Bible Contradictions

Brother_Chris · January 23, 2011, 12:31am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< and find the answer later.[/quote]No you won’t. Ya know why? And this has nothing directly to do with Catholicism so don’t take it that way. Because for the most important questions of divine revelation there ARE NO answers that are admissible in the court of autonomous human intellect. I have recently been really thanking God for the wonderful saints He has raised up at just the right times in history. The last year or so on this forum has had me in wide eyed awe at the piercing insight with which the exalted God, who is alone the source of all that is, blessed Cornelius Van Til. Aristotle and Aquinas have done you wrong Chris and not just you. Their very brilliance was their undoing.

The gospel hinges… utterly and comprehensively on the incarnation… period. A concept which in light of the scripturally declared immutability of God is now and forever one hundred percent beyond the purview of even redeemed men to say nothing of dead, fallen rebellious ones.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Who first wrote about Predestination in Christendom history?[/quote]There you go again Buster. You’ll need to do a bit better than that Sporty. Predestination in it’s various manifestations is everywhere in biblical history and since all things are summed up in Christ all biblical history is the history of “Christendom”. Paul especially could not possibly have been clearer. However to address what I know you were asking? Augustine taught EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along. Whatever else he may have been off about (everybody is somewhere) Augustine was a soaring champion of the triumphant foreordaining grace and justice of the universally victorious God.
[/quote]

Ah, Cornelius Van Til, it makes sense now. Should have seen that coming.

St. Augustine was not against free will, if you suppose that he was you are mistaken. Augustine’s Predestination was that of gifts of those God knew to have already chosen Him so that their efforts to be saved could be fruitful, not Predestination as God just saves those that have chosen Him, but that of graces and not of salvation. Augustine’s Predestination also goes against that of God predestining certain people to Hell.

“free choice of the will…a good will…a will by which we seek to live a good and upright life and to attain unto perfect wisdom.”

Tiribulus · January 23, 2011, 12:33am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Predestination and free will is a mystery of the Church, we don’t understand fully how God can predestine gifts to us, and yet we still have the free will to choose God or not.[/quote]I almost cried when I read this =] That is exactly correct my dear Christopher. I have no idea how it works and like I said. I don’t care. All
I know is that He chose me in Him before the foundation of the world and that realization takes my breath away. It gives me the courage to face ANYTHING. What else could possibly REALLY matter if God Himself has set His electing grace on your life?

Tiribulus · January 23, 2011, 12:39am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Ah, Cornelius Van Til, it makes sense now. Should have seen that coming.

St. Augustine was not against free will, if you suppose that he was you are mistaken. Augustine’s Predestination was that of gifts of those God knew to have already chosen Him so that their efforts to be saved could be fruitful, not Predestination as God just saves those that have chosen Him, but that of graces and not of salvation. Augustine’s Predestination also goes against that of God predestining certain people to Hell.

“free choice of the will…a good will…a will by which we seek to live a good and upright life and to attain unto perfect wisdom.”[/quote]Keep readin Chris

Tiribulus · January 23, 2011, 12:44am

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Read these two statements again. Really think about them. Let me know if you see the flaw here.[/quote]I suppose it could be read to convey that I am reporting a sinful fallen court of internal intellectual coherence in God. Good catch it that’s what you mean. I meant God’s court of intellectual coherence excluding the sinful fallen part which is unthinkable in His case.

CappedAndPlanIt · January 23, 2011, 1:45am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Read these two statements again. Really think about them. Let me know if you see the flaw here.[/quote]I suppose it could be read to convey that I am reporting a sinful fallen court of internal intellectual coherence in God. Good catch it that’s what you mean. I meant God’s court of intellectual coherence excluding the sinful fallen part which is unthinkable in His case.
[/quote]

Um, yes. I think. You had to use your sinful, fallen human logic to get to the point of understanding what (you believe) God did.

Tiribulus · January 23, 2011, 2:04am

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Read these two statements again. Really think about them. Let me know if you see the flaw here.[/quote]I suppose it could be read to convey that I am reporting a sinful fallen court of internal intellectual coherence in God. Good catch it that’s what you mean. I meant God’s court of intellectual coherence excluding the sinful fallen part which is unthinkable in His case.
[/quote]

Um, yes. I think. You had to use your sinful, fallen human logic to get to the point of understanding what (you believe) God did. [/quote]If I had done that I would still be at the point of what you believe epistemologically. My fallen sinful human intellect (which still is sinful and fallen until the resurrection though redeemed) is running a different operating system now though the corruption of the old dead one still remains to wage war on the new one in Christ. Imperfect analogy, but there it is.

RyuuKyuzo · January 23, 2011, 3:10am

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
all information is borrowed. I could of written out the arguments outlined in the video[/quote]

I’m sure the great debaters use the same excuse. [/quote]

Excuse? Are you actually criticizing my argument because it ISN’T made up? The information was already organized into this video long before even this thread was started, why would I not use it as opposed to saying the same thing in text? What difference would it make other than filling up this thread with needless posts and killing vast amounts of time?
You’re merely obfuscating the issue again. [/quote]

Actually I am not. If I wanted to debate the author of the video I would click onto YouTube, log on, and debate. Debaters, like the one who created the video, take in vast amounts of data and put it into a short and concise argument. You just posted someone else’s debate.[/quote]

Posted someone else’s debate? Is this going to be your excuse for not addressing the argument? “Oh, well, you didn’t invent it, so it’s not even worth addressing!”

Last time I checked, YOU didn’t write the bible. Should I immediately disregard your arguments because they are rooted in a book you didn’t write? Does that sound logical to you?

Stop being such a baby. My argument is laid out, you can come up with a million and one excuses to ignore it (like this childish attempt here), but at the end of the day both you and me know it is merely an excuse to avoid the reality that your bible is a mere fiction novel with an astounding array of continuity errors.

Either address the argument, or stop pretending that you can. [/quote]

No one wants to debate your weblink because it is a full all out argument. As soon as they respond to point one, you will prevent them from addressing the rest by continually arguing that one point. So it is impossible to ever make any progress.

If you find the argument compelling why not pick a point or two, lay them out and then ask for an answer.

Have you ever even looked to see if there is a response to some of the problems that are outlined in that video?

I found online sources in a matter of seconds for the first couple. I don’t neccessarily accept them, but you don’t have to debate someone to find out if your conclusion is correct.

Argument by web link is considered by most people that I know a complete waste of time, and very unrewarding.[/quote]

Your first paragraph is hilarious. So my argument is unfair because it’s a “full all out argument”? It’s just simply too concrete to even begin debunking? The video may seem overwhelming, but it’s actually a very simple premise. All he is doing is laying out the life of Jesus as accounted for in the bible, then he actually goes out of his way to try and reconcile them FOR the Christians. Of course, this can’t be done, so at the end of the video he turns the question over to the Christians and that brings us to this point.

All you (or anyone else for that matter) has to do is reconcile these contradictions about the life of Jesus and the entire argument falls apart. This should be easy as I’m sure you all have read and comprehended your bible… Right?

Understand, the only reason why there is more than one issue to deal with here is because there is more than one contradiction in your so-called “flawless” Holy book.

[/quote]

Then you must not have understood my first paragraph. I never said the video was unfair. I said that as soon as someone answered the first objection and started to move on you would begin to stall the debate with objections.

I am not interested in responding to the video because I have answered many of these issues on this board, as well as others. It gets old repeating the same conversations over again. If you would like though we could simply post responses to your video argument from the web and wait for you to answer them.

Here I will get you started on point one of the video.

http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

By the way the statement that scholars have been tying to reconcile these issues like it is a crissis in Christian theological circles is just blatantly false. They are recycled arguments that have been answered, but not everyone accepted the answer.

acceptance though is not the mark of an answer. If it was we wouldn’t have the wonderful(sarcasm) flat earth society.[/quote]

If the argument in the video is totally fair, then you have nothing to complain about. That’s all there is to it. If the video points out many issues it’s not my fault nor the fault of the video maker, it’s the fault of the Bible for having so many flaws packed into one story.

How convenient is it that all of you have apparently debunked this argument so many times, but none of you are willing to actually do it or even show me where it is debunked.

Oh, what’s this? You’ve posted a link? FINALLY somebody had the balls to address the argument! Even if it did amount to little more than the old ‘>>BEFORE<< the census of Quirinius’ argument. This has already been debunked here: Jesus Timeline Part IV - YouTube

Ah hell, before you bring it up here’s part 2 and 3 aswell:

Do you now see that this is unsolvable? Your best have tried and failed. I would say massive continuity erros relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on is a pretty fucking big crisis, or at least it should be if you want to be taken seriously. [/quote]

nice rebuttal via web link. by the way you didn’t read the link that was not his argument. Instead he reconciles it with Tertulian’s account as well as Justin Martyr.
Here is a rebuttal to that exact video

http://www.forerunner.com/blog/my-response-to-a-cynic-on-the-chronology-of-jesus-life

By the way why does he even start the video off with the absolutely crazy notion that we take the 25th of december as a real date for the birth of Christ? No scholar really accepts that.

That right there degrades him being taken seriously.[/quote]

As opposed to your rebuttal void of links?

A few problems with the argument in your link:

He tries to solve the problem of Quirinius by saying he was a procurator in both Judea and Syria, as opposed to a governor. The problem here is that no bible makes the translation “procurator” and in fact are quite ardent that the title is governor. But even if that were true, Quirinius couldn’t have been a procurator of Syria at 5 BCE because at the time he was the governor of a province in modern central Turkey. Oops.

Edit: looking back, most of these issues brought up in your link are addressed and debunked in part 2 (and a bit in part 3) of the video series I linked to you. Check em out because you either haven’t bothered or you have and just haven’t comprehended it.

Why are you complaining about him mentioning the Dec. 25 birthday? In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE he goes onto explain that most scholars accept the September birth-date and only mentions Dec. 25th to exemplify that the problem persists whether you ascribe to the December date or the September date.

RyuuKyuzo · January 23, 2011, 3:14am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/

RyuuKyuzo · January 23, 2011, 3:24am

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

First, the word disciple comes from the Latin discipulus meaning “student”, “one who is ready to learn”. So yes, I am a disciple of psychohistory, in fact, I am a disciple of all science. I fully understood your point and re-asserting it doesn’t make it any more correct nor does it address anything I just wrote.

If redirecting responsibility from your own life onto something else is foreign to Christianity, why are all events considered an act of God? Why is it you must give yourself in totality to God if you are to remain independent at the same time? This is a very hard thing for you to see from the inside, almost impossible, but I assure you that from the outside it is very easy to see how this is a mere parental projection and how it is a matter of surrendering your life and responsibility for it over to “God”.

I call them so-called religions because the root of religiousness is internal search. These colloquial “religions” serve only to corrupt others for personal gain. It is a twisting of language to make otherwise psychotic things seem divine and righteous. How lame would life be if the answers to our deepest selves could be explained in mere words and written down into a book to be generalized over every living person. We’re all individuals. No one book can dictate how everyone should or even CAN be. It’s utterly ridiculous. Persons follow these “holy” books only because REAL internal search requires great courage and effort. Nobody wants to do it. It’s easier to pretend, it’s easier to look to the outside world for a “purpose” and it becomes especially easier when everyone else pretends with you. A truly religious person needs no holy book. His whole existence is his holy book.

If you think that there is ever a time where one MUST be suffering, then this isn’t a matter of me being too young, but of you being too old and accumulating a foolish philosophy to accompany it. [/quote]
I think you have some serious misconceptions about Christianity. Let me attempt, at least, to correct them for you, so you don’t debate with straw men.

First, not all events are considered as acts of God. In fact the view of most Christians myself included is that there are very few occasions that are acts of God with most things occuring within the framework of the universe He created.

Second, giving yourself to God is not giving over control of your life it is merely accepting He is your creator and then trying to follow a moral order. It is not a dictated life and there is no surrender of responsibility to God. Rather there is responsibility, because God. I can see how from the outside you find this to be parental projection, but you should understand from the inside it is the opposite, as in parent child relationships reflect (imperfectly mind you) our relationship with God. I could reiterate your words here and say something like this is difficult to see from the outside, maybe even impossible…

Third, as to [quote] Ryuu: How lame would life be if the answers to our deepest selves could be explained in mere words and written down into a book to be generalized over every living person.[/quote] That would be lame. I’m not sure what you mean by [quote] answers to our deepest selves[/quote], but if you mean it lays out our origins it does that and it lays out morals to live by, but I don’t think it generalizes anything regarding everyones lives beyond that.

Fourth, [quote] Ryuu: We’re all individuals. No one book can dictate how everyone should or even CAN be. It’s utterly ridiculous. Persons follow these “holy” books only because REAL internal search requires great courage and effort. Nobody wants to do it. It’s easier to pretend, it’s easier to look to the outside world for a “purpose” and it becomes especially easier when everyone else pretends with you. A truly religious person needs no holy book. His whole existence is his holy book. [/quote]

Are you familiar at all with any Christian Saints or mystics? If not I suggest you read some of their works. Christianity confirms individuality and does not dictate in anyway how everyone should or can be. As for following holy books instead of internal search, that is not what Christianity is about. Christian mystics were known for large amounts of internal searching, and I agree it takes great courage and effort (I’ll concede that a lot of people don’t do this, Christian and other). You are wrong that no one wants to engage in this internal reflection. I understand when you say it is easier to pretend when others pretend with you. I get that I really do, but it cuts both ways. As for a truly religious person needing no holy book and their whole life being their holy book, well that just means there is a lot of bad literature out there (sorry, I have to make some jokes in otherwise serious discussion).

Lastly, [quote] Ryuu said: If you think that there is ever a time where one MUST be suffering, then this isn’t a matter of me being too young, but of you being too old and accumulating a foolish philosophy to accompany it. [/quote] This was in response to me saying you are very young after you said [quote] Ryuu: It’s all just for fun. [/quote]
There may be some things about which I am foolish, but I guarantee you that if you live by

[quote] It’s all just for fun[/quote] you will end up empty and unfulfilled. There are times when one should (not must because no one is forced to do anything) cast aside their own comfort yes. For instance being a parent you will have to sacrifice, being a friend, I think you get the idea. Living by “It’s all just for fun” would make you the most self absorbed person on the planet (unless of course you temper this with realizing that it isn’t fun when your fun hurts others etc…).

Now, it’s late and it’s bed time…[/quote]

God is omnipotent and all power, yes? Therefore EVERYTHING that is allowed to happen is God’s will. If it is not his will, he wouldn’t allow it to happen. Sure you can say “but we have free will and can choose to do evil in spite of god’s will”, fine, but you’ve opened up yet another contradiction. If God already knows every action we will ever make then how do we have free will? All our actions are already predestined by God’s knowledge. If they aren’t, then God is not omnipotent, if they are, then we have no free will and everything is God’s will.
So, how do you reconcile free will with God’s supposed omnipotent?

Christianity is about individuality and not conformity? Then I suppose the ten commandments really should have been called the “ten suggestions”. =/

Selfishness is not a bad thing. It can be a very beautiful thing if you understand it. Selfishness is simply considering your happiness first, greed is when you wand others to consider you first and there is nothing more greedy than saying to someone “you shouldn’t be so selfish!” because you are essentially saying they should put YOUR wants before their own. You never have to put yourself second and anyone whom says you do is merely expressing their greed. This is an important difference. You must first love yourself before you can love others, this is selfish, but it is also unnecessary. A greedy persons expects to be loved without having to give any. When you consider yourself first, nothing has to be a suffering. Pain will come, sure, pain come with change and is inevitable, but suffering only happens when you resist change. Pain is cause by change, suffering is cause by you.
If you are ever suffering in your life, it’s because you are swimming against its tide.

[/quote]
Sorry, I’ve grown weary of chopping down your straw men, so I am only going to chop one down right now.

Omnipotence does mean all powerful, but it does not mean that power has to be used all the time. Knowing what someone is going to do is not the same as causing it/forcing it. Allowing something to happen against your will has nothing to do with how much power you could wield.

You are absolutely full of misinformation that someone has fed you. I don’t blame you for this, but you really ought to think about some of the things you’ve been taught. I imagine that whole omnipotence, free will, predestination, God’s foreknowledge thing you brought up is a complete rehash of something you heard someone else say or write (quite likely the same guy that made your Jesus timeline video).

You should go lift now Ryuu and try to get rid of some of you anger/angst.[/quote]

You know, you keep saying “straw-man”, but you’ve never once shown exactly how my arguments are straw-men, you just sort of assert it.

I made an error in my last post, however. I meant to write omniscient, not omnipotent. How can God be omniscient if we have free will? [/quote]

Here is how you are constructing your straw-man you make a caricature of God by saying:

You first make a statement that I agree with then you make two more that don’t necessarily follow from the first one. I think I dealt with this just fine when I said:

[quote] jakerz96: Omnipotence does mean all powerful, but it does not mean that power has to be used all the time. Knowing what someone is going to do is not the same as causing it/forcing it. Allowing something to happen against your will has nothing to do with how much power you could wield.
[/quote]

Even if you did mean omniscient I still covered that in the above statement.

I’m going to say it again: You have a great deal of misinformation in your head about this. If you truly want to learn about Christianity I suggest you open your mind and don’t look at sources posted on youtube, by pseudo-intellectuals (I like that prefix “pseudo”).[/quote]

If God knows everything and can do anything, then anything that happens must be within God’s will or else it wouldn’t happen. For example, if I knew that I was going to be assassinated tomorrow if I went to the park and I was perfectly capable of not going to the park, then the only way for me to still go to the park to be assassinated is if I willed it. If I didn’t will it, I wouldn’t go.

CappedAndPlanIt · January 23, 2011, 3:37am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Read these two statements again. Really think about them. Let me know if you see the flaw here.[/quote]I suppose it could be read to convey that I am reporting a sinful fallen court of internal intellectual coherence in God. Good catch it that’s what you mean. I meant God’s court of intellectual coherence excluding the sinful fallen part which is unthinkable in His case.
[/quote]

Um, yes. I think. You had to use your sinful, fallen human logic to get to the point of understanding what (you believe) God did. [/quote]If I had done that I would still be at the point of what you believe epistemologically. My fallen sinful human intellect (which still is sinful and fallen until the resurrection though redeemed) is running a different operating system now though the corruption of the old dead one still remains to wage war on the new one in Christ. Imperfect analogy, but there it is.
[/quote]

Nope. You had to use your logical capabilities to interpret your experience.

What you keep saying is akin to “You are blind and I was once blind too, till someone showed me the light.” But you would have to be able to see before you could see light (you can shine a flashlight in the eyes of a blind person all day and they wont see it)

Same problem in the analogy as your example - you have come to the conclusion that God exists using the logic that something happened to you, and God was responsible for it, therefore God exists.

To pretend that you’ve “abandoned” your logic and reasoning capabilities when you used those exact same capabilities to come to the conclusion of God is… well, incorrect.

Tiribulus · January 23, 2011, 4:15am

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Nope. You had to use your logical capabilities to interpret your experience. >>>[/quote]I did indeed. I used them for the first time as they were designed to be used.[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< (you can shine a flashlight in the eyes of a blind person all day and they wont see it)[/quote]Oh, my heart leaped within me for a minute here. You were so close[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:Same problem in the analogy as your example - you have come to the conclusion that God exists using the logic that something happened to you, and God was responsible for it, therefore God exists. >>>[/quote]And then this. Not so close after all. [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:To pretend that you’ve “abandoned” your logic and reasoning capabilities when you used those exact same capabilities to come to the conclusion of God is… well, incorrect. >>>[/quote]I have never once stated or implied I’ve abandoned my logic and reasoning capabilities. Never. What I have said is that they’ve been freed in Christ to function properly. What I’ve abandoned is exalting my intellect to the place of God in my life where nothing I can’t understand can be true.

I now have intuitive knowledge of EVERYTHING because I have been given the mind of Christ (1st Corinthians 2:16). Oh I would never claim to actually comprehend everything personally, but I know that He knows and that is infinitely greater than good enough for me. You no doubt will routinely write this off as the subjective baseless ramblings of a religious fanatic. That’s fine, but you on the other have knowledge of precisely nothing of consequence. An endless parade of raw meaningless data that emerged from nothing (maybe) and proceeds nowhere. Where do I reenlist for that fabulous life.

Don’t you remember when I told you that God had certainly given you brains and my prayer was that one day He would raise you up so you could use them properly? That invoked the question from about whether I was in some particularly vulnerable state when I met the Lord. Come on you remember. You just don’t pay any attention when I speak because you view me as a self deceived, yet inexplicably intelligent jackass who’s thoughts are not worth really listening to. That’s ok. I can live with that. However, if you just TRIED to cut this poor imbecile a little slack you wouldn’t have to ask me questions about stuff I already addressed directly to you.

blacksheep · January 23, 2011, 4:21am

I may be a little late to the game but if I may, I would like to give a little insight to “election” and “predestination” as I believe, is revealed in scripture.

Ephesians 1:3-5

“Blessed be the God and Father of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will”

Many people take verse 4, as well as verse 5, out of context to teach the arbitrary election by God of some to salvation and some to damnation. These individuals take the word “chosen” (Gk. exelexato) to mean God chooses some individuals to be spared to the exclusion of all others.

The verb “chose” is a middle voice verb meaning “He chose us for himself.” The “in him” in verse 4, as well as the statement in verse 3, indicates that all God’s blessings come to people “in him.” In other words, only those people who are “in Christ” (literally “in the sphere of Christ”) are recipients of spiritual blessings.

One of the great theological questions concerns election and predestination. Certain truths emerge. God knows all things, the future as well as the past. God is not willing that any should perish. God has granted to man free moral agency, the right to make choices. Our choices determine our eternal destiny. The full meaning of these truths will not be fully understood until we meet with Jesus Christ himself.

“Having predestinated” comes from an aorist participle usually translated “having predestined,” and basically means “to determined beforehand.” The idea expressed is that of God’s placing a fence around those people who accept His provision for salvation. The fence, of course, is Christ himself. God elected that all those people “in Christ” would be saved, and no one else (Acts 4:12).

God predestined that the N.T. Church, not the individuals in it, would be brought into being. In the same manner, He chose Israel to represent Him in the world during an earlier period (Deut. 7:6-8; Isa. 43:1-10). The fact that God chose Israel does not mean He rejected every other nation or refused salvation to all other people. The very opposite is true.

God chose Israel to take the message of salvation to the rest of the world. The term “God’s chosen people” does not imply they were chosen to salvation, but they were chosen tp represent God to other nations. Although some Israelites did accept the Messiah when he came to this earth, the nation as a hole rejected Him (Mat. 21:42-43). Therefore, God predestined, even before the world was created, that the N.T. Church would exist as His witness to the people of this age. Those people who are “in Christ” (I Jn. 5:11-12) comprise the N.T. Church.

I would like to use the following analogy, concerning election and predestination, of an unknown author.

“Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be His very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and pilot of this ship. All who desire to be a part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as one is on the ship, in company with its Captain, he is among the elect. If he chooses to abandon the ship and Captain, he ceases to be one of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and His ship. Predestination tells us about the ship’s destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ, yet, it is we who must decide whether to board the ship or not (Jn. 3:16).”

Election is God’s choice “in Christ” of a people for Himself. Predestination comprehends what will happen to God’s people.

Tiribulus · January 23, 2011, 5:08am

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
<<< God predestined that the N.T. Church, not the individuals in it, would be brought into being. >>>[/quote]You know I think the world of you brother, but I could not disagree more with this last post which is summed up in the above sentence. I bet you’re not surprised. What you are espousing is indeed the Arminian view. I lived in an Assembly of God bible college town for almost 5 years and heard every conceivable objection to the doctrines of grace there could ever be and that from men who were not only true opponents, but who were also being paid to teach them to students.

I’d prefer not to get into it with you of all people, but I can capably defend my views if need be =]

RyuuKyuzo · January 23, 2011, 5:14am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Are you all incapable of comprehending verbal and visual information? Is text the only thing you undertsand???
The video goes into detail about every verse there is an issue with and even creates a visual timeline to accompany it. I’m embarrassed for you.

Here’s something that should be easy for you. When was Jesus cricified?

According to John 19:14-16, it was “After noon on the day before the Passover meal”, but according to Mark 14:12 and Mark 15:25, it was “Mid-morning on the day after the Passover meal”.

So, who is correct, Mark or John?

[/quote]

Both are right. I would suggest reading Matthew 20:1-16 for understanding the difference in times.

Jesus died on a Friday, tradition says 1500 hours, the fifteenth day of Nisan. This is shown in Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31.

Sts. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are concise of when Jesus was crucified. In all three, the Last Supper on the fourteenth day of Nisan, Matthew 26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17, and Luke 22:7-14. St. John does not disagree with the other Synoptic Evangelists on both the Last Supper and Jesus’s death in John 13:1, “before the festival day of pasch.”

Your verses are talking about several different things, one is talking about the Last Supper, and the other two are talking about the day of Preparation.

[quote]
Notes:
“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “here is your King!” They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.” Then he handed him over to them to be crucified."

John 19:14 "day of Preparation: This can be looked at two different ways. You can look at it to mean that Jesus was sentenced to die on “the eve” of the Passover, which begins at sundown. The other view is the Greek is one commonly means Friday, the day before the Sabbath (19:31, Mark 15:42). In the last view, it means that Jesus was condemned on Friday and fell during Passover week.

"And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”

Mark 14:12: It’s talking about eve of the Passover Meal before the Last Supper.

“And it was the third hour, when they crucified him.”

Mark 15:25: This just says that it is about 0900 hours on Friday morning of Passion Week, however, if you look at 15:42 we can see, “it was the day of Preparation.”

Same as John’s account.

Sources:

1.) Catholic Encyclopedia, “Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ: The day of the death of Christ.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ
[/quote][/quote]

Both? I don’t think so.
First why would does John use Roman time and not Jewish time? What is this assumption based on? Sure, you can say it’s a translation issue, but why only translate one into Roman time? And for only one to be translated into Roman time consistently throughout every bible translation? Hmm?

But let’s just assume this is true. Yet another problem arises. Note, John said sixth hour, NOT 6 am. This is important to note because Roman time 2 thousand years ago wasn’t as much like our time as you would like to think. You see, in Jewish time the third hour refers to about 9 am. However, the sixth hour in acient Roman time =/= the sixth hour following 12 am. the first hour in Roman time was considered to be about 7 am by today’s standards (prima hora) as 3 am-sunrise was still considered the forth watch . The sixth hour was midday, 12 pm (this is why the “twelfth hour” is just before sunset, 6 pm). Which means even if Mark was using Jewish time and John was using Roman time, there is still a contradiction. This is also assuming that they are talking about the same day which is not the case, but I’m just going to assume your reconciliation is correct because I just don’t feel like getting into it and it doesn’t matter because the 6th hour Roman time and the 3rd hour Jewish time don’t match up anyway.

To recap, 3rd hour Jewish time = 9 am (http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/jewishtimedivision.htm)
6th hour Roman time = 12 pm (http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/techno/time/tellingtime.htm)

Their times don’t match, meaning your bible is flawed. But hey, it’s not like that’s the only flaw, here’s a bunch more =)

(you don’t have to bother responding to these if you don’t want to, I’m just posting them so you know they exist)
A. THE TRIALS

Where was Jesus taken immediately after his arrest?
a. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matthew 26:57, Mark 14:53 and Luke 22:54).
b. John says that Jesus was taken first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24).
When did the priests and scribes gather together to question Jesus?
a. Matthew 26:57 says that on the night Jesus was arrested the priests and scribes were gathered together prior to Jesus being brought to the high priest.
b. Mark 14:53 says the priests and scribes gathered together on the night of Jesusâ?? arrest after Jesus was brought to the high priest.
c. Luke 22:66 says the priests and scribes assembled the day after Jesus was arrested.
d. John mentions only the high priest â?? no other priests or scribes play a role in questioning Jesus.
Was Jesus questioned by Herod?
a. Luke says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questioned Jesus at length and then returned Jesus to Pilate (Luke 23:7-11).
b. Matthew, Mark and John make no mention of Herod. This, in itself, means nothing, but it brings about another contradiction later.
Who was responsible for Jesusâ?? death, Pilate or the Jews?
The Biblical account of Pilateâ??s offer to release Jesus but the Jews demanding the release of Barabbas contains both contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

a. What had Barabbas done?

Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 say that Barabbas was guilty of insurrection and murder.
John 18:40 says that Barabbas was a robber.

b. Pilateâ??s â??customâ?? of releasing a prisoner at Passover.
This is a historical inaccuracy -â?? the only authority given by Rome to a Roman governor in situations like this was postponement of execution until after the religious festival. Release was out of the question. It is included in the gospels for the sole purpose of further removing blame for Jesusâ?? death from Pilate and placing it on the Jews.

c. Pilate gives in to the mob.
The gospels have Pilate giving in to an unruly mob. This is ridiculous in light of Pilateâ??s previous and subsequent history. Josephus tells us that Pilateâ??s method of crowd control was to send his soldiers into the mob and beat them (often killing them) into submission. Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome because of his brutality.

Who put the robe on Jesus?
a. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 say that after Pilate had Jesus scourged and turned over to his soldiers to be crucified, the soldiers placed a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus as well as a crown of thorns.
b. Luke 23:11, in contradiction to Matthew, Mark and John, says that the robe was placed on Jesus much earlier by Herod and his soldiers. Luke mentions no crown of thorns.

B. THE CRUCIFIXION

Crucified between two robbers
Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.
Peter and Mary near the cross
When the gospel writers mention Jesus talking to his mother and to Peter from the cross, they run afoul of another historical factâ??the Roman soldiers closely guarded the places of execution, and nobody was allowed near (least of all friends and family who might attempt to help the condemned person).
The opened tombs
According to Matthew 27:51-53, at the moment Jesus died there was an earthquake that opened tombs and many people were raised from the dead. For some reason they stayed in their tombs until after Jesus was resurrected, at which time they went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people.

Here Matthew gets too dramatic for his own good. If many people came back to life and were seen by many people, it must have created quite a stir (even if the corpses were in pretty good shape!). Yet Matthew seems to be the only person aware of this happening â?? historians of that time certainly know nothing of it â?? neither do the other gospel writers.

C. THE RESURRECTION

Who found the empty tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:1, only â??Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.â??
b. According to Mark 16:1, â??Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.â??
c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, â??the women who had come with him out of Galilee.â?? Among these women were â??Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James.â?? Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.
Who did they find at the tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).
b. According to Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.
c. According to Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.
d. According to John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
Who did the women tell about the empty tomb?
a. According to Mark 16:8, â??they said nothing to anyone.â??
b. According to Matthew 28:8, they â??ran to report it to His disciples.â??
c. According to Luke 24:9, â??they reported these things to the eleven and to all the rest.â??
d. According to John 20:18, Mary Magdalene announces to the disciples that she has seen the Lord.

pat · January 23, 2011, 5:17am

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/[/quote]
What’s fallible about contradiction?

pat · January 23, 2011, 5:28am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< You have three general catagories in the argument:
Hard Determinism - All things are predetermined, a complete absence of choice.
Soft Determinism - Most things are determined, but there are a few limited things where there is choice.
Freewill - Absolute choice in all matters.

True determinism is the hard determinism, any possibility of choice is actually not determinism at all. [/quote]I respectfully, but emphatically reject your definitions out of hand. They are spawned squarely from within the realm of Aristotelean/Thomistic autonomy. In other words from the standpoint of fallen self exalted man. Now hold on there Patty(said with a playful Irish brogue) before you go off and start stompin around your room as you curse my arrogant anti Catholic name, even eminently solid protestants make this same mistake So I am not picking on you here.

Here’s what I believe:

Man is free, responsible and accountable before God. Why? Because that’s what God says.
God has infallibly and unchangeably predestined, by name and on the absolutely individual level, all those who will be saved from their universal state of eternal death. Why? Because that’s what God says.
This is absolutely good, just, loving, holy and right. Why? Because that’s what God says.
The fact of my (or your) utter inability to comprehend that says absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, zero about it’s truth or falsity. Why? Because that’s what God says.

You start with you and you are most assuredly not alone. I start with God.
You subject God to your own fallen sinful internal court of intellectual coherence. I willingly subject myself to His and that only because He first raised me up in Him or I would never ever do so. Again, many people I absolutely consider brothers and who agree with me on almost everything else are on your side there so I am not picking on you.

[/quote]

My definitions? LOL! Those are THE definitions. You can reject that which is true and accurate all you want, it’s not going to make it untrue.

Second, if you take away the element of choice, then no man is culpable for what they do. Is this what you really believe? I mean really? Look is this is what you believe you can keep all the bullshit to your self, I can’t help what I do, God said so…

Based on what you just said, most assuredly, it is not I who misunderstands the scriptures, It is you. Like it, don’t like it. Go find some lame way to justify it, what ever. The truth is the truth, period. No bastardized interpretations of scripture is going to change it.

Seems to me, you’re the one who uses scripture as self serving. You want to be special, you want to be chosen, whooptie do. What if you were chosen to serve as an example as to what not to do?

RyuuKyuzo · January 23, 2011, 5:37am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/[/quote]
What’s fallible about contradiction?[/quote]

Do you not understand? A book wrecked with contradictions is the calling card of several human authors alone. If God is involved, don’t you think he would at least guide the authors of HIS holy book to be consistent? How can God expect us to believe in him if he won’t show himself (as he said he would - exodus 34:23) AND he won’t allow his Bible, the very book we are supposed to base our ENTIRE lives around, to have continuity?

I mean, have you read the story of Noah’s ark? Does this God sound plausible to you?

pat · January 23, 2011, 5:42am

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
I may be a little late to the game but if I may, I would like to give a little insight to “election” and “predestination” as I believe, is revealed in scripture.