Would We Believe This Time?

[Plan Austral]

Originally posted by alva848


he might have some trouble finding this many

Well, he had 2.000 years to look for them.

[Chowlett]

Ethelred - I assume you are referring to verses such as Luke 9:27

I assure you that there are some here who will not die until they have seen the Kingdom of God."

Does it not strike you as significant that in all 3 Gospels where this is mentioned, the passage immediately following is the transfiguration? For example Luke 9:28-36

[Ethelred]

Ethelred - I assume you are referring to verses such as Luke 9

You assume wrong. That has nothing to do with the prophecy of the Second Coming so I don't know why you would think that.

Try this one

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Yes it does also say no one shall know the day. That is not the same as saying it won't happen in a general time frame like the span of a generation.

What strikes me as significant is that the very early christians thought the same as I was saying.


So no, the things in Luke don't strike me as significant. Especialy considering as much in the Bible is vague, ambiguous and downright wrong in many places.

For instance what were the last words of Jesus on the cross? If you can't be sure on that how can you be sure about any quotes in the Bible that people are basing their thinking on?

[Chowlett]

Matthew and Mark give the same account of Jesus' last words, and do not contradict either Luke or John, since M&M say that Jesus "gave a loud cry", without specifying what the loud cry was. Likewise, the giving of the cheap wine is nowhere contradicted, and is omitted only from Luke's gospel. In John, it is given a slightly different reason than M&M, but the act is the same.

In fact the only contradiction in Jesus' last words is between Luke and John, one of whom says that Jesus said "Father! In your hands I place my spirit!", while the other has "It is finished." (Or, a more accurate translation I'm led to believe, "Paid in full.") Why could he not have said both? It's not as if you have a lot of breath while you're being crucified, one reporter may not have heard what the other did. Besides, John's gospel is often more of the Holy Mystery style than Luke's, which centres more on Jesus' compassion for others and for families, in which case it would make perfect sense for them to report different parts of his final words, according to what struck them most.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chowlett
Matthew and Mark give the same account of Jesus' last words, and do not contradict either Luke or John, since M&M say that Jesus "gave a loud cry", without specifying what the loud cry was.

I agree on that.

Likewise, the giving of the cheap wine is nowhere contradicted, and is omitted only from Luke's gospel. In John, it is given a slightly different reason than M&M, but the act is the same.

Which has nothing to do with the last words.

In fact the only contradiction in Jesus' last words is between Luke and John, one of whom says that Jesus said "Father! In your hands I place my spirit!", while the other has "It is finished." (Or, a more accurate translation I'm led to believe, "Paid in full.")

Which is indeed a contradiction. One too many if the Bible is the word of god as many claim. Of course its not the only contradiction but since this thread deals with Jesus its a relevent one.

Its it is finished or it could be paid in John. 'It is finished' is the single word teleo in the Greek.

5055 teleo {tel-eh'-o}

from 5056; TDNT - 8:57,1161; v

AV - finish 8, fulfil 7, accomplish 4, pay 2, perform 1, expire 1,
misc 3; 26

Why could he not have said both?

Because in both version he dies imediatly thereafter. If he said both there would still one of those sentences that was last.

It's not as if you have a lot of breath while you're being crucified, one reporter may not have heard what the other did. Besides, John's gospel is often more of the Holy Mystery style than Luke's, which centres more on Jesus' compassion for others and for families, in which case it would make perfect sense for them to report different parts of his final words, according to what struck them most.

If John is to be given the short shrift on its accuracy of fact it shouldn't be used to claim Jesus definitly died on the cross. He has by far the most detail of the crucifiction. If he didn't get the last words right what else is wrong? The spear? I am pretty sure he, or someone else, made that one up. It reeks of an added detail intended to give an impression of versimlitude.

None of what you said changes my point. The two gosples disagree on what Jesus actually said. The both have a last phrase that is clearly last and comprehensible. They don't agree. Since we can't even be sure on something that was so definate how can we assume that ANYTHING else was accurately recorded? Assuming any of it was recorded at all and there is much in the Bible that many scholars think was added in later by others and put in the mouth of Jesus.

If you don't believe it is the word of god there is no special claim of accuracy. It is just the word of men. Just as likely to be wrong or even made up. Which is exactly what I think it was. Excepting of course that even the best historians of the time were lousy historians with a tendency to have axes to grind and not above spinning things to suit their needs. And the apparent authors weren't even historians but prosyletizers.

Of course if you do believe its the word of god there really shouldn't be any contradictions. Unless of course you are assuming a fallible god given to error.

[Chowlett]

Originally posted by Ethelred

I agree on that.

Good.

Which has nothing to do with the last words.

Granted. It just struck me as quite interesting at the time.

Which is indeed a contradiction. One too many if the Bible is the word of god as many claim. Of course its not the only contradiction but since this thread deals with Jesus its a relevent one.

I'll answer this when you mention it again further down.

Its it is finished or it could be paid in John. 'It is finished' is the single word teleo in the Greek.

5055 teleo {tel-eh'-o}

from 5056; TDNT - 8:57,1161; v

AV - finish 8, fulfil 7, accomplish 4, pay 2, perform 1, expire 1,
misc 3; 26

Thank you - I assume the numbers refer to the Greek symbols or pronunciations, yes? Anyway, I prefer the "paid" translation, as that is what the cruifixion was for.

Because in both version he dies imediatly thereafter. If he said both there would still one of those sentences that was last.

Ok, one of those sentences is last - but does it matter which? If his disciples were standing a little way away, which I believe is stated somewhere, it is entirely possible that he did not speak loudly enough for all of them to hear everything he said. In which case, Luke reports what he heard, John what heheard. John even allows Jesus to bow his head - perhaps Luke was standing closer, didn't understand the "It is finished" line and omitted it, but caught the "Into your hands" bit which John missed by being further away for a line said into the ground? I don't know, but neither do you.

If John is to be given the short shrift on its accuracy of fact it shouldn't be used to claim Jesus definitly died on the cross. He has by far the most detail of the crucifiction. If he didn't get the last words right what else is wrong? The spear? I am pretty sure he, or someone else, made that one up. It reeks of an added detail intended to give an impression of versimlitude.

I never gave John short shrift. I merely stated that "It is finished" is more in line with John's style of recounting, while "Father! Into your hands" fits with Luke's angle more closely. And why should the spear not be true? The Romans needed to kill the three "criminals" before the Sabbath, so they broke the legs of the two bandits - thus preventing them from raising themselves enough to breathe. Jesus appeared already dead, so the leg-breaking was not necessary - but just to check, they pierced his side to make sure his blood had separated. It's presumably easier than leg-breaking.

None of what you said changes my point. The two gosples disagree on what Jesus actually said. The both have a last phrase that is clearly last and comprehensible. They don't agree. Since we can't even be sure on something that was so definate how can we assume that ANYTHING else was accurately recorded? Assuming any of it was recorded at all and there is much in the Bible that many scholars think was added in later by others and put in the mouth of Jesus.

As I have said, they don't agree, granted - but nor do they disagree. Neither claims at any point "and these were the last words of Christ". They simply say that he said this, then he died. There is a slight implied immediacy, but not a definite statement of finality, nor a given timeframe between the words and death.

If you don't believe it is the word of god there is no special claim of accuracy. It is just the word of men. Just as likely to be wrong or even made up. Which is exactly what I think it was. Excepting of course that even the best historians of the time were lousy historians with a tendency to have axes to grind and not above spinning things to suit their needs. And the apparent authors weren't even historians but prosyletizers.

Of course if you do believe its the word of god there really shouldn't be any contradictions. Unless of course you are assuming a fallible god given to error.

I'm neither. The Bible is the inspired word of God, written down by Men with their own political agendas. This warps the meaning in places, and you have to read the bible with an understanding of the politics of the time. But I have yet to be shown a significant contradiction in the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

[KrazyHorse]

The Apocrypha are all from the Old Testament time period. They aren't in the Jewish version of the Bible. They were in the first version of the King James and of course are still in the Catholic versions

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=apocrypha

I direct your attention to the second definition

Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons

When I was a boy at Jesuit school we didn't refer to any books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as apocrypha.

[KrazyHorse]

And I remember quite distinctly that a lot of these apocrypha dealt with Jesus' childhood, while the Gospels are notably short on this subject.

[Ethelred]

Thank you - I assume the numbers refer to the Greek symbols or pronunciations, yes?

Well the 5055 is a Strong's concordance number. I am not sure on the others. I just cut and pasted that. The greek letters were there too but they got lost somehow. They might have been a GIF and not letters.

Ok, one of those sentences is last - but does it matter which? If his disciples were standing a little way away, which I believe is stated somewhere, it is entirely possible that he did not speak loudly enough for all of them to hear everything he said.

They are both claimed as last. Only one can be.

As far as I have been able to tell most of the the disciples and ALL the Apostles were in hiding to avoid a similar fate. Luke clearly wasn't there and there is nothing to hint that Mathew, Mark or John were. There is even a lot of doubt about who the actual authors of the the gospels really were.

There is no reason to believe they were eyewitnesses whoever they were.

And why should the spear not be true?

It surely would have been mentioned in the others. John was the last gospel added to the Bible and many thought it was bogus. There were a number of other gospels floating around when the Bible was assembled. John wasn't as well thought of as the synoptic gospels.

The Romans needed to kill the three "criminals" before the Sabbath, so they broke the legs of the two bandits - thus preventing them from raising themselves enough to breathe. Jesus appeared already dead, so the leg-breaking was not necessary - but just to check, they pierced his side to make sure his blood had separated. It's presumably easier than leg-breaking.

I don't think the Romans would have cared that much. I can believe them breaking the legs. I don't think they would bother with the spear as a test. It sounds falsified. I have never heard of a blood seperating like that and I looked. Lividity would not explain it and it takes longer in any case.

As I have said, they don't agree, granted - but nor do they disagree.

Well they DO disagree. If they are different and they are both last they disagree.

Neither claims at any point "and these were the last words of Christ". They simply say that he said this, then he died.

That is as clear as it gets that they are the last words. Dead men tell no tales. I don't think he died by the way. Dead men don't walk around later. That is why I think the spear story is if not wholly manufactured it is at least innacurately reported. For instance the sponge on a stick could have been mistaken for a spear thrust. Jesus must have been covered with blood from the flogging. Thus you get a clear liquid mixed with blood.

There is a slight implied immediacy, but not a definite statement of finality, nor a given timeframe between the words and death.

Slight? Say something and die. Thats not slight.

I'm neither. The Bible is the inspired word of God, written down by Men with their own political agendas.

That has little meaning. If god allowed distortion than I don't see any sign of divine guidance.

Bach's music was inspired by his vision of god. That is pretty much the same as you are claiming unless you can show the Bible has a remarkable degree of accuracy and you have just seen it does not.

But I have yet to be shown a significant contradiction in the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

Well that is something else entirely. Christian faith was invented over hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. For instance it includes the concept of the Trinity. There is absolutely NO biblical justification for the Trinity. None whatsoever. I can do better than any church has in justifying it since they claim it is a mystery. I have done so and christians have agreed with my intrepetation of it. The only mystery is why it was invented by early christians since it is so clearly unsupported in the Bible.

Want a REAL BIG contradiction?

Has anyone seen the face of god?

I am fond of that one because I discovered it on my own. Whether it counts as a basic tenet of faith depends on what you consider basic. Catholics think Mary was virgin all her life and that is a very basic tenet of Catholicism but its wrong. The only evidence for Jesus outside the Bible that is fully independent of christian claim is in Josephus. He makes one reference to Jesus and its in regards to a man called James the brother of Jesus.

[Chowlett]

Will respond later - I need to do some work now.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Chowlett


The Bible is the inspired word of God, written down by Men with their own political agendas. This warps the meaning in places, and you have to read the bible with an understanding of the politics of the time. But I have yet to be shown a significant contradiction in the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

How about the creation of men? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are completely contradictionary to eachother !

Genesis 1 being the creation of the world, then plants, then animals, and last man and woman simultaniously.

Genesis 2 (v.4-25) starting all over again with just the planet and then starting with Adam and all else following after that, Eva being the last creation.

This is pretty basic i would say.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I direct your attention to the second definition

You didn't follow the links did you? I did and the actual listing of the books FULLY agrees with what I said. ALL of the Apocroypha were in the Old Testament.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Bible

Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons

Which is not what are called the Aprocrypha with a captial A. That definition would include stuff like the Gnostic writings.

When I was a boy at Jesuit school we didn't refer to any books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as apocrypha.

Of course not. They aren't apocryphal in the Catholic Church. I went to a school with nuns myself. The Sisters of St. Joseph.

Nevertheless if you follow that link you will see which books are called Apocrypha.

Jesuits are worthy of respect but they don't tell the kids all the stuff the protestants say.

Cool, I just noticed I only need a Q instead of the full QUOTE to mark quotes.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And I remember quite distinctly that a lot of these apocrypha dealt with Jesus' childhood, while the Gospels are notably short on this subject.

Well I think most of those were stories made up later. Maybe some was from the Gnostic writings or Thomas or Mary.

Gnostics have Jesus going off with Mary Magdalene and raising kids in Northern Europe. The Rosicrucians come from this stuff. It may even be true. After all why did Jesus and Mary feel responsible for wine at a wedding? The gnositic answer is that it was the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

I am Agnostic not Gnostic. Just ran across this stuff in other religion discussion on the net. Over at the Maximum PC forum of all places.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Kublai-Khan



That is a wrong interpretation.
A few paraghraphs before it says that millions will be saved.

The 144.000 would be like the purest ones, the virgins who choose to follow christ and committed no sins etc etc.

If this is from Revelations it also says that anyone who believes will live forever in heaven.

[Robert]

It also said that this would before the generation that Jesus was speaking to would pass. They passed many centuries ago.

When he spoke about "This generation will not pass before all these things have happened" he talked about his death and ressurection. And indeed, that generation didn't pass before that all happened.

thought I should mention that since some people keep on using this paragraph and sleep very comfortable every knight since this quote proves the bible can't be right. I'm sorry, next night won't be that comfortable