[quote]orion wrote:
haney wrote:
All I have to say is you got it from the da vinci code. nuff said.
What if I dig deeper and find out that it is true?[/quote]
you won’t. If it were 100% true, and you proved it then the movie wouldn’t be a big deal. It would be the way things are.
If I remember correctly the debate at nicea was not on is “Jesus divine, but in what way was he divine”.
[quote]orion wrote:
Explain to me how the message was abused? Where is the flaw in Augustines logic?
[/quote]
It goes against Paul’s logic which advocates only excommunication of the heretic, blasphemer’s and a longer list than I care to write.
1Ti 1:20 Among these are Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan so that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Mat 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, Put up your sword again into its place; for all who take the sword shall perish with a sword.
It also is counter to early Christianiies roots. I.E. conversion was done by only one medium
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom did not know God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
Many of the popes, and church heads were considered corrupt. I would even say many were even sadistic.
The Bible seems to leave the salvation of the eternal soul to God. It doesn’t advocate the policing of that either. Other wise the Israelites woul dhave been a little more eager in getting converts.
Christian doctrine rests upon men having a choice to receive God. So there is no real possible endangerment.
Power is the real root of the issue.
[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
But what do you do with Jesus’ statement that “I am THE WAY…” etc. Just ignore it?
First of all, since the Bible is only inspired by God, and those are translations of witness accounts – and, therefore, extremely unreliable – no-one can say for sure it was exactly what Jesus said.[/quote]
That argument is ineffective!
Are you aware of how testimony is taken in a court of law? When two or more credible people are claiming the same thing happened it carries great power.
They are called “witnesses.”
There were many witnesses to Jesus Christ and his many miraclulous acts.
[quote]orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
I have nothing against Jesus as a philosopher…
I’m not sure that makes much sense. I’ve heard this before and I have the same response.
What sort of a philosopher of note lies and says he is the son of God, and claims that the only way to the father is through him?
No, sorry orion, you really have to take him at his word, what he says he is, or you have to think that he’s a liar or a nut.
I think I did write that I started with how the Bible was put together and by whom?
In the four books that are left,he is the son of God. How big are the chances that only four people wrote his story down? Why are those 4 the main part of the NT and others aren?t?
I am embarassed to admit that I have this ugly rumor from the movie “The Da Vinci-code” [/quote]
You can keep getting your spiritual inspiration from Hollywood. I’ll stick the holy Bible…
Bye orion…
Take care.
Zeb
[quote]ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
I have nothing against Jesus as a philosopher…
I’m not sure that makes much sense. I’ve heard this before and I have the same response.
What sort of a philosopher of note lies and says he is the son of God, and claims that the only way to the father is through him?
No, sorry orion, you really have to take him at his word, what he says he is, or you have to think that he’s a liar or a nut.
I think I did write that I started with how the Bible was put together and by whom?
In the four books that are left,he is the son of God. How big are the chances that only four people wrote his story down? Why are those 4 the main part of the NT and others aren?t?
I am embarassed to admit that I have this ugly rumor from the movie “The Da Vinci-code”
You can keep getting your spiritual inspiration from Hollywood. I’ll stick the holy Bible…
Bye orion…
Take care.
Zeb
[/quote]
oh, because Dan Brown is no allowed to put aclever idea or two into a novel…
tell that to Ann Raynd and Dante…
Jesus…
[quote]storey420 wrote:
He was meant to be an example of the way to god. Not necessarily just through worshipping him for his sacrifice but to live as he did with compassion for all beings.[/quote]
How about both, as that’s what the Bible clearly states.
Um…yea and all black people can play Basketball…No wait that’s a steretype huh?
Please…
I have to confess that I did not read those posts. However, there are ZERO inconsistancies in the Bible.
I have heard the tired old arguments about the Bible being inconsistant. To date I have never seen even one inconsistancy.
Now…there might be different advice for different occasions. But that’s hardly an inconsistancy.
For example, in the law it clearly states in one passage that you cannot take another life. However, in another section it talks about self defense. And within the self defense section it talks about the legal taking of another life when your life is threatened.
Now only a moron would jump up and down and holler inconsistancy!
But that’s what we have here on this board.
A few folks who are totally clueless when it comes to the Bible taking things out of context and at random claiming inconsistancies.
I have never found even one inconsistancy in the Bible!
Um, I’m talking about in reference to the Bible. Meaning that there is only one way to the father and that is through the son Jesus Christ.
There is no other way according to the Christian Bible. P E R I O D !
Where does it say that?
Show me the text where you found that?
Is that another something that popped into your head?
It is my contention and the contention of the Christian faith that Jesus Christ is the only way to the father and to heaven as it clearly states in the Bible.
If I tell someone they are heading in the wron direction it is tantamount to telling them they are driving off a cliff if they keep heading in the same direction. That my friend is compassion!
Love is not simply allowing every wacky thought to flow freely…
[quote]OK you are correct in that God is not technically the earth. What I meant is that these early people saw God as the wind, water, air, etc. They lived and breathed reverence to this which was their concept of god or our creator.
They sure as heck showed more respect to God’s creation than later man did/does.[/quote]
Yes, people should take care of the earth and make sure their cans and bottles are not thrown by the side of the road…
How do you know this?
Is this something else that just popped into your head?
I’m not trying to tick you off but you are all over the road spiritually.
I have no idea what you are basing your beliefs in and I’m not sure you know that either.
I’ll try to get this point across to you one more time:
{b]No one can live as Jesus did![/b]
Reread the above.
And if no one can live as Jesus did, how is anyone going to go to heaven?
God does not tolerate sin. You must accept Jesus as the perfect sacrifice for sin then your sin is paid for in full.
Otherwise you have to live a perfect life?
Can you do that?
No.
RIGHT! Now you got it!
There is only one thing that will absolutely keep you from heaven: And that is rejecting Jesus Christ as the single savior of the world!
You are right with that one!
And Jesus and his disciples paid the price for pointing out the truth. And today we Christians who are not afriad to say the truth also get criticized for our faith.
It’s not politically correct to say what we are saying. But, it’s eternally correct!
How do you know this?
Is it another one of those things that popped into your head? (No offense) You seem to come up with spiritual doctrine out of thin air.
Please read the Bible…Please.
[quote] Although Christianity is certainly the easiest way. Live a life full of sin and at the very end as long as you are truly repentant, you get eternal life.
[/quote]
There are some serious flaws to your theory.
First of all, one must actually accept Jesus Christ as their savior. As I have already stated you can easily fool a stranger, or even a friend. But God is not fooled!
it’s real or it isn’t!
Secondly, you have no idea when, where or how you’re going to meet your end!
We might both be dead by Thursday morning from a horrific earth quake.
I know where I’m going if I die! I have read the many passages in the Bible and understand them clearly.
Can you say the same thing with no quesion in your mind? Are you 100% sure that you will be in heaven immediately after you draw your last breath?
And if so how do you know?
Please answer the above questions as I think that they are important.
Thank you
[quote]Why can’t this be my opinion based on what I have read in the Bible?
[/quote]
Please show me, in the Christian Bible where it says that you can get to heaven without Jesus Christ.
Also, show me where it says there are many ways to get to heaven.
Men are way too different in various parts of a city, much less all over the world to agree on one standard way.
Christianity began with only a few disciples. It is currently the largest most important relgion in the world with about 2.1 billion Christians! And it has reached practically every part of the world.
Souls are being saved every day.
As the Bible states, there is only one way to the father and that is through Jesus Christ!
The trouble starts when you say “See you’re wrong cause my book says you’re wrong and my book says that my guy is the right one and the only one, so your religion is pointless and meaningless cause you’ll never get to heaven like me, nah na nah na”
Tell me why was Jesus Christ killed?
Do you know why Paul was crucified upside down?
Do you know what other disciples have been executed and or beaten?
They were killed, beaten and imprisoned because the world did not want to hear that there is only ONE WAY TO THE FATHER!
[quote] What you should have said os that these men were willing to be killed, beaten and imprisoned because the world did not want to hear that there is only ONE WAY TO THE FATHER!
[/quote]
That’s what I did say:
“They were killed, beaten and imprisoned because the world did not want to hear that there is only ONE WAY TO THE FATHER!”
[quote]The next time a good friend of yours has to much to drink and wants to drive home…will you tell him he’s wrong? Or will you let him drive home and ignore the situation?
Zeb, come on now buddy let’s stay on topic. Drunk driving may place someone else’s life in harm, so of course I’m gonna tell my buddy. I’ll let my buddy choose his faith though, ya know this being America and all[/quote]
I am on topic that is an example of right and wrong. It’s an example of interceding with a friend who is on the wrong path!
And of course everyone must choose his own faith. I never said anything to the contrary. You simply pointing the correct path as I am trying to do with you is nothing more than doing the right thing!
No different than trying to convince a friend not to take the wrong action in his life. But HE must make the final call. Just as you must make the final call as to your own beliefs.
It’s very simple, it’s free will.
Yea…I know what you mean just like that Mexican guy who killed that garage attendant.
Those Mexicans are no good huh?
See how foolish stereotyping is?
It comes off as boorish and sometimes quite hatefull.
There are plenty of bad people who call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Atheists etc…
We really are not debating people are we?
And if we were do you think that anyone would ever try to make a point that ALL people who are this denomination or that religion or that race or this ethnic group are good?
No of course not.
Please don’t do that anymore.
[quote]Considering the amount of healing that I have helped people with and the afflictions that we have seen cured and the amount of times people have blessed me for changing the course of their lives, I think I’m doing ok, so does “it”
[/quote]
I’m glad that you are doing good things with your life!
But…you can’t do enough good things to get into heaven. You need to accept Jesus Christ who died for your sins to get into heaven.
I can show you (and have) where it clearly states that in the Bible. Can you show me verse for verse where it says that you don’t need him?
[quote]If YOU do not tell them they are wrong who will?
[b] Why you and SteveO, and that evangelical minister of course…
[/quote]
I already pointed out the error of you thinking regarding the minister.
As for steveo I greatly admire his efforts.
Take a look at what he has written, is it mean spirited?
No.
Is it self promoting?
No.
And he has been attacked and called names by many so called “good men” on this site.
Steveo is attemping to point people in the right direction. That he is attacked for it demonstrates that he is on the right course.
Let’s see how many of Jesus Disciples (including Christ himself) were attacked for pointing out the truth?
If you want people to be your friend it’s easy:
Say nothing
Do nothing
Be nothing
[quote]I can assure after many talks with the divine that your narrow sightedness won’t keep you from salvation but it will make you come back to learn more humility.
Do you really need me to grab the scripture to tell you where it talks about reincarnation and rising from the dead once again?
[/quote]
You made an allusion to “learning humility” and “coming back.”
There is no reference to “reincarnation” in the Christian Bible.
Hence, I wonder what you are reading.
[quote] Why would you pay attention to any book with so many errors?
Do you have low standards regarding all books that you read, or just the Bible?
Wow why the low blow, Zeb?
[/quote]
That’s not at all a low blow.
[quote]It is because of my high standards that I look critically at all texts and works of art. The Bible should be no different. If God himself made a text magically appear(like the immaculate conception) and there was no refuting that it was the direct word of God, I would have no questions for the creator on his wishes.
[/quote]
Sure you would.
First of all you would question it’s authenticity.
Then most people on this site would be saying the same thing they are about the current inspired word of God.
God works through man.
Have you noticed that yet in your young life?
[quote]If you don’t think that he was cricified died and was buried. And after three days rose again in bodily form then the message is either a lie (which you deny) or it’s so badly mangled that it’s simply a bunch of words thrown together on pages written by men who are not very accurate with their wirtings…
I never said the Bible was wrong.
[/quote]
Yes you did. You said that men wrote it and men make mistakes.
You also said there were inconsistancies.
You also said that there are many ways to heaven which is in direct opposition to the Christian Bible.
We agree!
You have used two words.
“Acceptance” and “tolerance.”
I agree that we must be tolerant of others beliefs. I will point someone in the proper direction when I can. But these things must be handled delicately.
However, I will not accept anothers worship of the “stone god of zimba” for example as I know that’s incorrect.
If you accept every theory, every belief that comes down the pike you are a very sorry individual.
But I think you meant “tolerate.” No?
You read ALL the major religious texts?
Every one of them?
Are you sure about this?
I only question it because it takes a good long time to get through the Christian Bible, and to actually study it…well that in itself is a lifetime.
Maybe, but only one states clearly that you must accept Jesus Christ in order to gain entrance to heaven.
Just one…
[quote] I believe in Jesus Christ and his message, I can’t say that I only believe the scriptures word for word, as they are the words of men(albeit inspired by God)[/b]
[/quote]
If they are the words of men and full of flaws and inconsistancies, and not inspired by God then why do you accept Jesus Christ?
How can you rely on such a book?
How do you know that Jesus was not a liar or a nut?
You cannot have it both ways, you only think you can.
[quote]haney wrote:
orion wrote:
Explain to me how the message was abused? Where is the flaw in Augustines logic?
It goes against Paul’s logic which advocates only excommunication of the heretic, blasphemer’s and a longer list than I care to write.
1Ti 1:20 Among these are Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan so that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Enemies of the state were also killed, but without any further ado, those kings hardly needed an excuse to kill.
As long as you cannot show were Augustine is wrong, killing heretics/agnostics/atheists is allmost a moral obligation for a true Christian.
Mat 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, Put up your sword again into its place; for all who take the sword shall perish with a sword.
It also is counter to early Christianiies roots. I.E. conversion was done by only one medium
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom did not know God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
Those people were NOT insane. They had their untouchable premisses and they worked from there.
Many of the popes, and church heads were considered corrupt. I would even say many were even sadistic.
If I raped and killed your child, it would be ok for me to die, wouldn?t it?
The Bible seems to leave the salvation of the eternal soul to God. It doesn’t advocate the policing of that either. Other wise the Israelites woul dhave been a little more eager in getting converts.
If I endangered it?s immortal soul, which is infinitely worse, what should you do?
(Shamelessly stolen from Sam Harris).
Christian doctrine rests upon men having a choice to receive God. So there is no real possible endangerment.
I am beginning to understand that the message of a religion is allmost irrelevant as long as there is “the one and only path”-clause in it.
Which is probably why Buddhists rarely kill for religious reasons.
Power is the real root of the issue.[/quote]
That was a surprisingly long post, considering that it could have also read:
I cannot refute Augustin. I would like to, but I can only appeal to authority.
The logic is perfect, unless I reject the premisses which I am unable to do.
Did I miss anything?
[quote]orion wrote:
haney wrote:
orion wrote:
Explain to me how the message was abused? Where is the flaw in Augustines logic?
It goes against Paul’s logic which advocates only excommunication of the heretic, blasphemer’s and a longer list than I care to write.
1Ti 1:20 Among these are Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan so that they may learn not to blaspheme.
Enemies of the state were also killed, but without any further ado, those kings hardly needed an excuse to kill.
As long as you cannot show were Augustine is wrong, killing heretics/agnostics/atheists is allmost a moral obligation for a true Christian.
Mat 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, Put up your sword again into its place; for all who take the sword shall perish with a sword.
It also is counter to early Christianiies roots. I.E. conversion was done by only one medium
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom did not know God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
Those people were NOT insane. They had their untouchable premisses and they worked from there.
Many of the popes, and church heads were considered corrupt. I would even say many were even sadistic.
If I raped and killed your child, it would be ok for me to die, wouldn?t it?
The Bible seems to leave the salvation of the eternal soul to God. It doesn’t advocate the policing of that either. Other wise the Israelites woul dhave been a little more eager in getting converts.
If I endangered it?s immortal soul, which is infinitely worse, what should you do?
(Shamelessly stolen from Sam Harris).
Christian doctrine rests upon men having a choice to receive God. So there is no real possible endangerment.
I am beginning to understand that the message of a religion is allmost irrelevant as long as there is “the one and only path”-clause in it.
Which is probably why Buddhists rarely kill for religious reasons.
Power is the real root of the issue.
That was a surprisingly long post, considering that it could have also read:
I cannot refute Augustin. I would like to, but I can only appeal to authority.
The logic is perfect, unless I reject the premisses which I am unable to do.
Did I miss anything?
[/quote]
Yeah advocation from the the NT. You asked how the message was abused. I appealed to Authority because we are arguing for justification for the treatment of others. I appealed to Paul who was a former persecuter. Who better to find references from?
Remember though Christianity is based on a divine authority. so what is so strange about an appeal to it?
[quote]haney wrote:
Remember though Christianity is based on a divine authority. so what is so strange about an appeal to it?[/quote]
Agreed. All of us who rag on Christianity or religion in general are forgetting this important fact. There is nothing logical about belief in the supernatural. Using the rules of logic to try to refute it is a waste of time.
Save your logic for reality. If these guys want to believe in God and they aren’t hurting anybody, then what’s the big deal? Treasure those with faith, for they are like Dan Quayle… good for a joke or two. 
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have to confess that I did not read those posts. However, there are ZERO inconsistancies in the Bible.
I have heard the tired old arguments about the Bible being inconsistant. To date I have never seen even one inconsistancy.
I have never found even one inconsistancy in the Bible!
[/quote]
Zeb, I’ll repeat here Dan Barker’s “Easter Challenge”. Because Easter is the single most important day in Christianity, it shouldn’t be difficult for a great Bible scholar like yourself to answer.
"The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?"
Read the conditions a few times, then write us a couple of paragraphs in narrative form that explain what happened on Easter.
[quote]
What would be the point of Jesus Christ coming to earth if someone can be saved in so many other ways? It would have been illogical for God to send such a sacrifice if any other belief would do as well![/quote]
I find it troubling that you cannot simply follow this logic a little farther to it’s conclusion. It is totally illogical for God to do this in any case. Since he is the one making the rules, he could have made any belief sufficient.
What kind of a god has infinitely many options available and chooses to supernaturally impregnate a virgin in order to produce a child who will eventually serve as a blood sacrifice? Surely a wise and just god could think of something better to save the souls of his creations from eternal damnation in the system of rules that he created with total foreknowledge of the outcome…
Ugh. Guys!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Save your logic for reality.[/quote]
You are arguing with a wall. It’s not supposed to make sense. Honest!
[quote]Mordred wrote:
What would be the point of Jesus Christ coming to earth if someone can be saved in so many other ways? It would have been illogical for God to send such a sacrifice if any other belief would do as well!
I find it troubling that you cannot simply follow this logic a little farther to it’s conclusion. It is totally illogical for God to do this in any case. Since he is the one making the rules, he could have made any belief sufficient.
What kind of a god has infinitely many options available and chooses to supernaturally impregnate a virgin in order to produce a child who will eventually serve as a blood sacrifice? Surely a wise and just god could think of something better to save the souls of his creations from eternal damnation in the system of rules that he created with total foreknowledge of the outcome…[/quote]
So, YOU, Mordred, are God’s counsellor?
The problem is NOT WITH GOD, but with you and others who want a God of their own imagination. .
Isa. 55:8-9, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.”
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Treasure those with faith, for they are like Dan Quayle… good for a joke or two. :D[/quote]
I see lothario is bashing Christians again…
Politically correct, but eternally foolish!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
But what do you do with Jesus’ statement that “I am THE WAY…” etc. Just ignore it?
First of all, since the Bible is only inspired by God, and those are translations of witness accounts – and, therefore, extremely unreliable – no-one can say for sure it was exactly what Jesus said.
That argument is ineffective!
Are you aware of how testimony is taken in a court of law? When two or more credible people are claiming the same thing happened it carries great power.
They are called “witnesses.”
There were many witnesses to Jesus Christ and his many miraclulous acts.
[/quote]
What he said.
HH
[quote]doogie wrote:
Zeb, I’ll repeat here Dan Barker’s “Easter Challenge”. Because Easter is the single most important day in Christianity, it shouldn’t be difficult for a great Bible scholar like yourself to answer.[/quote]
You must be confusing me with someone else. I am far from a Bible scholar.
But fortunately one need not be a Bible scholar to answer this one. This has actually been asked and answered several times in the past. I’ll use one of those answers as there is no need in reinventing the wheel.
But before I do…
[quote]"The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul’s tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?"
Read the conditions a few times, then write us a couple of paragraphs in narrative form that explain what happened on Easter.[/quote]
There are no inconsistencies here.
You and I can live through the same experience and tell the truth about it from our own perspective. Yet omit certain things.
Because something was omitted by one author does not mean that it did not happen.
The authors simply detail different parts of the same story. In those same passages there are no contradictions.
That you want so badly to disprove the Bible speaks more about your own insecurities than it does the Bibles fallibility.
It seems that you constantly have to try to rationalize your rejection of the Bible and God. Why can’t you simply be happy with your non-belief?
I wonder are all Atheists like you?
Constantly picking at nothing trying to feel better about their owo beliefs?
Are you hoping that you are right?
You have nothing to prove to me or any other Christian.
I can understand why a group of people meet to enjoy an activity that they love; fishing, baseball, chess etc.
But I can’t really understand why someone like you would stand outside their meeting place attacking the persons favorite activity.
It’s apparently not enough for you to not like the activity, you want badly for others not to like it too.
(shaking head)
Odd.
Anyway…here is a more detailed answer. It’s something for you to read and pick apart and cast your negativity assumptions on.
In a way you remind me of the 9-11 theorist nuts (not that you are nuts, don’t get me wrong). But you take things out of context and simply try to cast doubt on them.
And why?
You really need to ask yourself that question.
And time is running my friend.
(I only post this to assure the other Christians who might be reading this that there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible-NONE!)
"Matt. 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Mark 16:1-2 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Luke 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
The first verses bring a hail of questions, all of which are fairly simple to answer, especially in light of the principles outlined above:
What time did they go? The times are read as, “as it began to dawn,” “very early in the morning,” (twice), and “when it was yet dark”. All of these are subjective readings that are fully capable of describing the pre-dawn twilight just before the sun peeks over the horizon. In an era before precision clocks for all but the wealthy, this is hardly an issue – and at worst an example of Rihbany’s ma besay-il.
Who went? We have Mary Mag and the other Mary; we have those two plus Salome; we have those two plus Joanna and unnamed “others”; we have Mary Mag, though obviously not alone (v. 2, “we” do not know…) No one list excludes any other; none speaks of these being the only persons to travel to the tomb. We note the common Skeptical response that we cannot thereby exclude little green men from Mars either; but the difference again is whether the presence of other female disciples is in any sense an issue or an improbability. It isn’t. Anointing the dead was considered women’s work; a composite party is not at all unlikely.
So why the differing lists? It may become repetitive, but it may as well be: ma besay-il. It doesn’t matter. Each writer chose women representative of the party, based perhaps on their own knowledge or on that of their audience. Mary Mag appears in all four accounts; this suggests her prominence in the tradition and makes it difficult for any rez account to leave her out. Matthew has little room to spare; he obviously needed to devote time to the “stolen body” claim and also wanted to close with the great commission. That left him almost no room for detailed rez appearances or for special cameos like the one John gave Mary Mag. His report is by necessity short and to the point and he has no space for a detailed listing of who was where, and when. It is therefore absurd to demand that he meet the precision-demands of Western literature which has no such constraints.
Why did they go? John does not specify and needs no consideration; Luke and Mark agree that it was for burial issues, leaving only Matt’s “see the sepulchre” claim. The reason for the difference: To polemically stand, again, against that controlling “stolen body” apologetic. To note that they came to do burial work is to allow an inroad for the charge of a stolen body. In contrast Matthew tells just enough to not give that charge meat – while still not contradicting the other Gospels. He could hardly do otherwise. In the high context of the ancient world, it would have been recognized that (being that this was primarily women’s work) they could be going to the tomb for no other purpose than to perform burial services. “Seeing” tombs for observation purposes was a pointless exercise.
Matt. 28:2-4 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
Matthew’s insertion here is clearly dischronologized, a matter of topical arrangement, as was know to be used in ancient literature and is even used to some extent today. This could have happened at any time prior to the womens’ visit. Since he has this, Matthew obviously does not need these statements:
Mark 16:3-4 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
Luke 24:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
The main issue of difference is why only Matthew reports the angel – as well as the other miracles recorded later – and that matter we have answered with the principles found here.
Matthew 28:5-7 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
Mark 16:5-7 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
Luke 28:3-7 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
John is supplementing Mark and skips this section. Mark’s “young man” is one of the angels; the phrase was used elsewhere (as in Josephus) to describe angels, so that there is no contradiction of identity. The point of “one angel or two” is answered by the principles here. The differences in the message reported and in the variably described reactions of the women are readily attributable to the sort of oral tradition variations we refer to here.
Matthew 28:8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
Luke 24:8-9a And they remembered his words, And returned from the sepulchre…
The major issue here is Mark’s “they told no one” – obviously not permanent (for the story is here being told) and if anything a rhetorical device meant to encourage the reader to NOT remain silent and instead spread the word. Other than this we now have a situation in which we have numerous ways for history to split off into different events. Every woman could take a different path and could leave at a different time and pursue a different destination. Only so many destinations are of course likely; at the same time, no Gospel would have the space to report every differing destination. By this reckoning Mary Mag and perhaps others left the tomb before the angelic messengers arrived, since it is obvious in John that she hadn’t gotten the message yet.
Matthew 28:9-10 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Luke 24:9b-11 and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
Most harmonizers would say here, and I could easily agree, that Mary Mag, Joanna, and Mary of James left the party first, before the angels popped in (and hence, Mark’s report for example is telescoped, due to stylistic and/or space constraints) and went directly to Peter and Co. (the “we” of John’s party), while other unnamed women like Salome went to other disciples and received a visitation. This is plausible, as it would make sense for a multi-member party to split up, so that if one party could not find their target, another might. In any event, as noted, Matt has saved most of his space for the “stolen body” apologetic and hasn’t the room to recount anything more detailed.
Matthew’s interlude of 28:11-15 could take place anytime between the unspecified range of these verses. Chronologically as far as events with the believers were concerned, we leave Matthew for the duration. His space constraints lead him directly to the Great Commission which could take place anytime after the events of v. 10. Thus we need not fit it into any chronology. It is able to be reckoned anytime within the 40 days between Passover and Pentecost; it is a stylized account and not meant to be squared into a narrative sequences. This indeed is one great mistake of both critics and harmonizers, who often put too much pressure on themselves to fit events into a chronology. It simply isn’t necessary to assume that these writers were trying to give an all she wrote, “it happened in this order without time passing” chronology. Indeed we aver that Luke in his Gospel telescoped his 40 days between two verses. Matthew in 28:16-20 does the same sort of thing. The immediate skip to the Great Commission is a narrative device, not pure chronology.
Luke 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
John 20:3-10 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
The big deal here is of course that Luke has reported Peter alone; John reports someone else – himself, perhaps, but some say Lazarus. That is of little matter; what is of import is that Luke severely compresses the story – obviously. Why? So that he may include the enormous Emmaus narrative (13-33), which will take up what space he has and constrain him from getting into more details. Telling what Peter saw closely is more important than telling of who went with him (and by John’s reckoning, didn’t see anything different).
It is after Peter leaves the tomb that we have John’s Mary Mag cameo, chronologically (20:11-18). We would once again suggest that the event is compressed for space reasons; the encounter and conversation was almost surely not that simple. This of course leaves a modern reader with an impression, when combined with the other Gospels, that Jesus is randomly popping back and forth to people giving them different messages. They would ask, why not tell them all the same message? In Mary Mag’s case, it would likely because she had a different question than had been asked by any other: “Are you staying on earth now?”
Luke 24:33-4 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
This appearance to Simon, otherwise undescribed, would take place sometime during the first day of the week – as did all of the appearances so far outside of Matthew’s chronologically displaced Commission scene. None of this is chronologically impossible, other than to those who wish to offer the vague complaint that the resurrected Jesus sure got around. But of course.
Luke 24:35-44 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
John 20:19-23 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
I would regard these as reporting the same meeting. Luke has no room now to report a dual meeting with Thomas first excluded, and each writer has their own focus: Luke on the tangible nature of Jesus’ body; John on a more theological and “commissional” issue, as well as wanting to highlight Thomas’ actions. If Luke is reporting to a Roman judge on behalf of Paul (as Mauck argues) then it isn’t hard to see why he would report what he did. Meanwhile John will emphasize the tangible nature of Jesus in his second report.
It is here where we come to an end of a close examination. The events of John 20:24-21:23 would chronologically occur in the 40 day period which Luke telescopes and brings to an end at his 24:45. Did it seem rather simple? It is, much more so than we might think. The ancient processes of literary reportage go a long way towards explaining allegations of discrepancy in the rez narratives. Anyone who doubts this will need to explain why – and do it in the context of those processes and explaining why they cannot apply."
Write back soon doogie I know that my Christianity bothers you to no end.
In reading the bible, you bible-bashers DO realize that ANYTHING written by different people is (a) going to have their individual interpretation, (b) only as good as the messenger. People of this time period thought very differently than do you and I, who were educated within a math-science paradigm. Assigning ‘errors’ or ‘inconsistencies’ to biblical authors is somewhat akin to blaming Abe Lincoln for derogatory references to black people – such were not considered derogatory at the time.
You guys are looking at an ancient document through a biased lens.
HH
[quote]Mordred wrote:
What would be the point of Jesus Christ coming to earth if someone can be saved in so many other ways? It would have been illogical for God to send such a sacrifice if any other belief would do as well!
I find it troubling that you cannot simply follow this logic a little farther to it’s conclusion. It is totally illogical for God to do this in any case. Since he is the one making the rules, he could have made any belief sufficient.[/quote]
Which speaks to the logical issue: He could have made only ONE belief sufficient!
Which he did.
What kind of a human can question and understand the mind of God?
Certainly not you, or anyone else!
You want God to be a certain way huh?
But God is what God is. That you don’t like it or understand it means what?
Those who want to remake God in their own image make no logical sense.
I’m a human being with a mind that I happen to like to use…I’m sorry if I expect an omnipotent, omniscient being to live up to, if not exceed the standards that I would hold an adult human to.
[quote]The problem is NOT WITH GOD, but with you and others who want a God of their own imagination. .
Isa. 55:8-9, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” [/quote]
It’s amazing how you seem to know what I “want” from the extremely limited interaction that we have had. The depth of your psychological insight is absolutely miraculous. Are you incapable of having a conversation without playing armchair shrink? It would be less amusing to me if you were anywhere near correct in your analysis.
Notice that you didn’t actually address my point. You just chose to remind me that God is so inscrutable that it is useless to try to actually make sense of anything related to him, and we should merely believe all these ludicrous things without question.
Why shouldn’t I question God? Not from a place of insolence, but in a true search for understanding. Hey…God…please help me to understand this. Why is this wrong? And why is an omnipotent being seemingly incapable of explaining himself in a way that humans can grasp?
[quote]Which speaks to the logical issue: He could have made only ONE belief sufficient!
Which he did.[/quote]
He could just as easily have made infinitely many beliefs sufficient. Again, you miss the point…not to mention that you assume the conclusions that you argue for…
Of all the possibilities…why would he choose just one, and why would an omnipotent, omniscient being choose the one that you claim he did?
[quote]What kind of a human can question and understand the mind of God?
Certainly not you, or anyone else![/quote]
Way to ask and answer a question…
The correct answer in my estimation is any human being at all as long as God (who is supposedly omnipotent) wants to be understood.
[quote]You want God to be a certain way huh?
But God is what God is. That you don’t like it or understand it means what?
Those who want to remake God in their own image make no logical sense.[/quote]
I’m not making any god in my image. I’m examining the concept of God in the image that is claimed by Christianity…unless the Christian god is no longer considered to be omnipotent and omniscient…
I’m nothing like what you claim God is like. That does not preclude me understanding him, as he should have the ability to help me understand. That he apparently can’t means he is either not omnipotent, doesn’t want me to understand, or just plain isn’t there.