U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-12-2012, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Florida -
8,202 posts, read 9,953,141 times
Reputation: 14997

Advertisements

Is the intent, based on the reported 'ointment' incident/s to demonstrate that the Bible is NOT inerrant, infallable or historically accurate; ... or to better understand what is actually happening and why some things can appear to be contradictions or human changes in translations?

One's approach to scripture will largely determine their conclusion. Frankly, I have little problem with my own perceived notions of where scripture doesn't coincide with my understanding ... because I know that I am not inerrant, infallable or sometimes even very accurate. However, in over 30-years of studying, teaching, preaching God's Word, I've never been able to 'poke even a tiny fraction of the holes in scripture ... that so many 'claim' to uncover almost daily on the CD Christian thread.

In the referenced issue, I'm not sure whether this involved two or three women; I've read scholarly accounts that suggest both ... and some even one. But, perhaps Matthew and Mark simply reported the same incident/s differently. There are numerous examples of this in the synoptic Gospels where different writers were focused on different issues (eg; the deity, humanity, etc. of Christ). As Mark Twain once reportedly said, "It's not the things I do not understand in the Bible that give me the most trouble; ... it's the things I do understand!"

 
Old 06-12-2012, 01:20 PM
 
5,495 posts, read 4,390,155 times
Reputation: 1801
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton View Post
Is the intent, based on the reported 'ointment' incident/s to demonstrate that the Bible is NOT inerrant, infallable or historically accurate; ... or to better understand what is actually happening and why some things can appear to be contradictions or human changes in translations?

One's approach to scripture will largely determine their conclusion. Frankly, I have little problem with my own perceived notions of where scripture doesn't coincide with my understanding ... because I know that I am not inerrant, infallable or sometimes even very accurate. However, in over 30-years of studying, teaching, preaching God's Word, I've never been able to 'poke even a tiny fraction of the holes in scripture ... that so many 'claim' to uncover almost daily on the CD Christian thread.

In the referenced issue, I'm not sure whether this involved two or three women; I've read scholarly accounts that suggest both ... and some even one. But, perhaps Matthew and Mark simply reported the same incident/s differently. There are numerous examples of this in the synoptic Gospels where different writers were focused on different issues (eg; the deity, humanity, etc. of Christ). As Mark Twain once reportedly said, "It's not the things I do not understand in the Bible that give me the most trouble; ... it's the things I do understand!"
Technically, there is no contradiction because it does not state that it is the same incident - but it sure does imply that especially when each gospel was circulated on its own. How convienient that when they are brought together, and compared, that the faithful just say that there were three seperate events.

What is more likely, that these 4 gospels are inspired by an all-powerful, all-knowing Being (yet unable to to reduce the confusion by making it more clear) or that there was one story that got morphed a little bit (Matthew, Mark, and John) and used by one writer to make a theological point and placed it in his gospel wherever he saw fit (Luke).

The Latter obviously.
 
Old 06-12-2012, 01:41 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,401,611 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
(Luke).

The Latter obviously.
Obviously to you but not to me.
 
Old 06-12-2012, 01:51 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,401,611 times
Reputation: 989
I used perfect reason when writing of the different events. You have not proven my reasoning to be wrong.
 
Old 06-12-2012, 02:17 PM
 
5,495 posts, read 4,390,155 times
Reputation: 1801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
I used perfect reason when writing of the different events. You have not proven my reasoning to be wrong.
So what! I was not trying to - moving the goal posts again are we. When one gives reasons, in making a claim they better be more probable than the alternative. Anyone can give a reason/s.

Since you used perfect reason you must be perfect. Unless, you were talking about logic. But alas coherence does not necessitate correspondence - now does it.
 
Old 06-12-2012, 02:30 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,401,611 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
So what! I was not trying to - moving the goal posts again are we. When one gives reasons, in making a claim they better be more probable than the alternative. Anyone can give a reason/s.

Since you used perfect reason you must be perfect. Unless, you were talking about logic. But alas coherence does not necessitate correspondence - now does it.
I didn't move any goal posts. I stuck right with the OP.

The OP thought that all the different accounts were a screwed up attempt of the gospel writers of just one account of Jesus getting attar put on Him.

I proved, using excellent deductive reasoning that the events occurred at different times and different places by different women.

You have not been able to disprove that so shut the pie hole.

Some old wise man once told me: "Confusion comes to the aid of unbelief."
 
Old 06-12-2012, 03:00 PM
 
5,495 posts, read 4,390,155 times
Reputation: 1801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
I didn't move any goal posts. I stuck right with the OP.

The OP thought that all the different accounts were a screwed up attempt of the gospel writers of just one account of Jesus getting attar put on Him.

I proved, using excellent deductive reasoning that the events occurred at different times and different places by different women.

You have not been able to disprove that so shut the pie hole.

Some old wise man once told me: "Confusion comes to the aid of unbelief."
I was talking about your dealings with me not the OP per-se. You gave an alternative that was not as probable as mine. Your logic does not matter - we both used it. The question is what is the better explanation.

You chose an All-powerful, all-knowing Metaphysical Being who couldn't seem to avoid the confusion when inspiring men to wirte an account as to enegnder faith in their followers which only seems to do the opposite.

I chose one story that got morphed a little bit (Matthew, Mark, and John) and used by one writer to make a theological point and placed it in his gospel wherever he saw fit (Luke).

Now who is more reasonable? Once again coherence does not necessitate correspondence. Which better explains history and human nature. Which is more parsimonious? Which is more probable. Which is epistemically more reasonable? I could go on.

And now you are just ticked that I have shown this to be the case - hence your snooty remarks.

Last edited by Shiloh1; 06-12-2012 at 03:45 PM..
 
Old 06-12-2012, 03:02 PM
 
10,162 posts, read 10,514,647 times
Reputation: 3012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Simon the leper was not the Pharisee. Lazarus' home was not the leper's nor the Pharisee's. Three different houses. Three different women. Three different times.
Interesting. John has Judas complaining about the waste of money that could have been given to the poor. Mark has guests complaining about the waste of money that could have been given to the poor. Three different houses. Three different women. Three different occasions. Riiiight!
 
Old 06-12-2012, 03:44 PM
 
10,162 posts, read 10,514,647 times
Reputation: 3012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

Yes. One had to expect some differences was one is writing legends long after the event.


Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church, By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"'They (the Gospels) were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men.

Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy.

They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him.

For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. "

But now youv'e raised another contradiction. When was John imprisioned and executed? And here we have a historical source too - the writings of the historian Josephus.
Here is the crux: you cannot have error where you have the Holy Spirit. The two are mutually exclusive. For many years it was my impression, having been fed the kool-aid by the Fundamentalist Corporate Machine, that the gospel writers simply sat down one day and wrote out the gospels in whole as the Holy Spirit dictated to them, the way God dictated the 10 commandments to Moses. Only after years of study did I come to learn that each gospel were written over a course of decades, and likely by a variety of writers, long after the memories of these events had started to fade. God didn't miraculously instill the events exactly as they happened into the minds of the people who were being interviewed by the writers, or the gospels would harmonize perfectly down to the most minute detail. Or if He did, the original texts have been long lost to history. What we have now are mistranslations that disagree all over the place as to certain facts and statements. One gospel gives only a portion of Jesus statement. Another takes that statement and elaborates on it, essentially "putting words into Jesus' mouth", or conversely giving the more complete account where the earlier writer did not. Either way, the gospels are rife with inaccuracies and we have to take the basic context of what all four writers were trying to say and make it all fit together as best we can as Eusebius is desperately trying to do.

Personally I would trust John more than any of the other three. Then I would trust Matthew next because both were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, John positively being an apostle, though we can't be sure he was the actual writer; maybe it was one of his disciples writing for him. Same with Matthew, though more possible he was not THE Matthew, the publican. Luke I would read but not trust so much, and Mark I wouldn't waste my time.
 
Old 06-13-2012, 04:59 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,401,611 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Interesting. John has Judas complaining about the waste of money that could have been given to the poor. Mark has guests complaining about the waste of money that could have been given to the poor. Three different houses. Three different women. Three different occasions. Riiiight!
That riiiiight!

Two of the accounts (Matthew and Mark) are the same account.

In Matthew 26, two days before the Passover, at the house of Simon the leper, the disciples grumbled at the waste.

In Mark 14:3 two days before the Passover, at the house of Simon the leper, some grumbled.

In John's account, six days before the Passover, at the home of Lazarus, Mary poured attar on Christ. At this home Judas was present and he grumbled at the supposed waste.

In Luke, at Capernaum, near the beginning of Jesus' ministry at the Pharisees house, the Pharisee grumbled that a sinner woman was doing this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top