolled away and nobody outside to explain anything. No angel sitting on a rock. Then they enter the tomb and find it empty. No young man sitting on the right side. As they're standing around puzzled and perplexed, 2 men suddenly appear out of thin air, standing inside the tomb. They instruct the women to go tell the disciples, and the women do so WITHOUT meeting Jesus. Peter runs to the tomb, looks around, and is confused. Jesus' first appearance is then to 2 men walking along the road to Emmaus.
VS
JOHN states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb by herself while it was still dark, saw no one, met no one, spoke to no one, and returned to tell the disciples. Peter and John then ran to the tomb, found no one either, and both left. Then Mary looked into the tomb and saw 2 angels seated at the head and foot of where Jesus lay, who ask her why she's crying. She answers, turns around to find Jesus standing there. She doesn't immediately recognize him and thinks he's the gardener. He then calls her name, she realizes who he is, but Jesus orders her not to touch him yet.
I'd say that constitutes a pretty healthy heaping of some contradictions.Shane, again, not contradictions.
Note all four are telling 'generally' the same story,
including most of the 'main' characters.
All four mention an angel(s).
All four mention the stone roll(ed or ing) away.
All four see no Immanu El.
All four say Peter wasn't there at first or any of the disciples for that matter.
All four say the disciples were told after.
All four say Mary was first on the scene.
The only change in characters is Salome || Johanna and 3 of the accounts mentioning a 2nd Mary.
So, four literal-expressive, same instance, slightly varying viewpoints. The story told by four different people regarding the same event. Some more elaborated, it seems, than others. That puts the accounts nearly at 95% cohesive, yes?
James.I think we have a fundamentally different definition of "contradiction." Using your definition (which is?), I don't see how you could ever call ANYTHING a contradiction. If I tell my wife I am home alone, and someone else tells her they just drove past and I've got company over, she's not going to be appeased by my borrowing your "those are actually complimentary" defense. As they say in the South, "I'm gonna have some 'splainin' to do!"
Yes, but the devil's in the details, and that's where the Bible loses its credibility.
No, one mentions 1 young MAN, one mentions 2 men, one mentions 2 ANGELS, and one mentions the Angel of the Lord. That's 6 different characters. This is not what one would normally consider reliable corroboration of allegedly supernatural events.
Yes, but 3 accounts have this happening before the women got to the tomb, and 1 account has them witnessing it.
That's patently wrong, as Matthew states that the women saw Jesus at the tomb, and hugged him before running off to tell the disciples.
That point was not in contention.
Three accounts say the women ran off to tell the disciples, and Mark said they ran and told NO one because they were scared.
Yes, but 3 accounts claim she was with other women, and John claims she was by herself.
These are not 4 "varying viewpoints" since none of the 4 writers witnessed the alleged events. Stating, "The women walked quickly to the tomb" vs "The women RAN to the tomb" is a difference of viewpoints. Stating, "The women met Jesus at the tomb" vs "The women did NOT meet Jesus at the tomb" is an example of contradictory testimony.
Look, compare Matthew and John side by side and you see how starkly these stories conflict:
JOHN says Mary comes to the tomb ALONE, finds the stone ALREADY rolled away, meets NOBODY - neither men nor angels - returns to tell Peter and John, goes BACK to the tomb a 2nd time, this time meeting 2 angels who appear INSIDE the tomb, then finally sees Jesus but is not permitted to touch him.
Matthew says Mary is NOT alone when she arrives at the tomb, actually WITNESSES the stone being rolled away, is met by the single Angel of the Lord who is OUTSIDE SITTING ON THE STONE, and then sees Jesus BEFORE she tells the other disciples, AND is permitted to touch him.
There's is not a mathematician on the planet who would call that "95% corroboration."
What this SOUNDS like is people who don't actually know the story retelling it years later and just making up what sounds good to them. Look how the details get embellished with the retelling: the earliest story - Mark's - has no angels, but a young man. By the latest version - John's - the young man has multiplied and morphed into Angels. This has all the classic halmarks of oral legend-creating.
Someone still doesn't understand what a perspective is.
Oh and I don't need it to be written by God.
It just is...
Some see ghosts and know they are real, some don't and don't believe.
Some see the Bible's divinity, some don't and waste their time arguing.I have a 4-year old who currently operates likes this too: "I really REALLY think so, so it MUST be true! No, I don't have any evidence, no it's not possible for me to GET any, and since I can't get any I will just declare that NOT having evidence is better than having some! WHEEEeeeeee!" It's awfully cute when SHE does it, but I'm hoping to have her weaned off that infantile paradigm before she starts typing on the interwebs and such. So far she's batting like 0-for-400 being right.
That's cute! I have twin 5 year old girls and a 6 year old boy to contend with.
What is amazing is how you operate so closely to that of your child assuming that because I tell you it just is means I don't have reasons.
No. I have reasons but I will not discuss them with you, because you fail to understand perspective.
Therefore, my point is that you overlooked the ENTIRE post by missing the point that YOUR VIEW is not EVERYONE'S VIEW.
Every person's experience of this life is different and you as a single set of eyes and ears cannot possibly determine what is true when you don't have all the information in existence to sort it out.
All you can say is that FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE I cannot see a God existing and the Bible being true.
And if you think everything works around your "logic" you really need to get a grip. History is full of proofs where you are faulty in your assertions.
No. I am not cute at all, your ridiculous assumptions are for they show how you overlook a massive amount of detail and even still overlook the massive amount of information you should know you cannot possess all of.
But to compare me to your child because you misunderstood does indeed show something. Your competence and respect level.vector7: Your post is very contradictory.
First: When someone makes the statement "it just is", is it perfectly fair for the listener to assume that he or she does not have any reasoning behind their belief, namely because they have put no effort into supporting it. If I asked my physics professor why the sky is blue and he replied with "it just is", I would seriously question his knowledge on the subject. Though assumptions may have been made concerning your reasoning, they were not without warrant.
Second: For the second time you have refused to give any evidence in support your claim. This is merely acting to discredit yourself, and appears childish when you claim to have reasons but "refuse to discuss them".
Third: You state that one cannot determine what is true without "all the information in existence." Yet you have already made the claim that God wrote the bible, seemingly asserting it as truth. Are you suggesting that you have all information in existence? Further, by this argument each person's belief holds absolutely no value because no one person can know everything. Thus, no one knows what is true.
Curiously enough, however, I agree with you on this last point (to an extent). No matter what the bible says and no matter what happens in the future, no one can ever, ever, EVER prove that it was written by God. So long as the possibility exists that it was not written by God, the converse cannot be proven. Similarly, it cannot be proven that the bible was not written by God for similar reasons.
At some point we must all except that there is some degree of guessing and blind assumption-making in our beliefs, no matter what they are. If you don't agree with this, you are only fooling yourself.Either discuss your reasons, or don't - I don't care - but why are you spending such inordinate amounts of time discussing the fact that you're not discussing your beliefs? This is a thread for people who want to answer the question of WHY they believe what they do, not who want to rant on about why they don't have to answer the question. If you don't want to have a discussion, stop acting like my 4-year old and just go away.
Where you're from, do they teaches classes in school on how to be as wrong as absolutely possible? I think it would be a fun class to take just for the rubber safety pencils. I know I didn't miss the point of this post because I'M THE ONE WHO POSTED IT! Secondly, the very fact that the original post was formulated as a question for any and all to answer - not to mention the fact that I stated "I don't know why other people think X" demonstrates that you don't have enough comprehensive reading ability to continue waving around your admittedly impassioned, but ultimately misguided, assumptions and conclusion. Go put on a helmet before you hurt yourself.
I am pleased and pleasantly surprised to hear that history is full of my wrong assumptions. Up 'til now, I had been under the impression that I was neither old enough - nor prominent enough a figure - for my ideas to warrant historical evaluation. I hope this doesn't make me all cocky now. (Even though it turns out my previously-unknown, recorded assumptions were all wrong, I'd like to know where you found them so that I may obtain a copy for my mother for her coffee table.)
If the Bible was written by God....why did he choose Greek and Aramaic to write in...couldn't he have just written it in every language so there was nothing to be lost in translation.
Sorry, folks, but God did not write the bible.....you might be able to see that if you actually read it. A good read would be when the Judeans slaughtered nearly all of the Israelites, one of the first documented genocidesThe Creator-God Allah YHWH spoke to all the nations in their languages as language is not any problem to Him; he has taught all the languages to man unders an elaborate system.
The Creator-God Allah YHWH speaks to a prophet in the language of the people to whom the message was intended. He spoke to Jesus in Hebrew and Aramaic as Jesus was sent to the Jews and not to other nations.
Jesus' message was not inteded for the Greek; it is Paul, scribes and the Church who wrote Bible and later translated it in European and other languages, unauthorised by Jesus of course.
[14:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[14:2] Alif Lam Ra. This is a Book which We have revealed to thee that thou mayest bring mankind out of every kind of darkness into light, by the command of their Lord, to the path of the Mighty, the Praiseworthy —
[14:3] Allah, to Whom belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. And woe to the disbelievers for a terrible punishment:
[14:4] Those who prefer the present life to the Hereafter, and hinder men from the way of Allah and seek to make it crooked. It is these who have gone far off in error.
[14:5] And We have not sent any Messenger except with the language of his people in order that he might make things clear to them. Then Allah lets go astray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. And He is the Mighty, the Wise.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … mp;verse=0If that is the best you have for why God didn't write the Bible your sadly under-equipped.
And one episode of anything is not a verifiable reason to dismiss an entire collection of documents inspired by God.
You have so much more reading to do.
Since Vector7 is apparently neither able to figure out WHAT the point of this post was, nor determine how any of the following posts related TO it; I'll restate it, and then highlight how a member of this thread EXACTLY PROVED MY POINT in his last post.
I asked the Christians who DO believe the Bible was either written by God, or inspired by God, why they feel the NEED to believe that since harboring that belief in the Bible is not a Biblical requirement for Salvation. It is a religious tenet invented by the Catholic Church 400 years after Jesus died.
My basis for concluding that many Christians NEED the Bible to have a supernatural foundation is that when they are confronted with evidence that it is NOT supernatural in origin (ie: it contains contradictions or errors), they resort to faulty logic and torturous reasoning that they would never apply to any other facet of their life. Rather than looking at the evidence and then arriving at an appropriate conclusion, they start out with their conclusion, and then "doctor" the evidence to fit it.
James (hub handle Twenty One Days) argued that the Bible does not in fact contain ANY contradictions. I presented him a list of at least a dozen blatant ones in the Resurrection accounts alone. (Example: Matthew claims that Jesus appeared to the women at the tomb; Mark and Luke state that Jesus did NOT appear to the women at the tomb.) That's a contradiction. James says it isn't. Why? Because it's in the Bible. If it happened anywhere else, he wouldn't argue such a ridiculous point. If James' kids told him that they went to the mall and sat on Santa's lap, and his wife told him that the kids didn't even SEE Santa at the mall, James would immediately recognize the contradiction and think something fishy was going on. He would not accept both statements as true. But when presented with the identical scenario in the Bible, James makes a Special Pleading appeal to a brand new definition of "contradiction" in order to explain it away...which was exactly the whole point of this thread: Christians do this for some reason...WHY?Since I am not particularly religious, there is plenty of potential error in this idea. But this is how I see it:
The Bible is the primary source of inspiration and knowledge for practicing Christians. Without it, there is no base for their belief; everything is reduced to here-say and speculation. There are already so many different interpretations of the bible; imagine the chaos if there were no recorded text, and a billion people imagined God and His methods in a billion different ways.
My point here is that Christians need the bible in order to ground and organize their beliefs; it makes the ideas feel a lot more concrete. When someone simply tells you their beliefs, you may dismiss them. But when you hear the beliefs coming from an ancient text, they suddenly seem to hold a lot more water. The bible validates the ideas of Christianity.
Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that the bible speaks the truth. Now suppose, as a believer, you run across an apparent contradiction in the bible. Logically, this should disturb you. However, to admit the presence of even ONE contradiction taints the entire work. For if one contradiction exists, this means at least some portion of the bible is in fact false. Many of the claims in the text cannot be verified; thus, the work becomes a fickle source, and the foundation crumbles.
It is much easier to explain away the contradiction than to deal with it. One of the ways to tackle this lies in the idea that the bible was written (or dictated) by God: since God wrote the bible, there COULDN'T be any contradictions. So there must be some other explanation.
Again, I am not Christian, so I am not saying that this is necessarily the thought process of any particular Christian. This is simply my personal rationalization of the apparent phenomenon.If you don't mind, I'm going to copy your response and save it to my files for possible future use. That was a terrific answer, succinctly put, and easily the best response anyone's come up with yet. I'm curious to see how many Believers agree with your assessment. And then I'm curious to see how they feel about the fact that it took a NON-believer to explain their beliefs for them. Kudos.
I am also impressed with the post. It indicates a good understanding of the problems associated with any religious belief that holds that the have the "truth"
No problem, EM. In all honesty, I was hoping to inspire some debate; I am also very interested in the religious response to this argument.
Related Discussions
- 105
"How do Christians know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?"
by Cranfordjs 8 years ago
People, please stop using the question section to post. I hate leaving comments on questions because people take advantage of the one response rule to take a shot at the previous comments. This forum is inspired by a recent comment I left on a question, "How do Christians know the Bible is the...
- 215
Christians Need to Vote Obama Out IN November
by William Jordan 12 years ago
Obama has finally went to far in his war on Christianity by declaring his support of same sex marriage this is a slap in the face of every God fearing married couple in America. While liberals dance in the streets and rejoice we who love God must raise up in go to the polls in vote Obama out.
- 211
Why do Christians get so bent out of shape when you tell them the bible is just
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
Why do Christians get so bent out of shape when you tell them the bible is just a book?Many versions of this text are different, book order different, passages missing, especially ones referring to the so-called resurrection (not found in the older bibles.) The books are clearly written by...
- 65
Why do Catholics not believe in the Bible?
by augustine72 11 years ago
It is quite obvious that Catholics do not follow many things in the Bible. They look at the Church as the one that sets all standards. Why is it so?
- 33
101 clear contradictions in the Bible
by daeemomin 15 years ago
1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God did (2 Samuel 24: 1) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1) 2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel? Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5) 3. How many fighting men were...
- 58
I think Christians need to be given a break
by janesix 12 years ago
I think many are true believers. They simply just don't know any better.What do you say?