Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[beingofone]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm talking about small details, where in gospel A Jesus first silences the storm and then talks tot he disciples and in gospel B Jesus first talks to the disciples and then silences the storm.

Obviously one is a 'wrong' account of the story. But that's what happens when a story is being told by different people. The message remains the same, the miracle remains the same, the lesson to the disciples remains the same.

Exactly right. It takes nothing away from the text - in fact it tells me there was no 'grand conspiricy' to edit out all contradictions. It tells me that they made mistakes and that means they were being forthright to the very best of their ability.

Its obvious are generation is not the first to discover these minor contradictions but the text was left intact regardless.

I don't believe that God dictated or wrote the Bible. He inspired the authors of the Bible. But these authors testify what they saw. Only in a few situations God dictated literarly what should be written by the authors. The Bible is not a 100% accurate book, it's a book written by men. If a scientists comes with a new theory and the book he publishes contains some spelling errors, then that doesn't mean that his theory is wrong or fallable. And that's what we're talking about, faults as little as spelling typos.

Could not agree more. The scripture is not perfect nor was it ever meant to be. It points to that which is flawless meaning; the Logos (living word) not the letter. Jesus himself said that.

The inspiration was in pointing to the enlightened experience of those who found truth, peace and joy and desired to share their testimony.

A cop goes out on his shift to look for what is wrong. Wonder of wonders he finds crime. What a mystery.

It is the 'whole' story that is important and lifechanging not all the details.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by beingofone


You never have read them have you?

Oh indeed, in glorious 17th Century English and a few uninspired modern renderings too.

And the rest of the bible too. Those begats do tend to pall after a while, I find.

Do you know how the Jewish authorities turned him over to Pilate in all 4 Gospels?

Uh huh. Now which Jewish authorities would they be ?

Luke 23:7-11 has Pilate (!) send him to Herod who then returns him to Pilate.

Matthew Mark and John seem to miss out this somewhat significant event.

Now John mentions only the Jewish high priest.

And yet spookily, Matthew has other priests and scribes gathered together BEFORE Jesus is sent to the high priest.

Matthew 26:57

However in Mark 14:53 the priests and scribes come together AFTER Jesus is brought before the high priest.

But Luke differs again at Luke 22:66 and has the priests and scribes only arriving a day after Jesus was arrested.

Did they see the same event ? I don't think so.

But these authors testify what they saw.

Err, what proof is there that these people were eye-witnesses to these events ? Or even that these descriptions were taken down on or immediately after the events supposedly occurred ?

Its easy to just make blatant statements when you have no proof.

Oh, I agree.

And that's what makes faith and belief in the supernatural so attractive to so many people. You don't need hard evidence, reason or proof, or even plausibility, you just need faith.

[beingofone]

molly bloom:

Luke 23:7-11 has Pilate (!) send him to Herod who then returns him to Pilate.

Matthew Mark and John seem to miss out this somewhat significant event.

So because part of the story was left out that means what exactly? That they did not tell the whole story?
Tell me something I do not know.

Now John mentions only the Jewish high priest.

And yet spookily, Matthew has other priests and scribes gathered together BEFORE Jesus is sent to the high priest.

Wrong again.

John 18: 2. And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
3. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

Thats what happens when you go to a atheist website on a crusade that has no theologians. They just make claims of what they know nothing.

Tell you what though. If you have any questions about the scripture I will be glad to give you straight up answers.

However in Mark 14:53 the priests and scribes come together AFTER Jesus is brought before the high priest.

No wrong again.
I do not be to be redundant but there are very few people who bother to actually check out the contradictions. They are almost non existent.

Mark 16: 53. And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

Molly:

But Luke differs again at Luke 22:66 and has the priests and scribes only arriving a day after Jesus was arrested.

There were two gatherings - if you know Jewish law this is not hard to understand at all. Their conviction had to be legal.

Matthew 27: 1. When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

You see - the only contradiction is in the minds of those who really, really want there to be one so they can say "aha" its all fake. Well, when you do your homework, you become more convinced that the story is valid and true.

Did they see the same event ? I don't think so.

Only because you do not actually read the criticisms - you just assume they are correct.

If I had the time and inclination I could pretty much wrap up almost all contradictions. There are a couple of minor ones though that I have no clue on. But again they are insignifigant.

Err, what proof is there that these people were eye-witnesses to these events ? Or even that these descriptions were taken down on or immediately after the events supposedly occurred ?

Oh, just a literal mountain of evidence - its really not hard to find if you keep your mind open.

And that's what makes faith and belief in the supernatural so attractive to so many people. You don't need hard evidence, reason or proof, or even plausibility, you just need faith.

Riiiight - still tapping my fingers witing for this biggy contradiction that is so blatant.

Funny, I have talked with many who claim this but never has anyone evr backed it up.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Oh indeed, in glorious 17th Century English and a few uninspired modern renderings too.

And the rest of the bible too. Those begats do tend to pall after a while, I find.



Uh huh. Now which Jewish authorities would they be ?

Luke 23:7-11 has Pilate (!) send him to Herod who then returns him to Pilate.

Matthew Mark and John seem to miss out this somewhat significant event.

Now John mentions only the Jewish high priest.

And yet spookily, Matthew has other priests and scribes gathered together BEFORE Jesus is sent to the high priest.

Matthew 26:57

However in Mark 14:53 the priests and scribes come together AFTER Jesus is brought before the high priest.

But Luke differs again at Luke 22:66 and has the priests and scribes only arriving a day after Jesus was arrested.

Did they see the same event ? I don't think so.




Err, what proof is there that these people were eye-witnesses to these events ? Or even that these descriptions were taken down on or immediately after the events supposedly occurred ?



Oh, I agree.

And that's what makes faith and belief in the supernatural so attractive to so many people. You don't need hard evidence, reason or proof, or even plausibility, you just need faith.

Molly, a lot of your doubts are reasonable (not to say correct, but reasonable men can see things different ways, and still be reasonable), these aren't.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

It is a nebulous concept. A person is what most Jews would guess, but a large # would admit it needs not be a singular person.

Is their any evidence from the Torah that would support such an interpretation?

The Meshiach is barley mentioned in the Torah, at all. The concept of the Meshiach itself is a "modern" invention and by modern, I mean once the diaspora started. There is little to no messianic discussion in what are *proboably* the oldest Jewish texts, chronologically speaking.

Yet you can state with assurance that the messiah is not going to be a single person. What do you really believe in Vesayen, the Torah which you keep holding up or other things besides the Torah?

A snake is a snake because it is named, a snake.
A person who is not named and does not give details which are useful or enough context to be useful, is not Jesus.

And why would the Torah mention Christ by name? Are you really insisting that the Torah must do so in order to be considered a fulfilled prophecy?

The result of conditioning and their enviroment. Mankind is fundamentally good, or neutral(I'm unsure which, but not evil).

So if we have a perfect society then man would be perfectly good?

Or do you believe as Rousseau did that if we remove society altogether and leave man on his own that we will have good people?

I didn't know there were folks who still believed in the noble savage.

I did not mean that evil is morally neutral but that "evil" is not a physical thing or even an abstract concept, it is an action which only exists in the moment it occurs.

Here is an analogy which won't help..... you might see evil as the gun which is used to murder someone. I see the evil only as the moment in which the person is murdered.

So after that moment passes where the gun is shot and the person dies, no evil has been committed? We could not sentence anyone for their crimes or hold them accountable with your definition.

Point of view. In a court of law, a please bargain is not admissible if the defendant has been the subject of coercion. It is not fair for the person who makes the rules and the stimulus to punish you for following the stimulus provided. This one really could go either way though, it really is a matter of opinion, not really logic or faith.

One may be tempted without such temptation amounting to coercion. I cannot go in a court of law and say I was tempted to steal, therefore I was right to succomb to my temptations by stealing.

Except in the eyes of the court, we have no free will. From the perspective of G-D we have no free will-how could we?

Very easily. God allows us to do things contrary to his will, to sin. You don't believe that we have no choice in the evil that we do?

We do not follow the same ethical structures. Jewish ethical structures have a system which inherantly questions authority, including G-Ds. Christians have justified theft, war and murder for millenium by saying it is G-Ds will and still do so today and if you doubt that... I don't believe he says so, but Bush CLAIMS that G-D guides him in his wars..... The christian ethical structure has a world view which involves the torture of the unfaithful when they die.

Horse hockey!

People have used all sorts of things to justify their own actions, whether it is christianity, a poor upbringing, circumstances, genetics. It matters not what they use, the result is the same.

The question is whether Christianity teaches that such things are good. This is the same Christianity that teaches one to love your enemies and to do good to those who curse them.

Yet in your eyes, the only thing there is Hell, and Christians would want people to go there. We don't which is why we try to teach people about Christ so that they will be saved.

Heck, if Christians wanted people to go to Hell, they would do nothing, they would just sit and not tell anyone about their God and keep it to themselves.

I like the clever anti- Bush rant. Be thankful for being an american is all I can say, there are many who suffer just for their faith who live elsewhere.

Christian ethical structures embrace what to an outside observer APPEARS to be joyful, willing ignorance... which is called faith.

So Christians are all blind devoted sheep who follow their masters unquestioningly while Jews are somehow better for having 3 temples for 2 Jews?

I know the stereotypes, and that is all they are, stereotypes.

What similarities we share are inherated from the fact we both live in a civilization which requires certain respect for others or social cooperation collapses and civilization is not possible. What similarities we share, were inherant in civilizations which predate Judaism and Christianity.

Horse hockey!

There are two strains of Western civilisation, one from Greece and one from Israel. The similarities were not present in civlisations predating Judaism, the concepts were entirely unheard of, which is why they call it Judeo-Christian because of those similarities.

Christians banned slavery? Historically the eye has only blinked since they did. Christians have embraced enslaving EVERY possible group that they are able to, as soon as they come into contact with a succeptible slave population and justify it with their G-D. They would put the Romans to shame. No Christian society has ever banned slavery except when it was economically viable to move to another system(that would make a great thread topic).

Right so Christianity is wrong when they are wrong and wrong when they are right.

Wow, this thread has really deteriorated.

I expected better then this tripe Vesayen, you don't see me saying the same thing about Jews.

I wonder why I bothered to reply at all...

The real connection is that every religion in the history of the world has a religious festival in the spring relating to harvest and rebirth and most Christian holidays are transformed pagan ones.... which were spring time festivals of rebirth! Alot of them also involved huge orgies... what do you think the rabbit is? A symbol of fertility.

Passover has nothing to do with rebirth or spring, unlike most other holidays from other religions which take place at the same time.

The only way you can deny the connection is to reduce Pesach to a pagan spring festival.

Excellent job Vesayen. The same critique that you applied to Easter applies to Pesach.

Easter has nothing to do with Spring, but everything to do with the death and resurrection of Christ. This death and resurrection occurs during the time of the Passover because of the prophecies made surrounding Christ as the passover lamb without blemish, as the perfect sacrifice for our own sins.

[Ben Kenobi]

Human sacrafice is one of the worst possible sins any human can commit, Jew or non Jew and is absolutley desplorable to Jews. This makes Easter even more different then passover.

Yet Jesus willingly gave himself up to the Cross.

I'm not denying that it is horrifying that such atonement would require his death and his resurrection, but that is the truth of our sins.

I don't see Christians going around and saying that human sacrifice is required for redemption, however one has to realise that the Jewish sacrificial system cannot redeem someone through the use of animals.

The same is true for other persons. We are all sinful, hence the sacrifice could by no means redeem anyone. The person had to be sinless and thus not responsible for any sins of his own.

Every religion in the world today which is practiced.... well the overwhelming majority. Do you think other religions dont have prohabitions on theft, murder, untruthfulness etc?

Frankly, no I don't.

I see one religion which says that blowing yourself up to kill Jews gets you 72 virgins. Murder seems to be a-ok with them.

I see other religions that kill people for alleged conversions, especially Hindus in India. Yet I don't see Christians killing those who convert their own brethren to another faith.

Actually if the crucifiction happened when it was said to, the Jews would of been *VERY* pissed off. The crucifiction would of happened during Passover. The Romans usually did not do executions on local religious holidays and there are scholars of the era which said the Romans did not do executions in Judae on the local holy days.

That's when they did these executions, and the Jews didn't seem to be rid of their King.

Jews *really* did not like people being executed on the high holy days and passover was even more hugely important then, then it is today.

I don't think they minded all that much since they would get rid of a blasphemer, and the blood was not on their own hands.

If I am understanding your claim in regard to this, you said that everyone in the world could only learn of Jews via some kind of divine intervention because it is too great a task. That happened by completley mundane means.

I am telling the truth here. Most people know of Jews through Christianity, not from the synagogue or from studying famous Rabbis.

Even then, why not give just a few more USEFULL details? Another detail or 3 tossed in and a sceptic like me could not deny it. If this is G-Ds work and it has to be because only he can see the future, if he wrote a prophecy for us, why didn't he make it USEFULL?

One can rail at the lack of evidence, but the truth is that anyone can find a lack of evidence enough to convince him not to believe something.

That is not difficult at all to say, to demand more evidence.

No new children = no continuation of the covenant. G-D also promised in Genesis to never destroy mankind or the world... which means the rapture can not happen, which also means no mass ascension to heaven. That means the promise has to be carried out on earth.

Even those in hell are not destroyed, they suffer enternal punishment.

Show me where heaven is the same as destroying mankind.

And he never made the promise not to destroy the earth, only mankind.

Paul is wrong in the same way Paul is wrong when he tells us to ignore other ritual observances. This is a commandment by G-D and an important one, Jews are not going to stop doing it without an equally clear instruction from a divine source.

Who is us? I didn't know you were a Christian. Paul is saying that the ritual observances can be done, but only if the heart is where the head is at.

I don't recall Paul saying that G-D says you no longer need to circumcise.

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, it's the faith that counts.

He also promised never to destroy the earth. Revelations describes the destruction of the earth. Humans are their material bodies and their souls. If our souls still exist, humans do not exist, just human souls. If there are no bodies, there are no humans.

Awesome.

I am so happy with you Vesayen I could dance!

You are very right, that we need body and soul together. Hence bodily resurrection as taught by the Christians!

Long, long dead. Jesus can't smite the dead, now can he?

Judge the living and the dead.

Obviously I am not psychic but time will either proove me right or wrong.

I hope you are but I saw the joy in Israel withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank, and I fear your optimism is misplaced. There was nothing joyful about such a concession.

Elijah need not come first.

Oh, why's that? Because Malachi doesn't count?

My point was that the disciples and other authors of texts in the Christian bible could be flat out writing with a critical eye on the Torah to take maximum advantage of what already exists. I was trying to be tactful and polite instead of just saying they were being intentionally deceitful and lying... which is a possibility. However on the same hand I will wave a hand against a large portion of the Torah so it is not really anti Christian(really), just anti implausability.

Jews wrote the Septuagint not Christians. I think you have to little faith in Christianity if you believe we would deliberately write the Old Testament without going back to the best Jewish sources. Your earlier citation confirmed this similarity.

Ester didn't happen. It may have been inspired by anti sematism of the time or a similar event of a *MUCH MUCH MUCH* smaller localized scale, so small it was never recorded in an era of history where such things were pretty well recorded.

Daniel is an acid trip which made its way into the canon. I would also reject most of Genesis till Abraham comes on the scene-before him it is scientifically and historically improbable or flat out impossible.

Then your beef is with the 70 scholars who included both books in the septuagint and not with me.

There are not enough details to persuade anyone who gives it a critical eye.

Depends on the eye and the critic moreso on the depth of the details.

No, we can. If the prophecy is in the Torah it must ALSO fit the New Testament or it does not work. Lets imagine we had never even heard of Christian or read their holy books. Would any of these make sense to you or even appear to be prophecy? The New Testament can not be proof for these supposed prophecies *BUT* if these prophecies do not fit the new testament then surley they are untrue or not prophecies, because it is neccesary that they fit the new testament.

If you can disprove the prophecy through the NT then I can prove the prophecy through the NT.

Either the NT has authority or it does not. Bottom line.

I said adoption did NOT really happen in ancient Israel and it does not confer tribe membership. On the enormously rare occurence where a non Jew would be adopted into say, the tribe of Levi, he could not do priestly duties. Adoption means you are the son of the parents, not a member of that tribe.

Levi is special among the tribes. There are examples of adoption where the descendents do become members of the tribes. I agree it wasn't common, but that's not the issue here.

LIKE ME means he has to be like one of the prophets. Jesus is *NOT* like one of the prophets, not even remotley similar. A Jew would never compare a human being to G-D in any way.

When it is God speaking, he means like God.

I can say with confidence if you ask a Rabi from any sect of Judaism they would agree with me on this. Compliace without joy or actual dislike of compliace is a greater mitzvah then compliace with joy. It is EASY to comply if you like to... it is harder to if you do not like to-it shows a deeper comitment, or a deeper understanding to the inate value of compliance to that specific rule.

I never said Christ said our thoughts matter, you did(I thought?)

I think this is going to be a difference between Christians and Jews.

'My yoke is heavy and my burden light.'

Christians are called to serve not with a heavy heart but with joy.

[Flip McWho]

Yet Jesus willingly gave himself up to the Cross.

Umm he didn't really have much choice now did he. God had foresaken him and they woulda got him at some point even if he hadn't stopped the disciples from defending him.

But seen as that was the way it had to go down he musta gone willingly.

[Flip McWho]

I don't think they minded all that much since they would get rid of a blasphemer, and the blood was not on their own hands.

I think we all remember the little part in Mel Gibsons inspiring story when the roman governor washes his hands and lets the Jews choose whether to let out a murderer or Jesus. So maybe they wouldn't have cared about getting rid of a blasphemer but washing their hands?

[Flip McWho]

One can rail at the lack of evidence, but the truth is that anyone can find a lack of evidence enough to convince him not to believe something.

True, if you close your eyes you'll find a lack of evidence for believing in the outside world.

[Flip McWho]

The problem with religion is that all followers believe that 'good behaviour' is something that's arbitrary.

[Flip McWho]

So after that moment passes where the gun is shot and the person dies, no evil has been committed? We could not sentence anyone for their crimes or hold them accountable with your definition.

Past and present tence. Evil HAS been committed, thats whats held accountable. No evil is being committed though.

[Flip McWho]

There are two strains of Western civilisation, one from Greece and one from Israel.

No, western civilisation is firmly greek in origin, Christianity on the other hand is from Israel originally before it swept westwards and was influenced by what it swept past.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by beingofone

Thats what happens when you go to a atheist website on a crusade that has no theologians. They just make claims of what they know nothing.

Oh, I'm sorry, aren't 'crusades' things you religionistas get up to ?

They just make claims of what they know nothing.

No, it seems to me that Christians who claim the evangelists were eyewitnesses to the events, and that there are no contradictions in the gospel accounts and that even if there are, these are of no real substance, are the ones who glibly make things up.

Why, even the evangelists don't seem to think they were actually there witnessing private conversations between Roman governors and prisoners:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.

Even as THEY delivered THEM unto US which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word;

Luke : 1-4

Note- St Luke doesn't actually say he himself saw the Annunciation or all the other events and then hurriedly wrote down a verbatim account. He's supposedly relying on other (unnamed) people's memories and versions of events.

So because part of the story was left out that means what exactly?

Oh right. Just an unimportant trivial piece of the story, being sent from the Roman governor to Herod. Or not. I mean those personages are so unimportant in th elong run, aren't they ?

They are almost non existent.

Oh, really ?

Let's begin with the beginning of the Jesus fable, shall we, as a for instance.

Mark gets Jesus baptised but somehow overlooks the pretty Nativity story, with all those colourful rustics and wise men.

John doesn't seem to get in on the Nativity either- but does mention the Baptist.

Matthew has Jesus's birth taking place sometime in the later years of the reign of King Herod the Great and taking place in little ol' Bethlehem, which undoubtedly has been grateful for the tourist trade ever since.

Luke gets the story rolling with an Annunciation, in the reign of King Herod, links the pretty Nativity story with Bethlehem and with a supposed specific event in the real as opposed to fictional world of the gospels.

Now I'm not sure why one would leave out a sugary story like the Nativity from the narrative. Did these 'eyewitnesses' supposedly not know about it ?

Oh, just a literal mountain of evidence - its really not hard to find if you keep your mind open.

What, that's your proof for eyewitness testimony ?
An invisible mountain that appears if I keep my 'mind' open ?


There's a difference between mere credulity and being possessed of an open mind.


How old was this Jesus when he supposedly began his ministry ?

Luke thinks he was about thirty.

John imagines him to be 'not yet fifty years of age' .
Now between thirty and fifty it's still twenty, as I'm sure it was even then. Are we seriously supposed to believe that someone would describe a person meant to be about thirty years of age as 'not yet fifty' ?

Well, his age doesn't really matter, does it ?

Who he was supposedly judged by or appeared to doesn't really matter does it?

Roman governor, Jewish ruler, Jewish high priest- it all amounts to the same thing in the end doesn't it ?

And who supposedly saw him at the cross, or when he was resurrected and who saw him, what day the Last Supper was supposedly on, they're all just mere details aren't they ?

After all, it's not really a historical narrative, is it.... because if it were, we'd expect to treat it with the same stringency we treat other historical texts, like those of Jospehus.

[Flip McWho]

Aye you can't assume that because a person records speechs and other specific details that they aren't made up for story embellishment, or to add credit to a particular version, or know anything specific about the authors.

All you can do is agree on the general given many different accounts. i.e a reformist Jew existed in Israel sometime round the, well time dividing mark (BC/AD).

[Flip McWho]

Unfortunately (or fortunately) this ones been a heck of a lot more popular and successful than others like Mr Hubbard.

Probably got something to do with the superstitious, scientifically ignorant and the political conditions of the time.