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 06-15-2012, 07:53 AM
 
33,563 posts, read 8,499,103 times
Reputation: 4698

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Mar 14:8 "What she had she makes use of. She gets beforehand to anoint My body with attar for burial."

In the Concordant Literal it was an alabaster vase.

What I find so amazing is that even though I have spelled it out so exactly the "who," "when," and "where" of each attaring of Jesus, all you people can do is either denigrate me or the Bible or say "Luke was just screwing around with the scriptures. It's just too logical. Luke can't be logical."


If they were anointing Christ for an official position they'd have used oil.
That is why it is arguable, as I have said. I have failed to find convincing evidence that spikenard was approved for royal, Priestly or messianic anointings, but by golly, the idea of God's anointed Jesus so reiterates the idea that it is odd that the one event that looks like it in actual fact really is something else.

As to the who when and where, any reasonable person will have to look at your explanations and mine and see which actually considers the facts and which denies them and insist that it all works fine...

 
Old 06-15-2012, 08:09 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,328,907 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
That is why it is arguable, as I have said. I have failed to find convincing evidence that spikenard was approved for royal, Priestly or messianic anointings, but by golly, the idea of God's anointed Jesus so reiterates the idea that it is odd that the one event that looks like it in actual fact really is something else.

As to the who when and where, any reasonable person will have to look at your explanations and mine and see which actually considers the facts and which denies them and insist that it all works fine...
The Concordant Version just has "nard attar" and in the Greek text it is "murou nardou."

Just because the KJV has "spikenard" does not mean the Greek had that in its text.

Neither spikenard nor nard was used for royal or priestly or messianic anointings.

As to who, when and where, if a person does not see they are different then they are not sane.
 
Old 06-15-2012, 08:19 AM
 
33,563 posts, read 8,499,103 times
Reputation: 4698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The Concordant Version just has "nard attar" and in the Greek text it is "murou nardou."

Just because the KJV has "spikenard" does not mean the Greek had that in its text.
Then go to Blue letter Bible and take it up with Mr Strong, not with me.

Quote:
Neither spikenard nor nard was used for royal or priestly or messianic anointings.
Excellent. Please direct me to the source that gave you that information. I'm not saying I'm going to take it on trust as it didn't explain to you that 'Nard' and Spikenard are the same thing.

Quote:
As to who, when and where, if a person does not see they are different then they are not sane.
That's the problem with inerrantists. Not really sane. The problem that you have is in refusing to see the bits are tellingly the same, or why they are different when 'different event' plainly won't do -for any reasonable person. And when it is surely the same event -or story anyway -in a different place.

This is where you get all denialist.
 
Old 06-15-2012, 08:25 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,328,907 times
Reputation: 989
I just found this:

The Two Anointings.
This Is Appendix 158 From The Companion Bible.

There can be no doubt that, during the last week, the Lord was anointed on two separate occasions.

1. The former is recorded in John 12:3-8. "six days before the Passover", in the house of Lazarus, at Bethany. (See Appendix 157.)
The latter is recorded in Matthew 26;7-13, and Mark 14:3-9, "two days before the Passover", in the house of Simon the leper, also in Bethany.
Thus the times and places are distinct.

2. In the former case it was "a pound of ointment" that was used (John 12:3).
In the latter case it was an alabaster vessel (Matthew 26:7).

3. In the former case it was "the feet" of the Lord that were anointed (John 12:3).
In the latter case it was His "head" (Matthew 26:7).

4. In the former case the term used is "anointed" (John 12:3).
In the latter case the term is "poured" (Matthew 26:7. Mark 14:3).

5. In the former case it was Judas who asked the question why it was not sold, etc., as there was plenty of time to do so during the six days (John 12:4).
In the latter it was the disciples who "had indignation" (Matthew 26:8) "among themselves" (Mark 14:4); and their words (not necessarily spoken aloud to all) seem to refer to what Judas had said before.

6. In the former the Lord directs the oinment to be reserved for His burial ; and not sold (John 12:7).
In the latter He declared that it had been kept for that purpose (Matthew 26:12 Mark 14:8).

7. In the former case the Lord said, "Let her alone," in order that she may keep it (John 12:7).
In the latter He declared that she had well used it (Matthew 26:10-13).

8. In the former case the woman is named "Mary" (John 12:3).
In the latter case the woman is unnamed.

9. Thus, on each occasion both the antecedents and consequents are different.
Instead of wondering that there should be two anointings the wonder should be that there were only two, seeing that examples are so easily followed.

 
Old 06-15-2012, 08:27 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,328,907 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Then go to Blue letter Bible and take it up with Mr Strong, not with me.

Excellent. Please direct me to the source that gave you that information. I'm not saying I'm going to take it on trust as it didn't explain to you that 'Nard' and Spikenard are the same thing.

That's the problem with inerrantists. Not really sane. The problem that you have is in refusing to see the bits are tellingly the same, or why they are different when 'different event' plainly won't do -for any reasonable person. And when it is surely the same event -or story anyway -in a different place.

This is where you get all denialist.
That's the problem with errantists. Not really sane.

Look through the whole Old Testament. Oil is always used for anointing for public office or to the priesthood, never nard or attar.
 
Old 06-15-2012, 08:41 AM
 
33,563 posts, read 8,499,103 times
Reputation: 4698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
That's the problem with errantists. Not really sane.

Look through the whole Old Testament. Oil is always used for anointing for public office or to the priesthood, never nard or attar.
Ok, I'll look that up. You see -if you make a point, I research, not deny.

Yes, it was pretty much what I found when I first looked this up twenty years ago.

Anointing oil is of course oil. Spikenard is also oil, though an essential oil. The point is really that it is mixes with olive oil for use as a perfume. Incidentally I read that oil suitable for anointing for death is Myrrh, not Spikenard.

However, Wiki says this about Hebrew anointing oil.

The holy anointing oil described in Exodus 30:22-25 was created from:[1][2]
  • Pure Myrrh (מר דרור mar deror) 500 shekels (about 6 kg)
  • Sweet Cinnamon (קינמון בשם kinnemon besem) 250 shekels (about 3 kg)
  • Sweet calamus (קנה בשם keneh bosem) 250 shekels (about 3 kg)
  • Cassia (קדה kiddah) 500 shekels (about 6 kg)
  • Olive oil (שמן זית shemen sayith) one hin (about 5 quarts according to Adam Clarke; about 4 liters according to Shiurei Torah, 7 liters according to the Chazon Ish)
Anointing kings

The Hebrew term "Messiah (in Greek Christos) means "the anointed one", and relates to anyone anointed to be king.


Not a mention of spikenard. As I said, though it looks very like a messianic or whatever anointing, I can find no indication that Spikenard was appropriate. If it was, the argument would be over, believe me.

It is possible to argue that the idea comes from reference to the anointing of a king in the Song of Solomon, but that's not too convincing.

I am not impressed by your waving around of some apologists' opinion that John's event and that of Matthew and Mark were different. The placing and circumstances, including repeated tweaking of similar ideas -the quarrel, the supper (at table), the costly oil, all at Bethany are tellingly similar and I cannot buy it that they are different events. The question of where the 'omitted' events which should match have gone is then the question and you will say that it isn't significant. You prefer to 'weave' the various events together - but not admitting that changes have been made, mind you, unless they (presumably) can be dismissed as unimportant - so that we have Two anointings at Bethany and one in Galilee, two temple cleansings, one before baptism by John and one during passion week - with John mentioning the latter one.

And presumably two crucifixions, one where Jesus got stabbed and one where he didn't..ah no, for you that is the SAME event of course, but just the reporters leaving out this or that bit (1).

Well then, why can't you accept that it was Mary who poured her Nard on Jesus' head and John didn't think that important and then she did the rest on his feet but Mark and Matthew thought that wasn't worth mentioning and her identity wasn't worth a mention either?

Or do you just pick and choose the easier or more convenient way of explaining away the problems?

(1) and you can save us all the trouble of bringing up Siniaticus again as that only makes the problem worse.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-15-2012 at 09:14 AM..
 
Old 06-15-2012, 09:02 AM
 
6,824 posts, read 4,814,981 times
Reputation: 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
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.
It is obviously your faith-based opinion that the three were one incident just as it is Eusebius' faith-based conclusion that they are not one incident.

To attempt to use this incident as some type of proof that the Scriptures are not inspired is a taking a huge leap of faith off a cliff. The skeptical mind would at least take the three different cases perspective as possible and look deeper.

The naive shut off possibility presuming they have the truth.
 
Old 06-15-2012, 12:16 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,328,907 times
Reputation: 989
Moderator cut: Orphaned reference to post

Quote:
The placing and circumstances, including repeated tweaking of similar ideas -the quarrel, the supper (at table), the costly oil, all at Bethany are tellingly similar and I cannot buy it that they are different events.
That's because you have an agenda to prove the bible is wrong. You are biased. So why should you think any differently?

There were three different places. I think the writers were smart enough to know the difference between a Pharisee's home in Capernaum, Simon the leper's home in Bethany and Lazarus' home in Bethany. They weren't as dumb as you.

Quote:
The question of where the 'omitted' events which should match have gone is then the question and you will say that it isn't significant. You prefer to 'weave' the various events together - but not admitting that changes have been made, mind you, unless they (presumably) can be dismissed as unimportant - so that we have Two anointings at Bethany and one in Galilee, two temple cleansings, one before baptism by John and one during passion week - with John mentioning the latter one.
First of all, I don't believe anything written is unimportant or should be dismissed. I've dismissed nothing.
I never said anything was not significant. I never said the first temple cleansing occured prior to Jesus being baptized. He had already performed His first miracle in Cana. So He had to already have been baptized for public ministry. Try to get your facts straight.



Quote:
And presumably two crucifixions, one where Jesus got stabbed and one where he didn't..ah no, for you that is the SAME event of course, but just the reporters leaving out this or that bit (1).
Oh brother. It was one crucifixion, two stabbings.

Quote:
Well then, why can't you accept that it was Mary who poured her Nard on Jesus' head and John didn't think that important and then she did the rest on his feet but Mark and Matthew thought that wasn't worth mentioning and her identity wasn't worth a mention either?
I'm sure Matthew and Mark and John knew who Mary was. If they said it was just a woman then it was just a woman.

In Luke 37 near the beginning of Jesus' ministry there was also an un-named woman. Surely Luke knew who Mary was. And Mary was one of the righteous Jews and not a sinner. Mary, Martha and Lazarus were close friends of Jesus.

In John's gospel it was Mary who rubbed Jesus' body with attar to prepare it for burial. Mary, Martha and Lazarus were righteous Jews and not sinners. The one woman in Luke was a sinner.

Quote:
Or do you just pick and choose the easier or more convenient way of explaining away the problems?
The only problems are the ones you make up. There are no problems for me.

Quote:
(1) and you can save us all the trouble of bringing up Siniaticus again as that only makes the problem worse.
Moderator cut: rude comments are deleted.

Last edited by june 7th; 06-17-2012 at 02:57 PM..
 
Old 06-15-2012, 01:02 PM
 
5,495 posts, read 4,360,351 times
Reputation: 1801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikelee81 View Post
It is obviously your faith-based opinion that the three were one incident just as it is Eusebius' faith-based conclusion that they are not one incident.
Not quite, I already noted that the real question is who has the better reasons for their position - just read my other responses. Second, my position is more than just faith because it is based on inference from samples regarding human proclivities throughout history - from deception, cognitive bias, psychological aspects, to plain ole error. The burden is greater for him because he is claiming unique and extraordinary metaphysical events and processes.

Quote:
To attempt to use this incident as some type of proof that the Scriptures are not inspired is a taking a huge leap of faith off a cliff. The skeptical mind would at least take the three different cases perspective as possible and look deeper.
I was not using it for any such thing, I simple made some observations pointing out the probability that his position is weak.

Quote:
The naive shut off possibility presuming they have the truth.
And ironically it was I that you decided to point this out too and not Eusibius or yourself for that matter -could that be your own biases. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I would rather deal in probabilities that metaphysical possibilities.
 
Old 06-15-2012, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,918,079 times
Reputation: 254
[SIZE=3]Eusebius posted:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
>>Jesus actually was and is the Messiah.<<

RESPONSE:

Evidence please.


>>Sorry but you got your ideas from a poor source.<<

RESPONSE:


Actually, Jewish sources are fairly reliable. Didn’t we get the Old Testament from them?

>>Eze 37:26 And I have made to them a covenant of peace,
A covenant eonian it is with them,
And I have placed them, and multiplied them,
And placed My sanctuary in their midst--to the eon."

Doesn't say Messiah has to build a temple, let alone a third temple.<<

RESPONSE:

Reread all of the relevant scripture:

Eze 37:26-28I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will bless* them and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary among them for evermore. 27My dwelling-place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28Then the nations shall know that I the Lord sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is among them for evermore.

Read Ezekeil books 40-42 which goes into great detail about the building of the Third Temple.

Still, if you don’t like that one, perhaps you can show how Jesus fulfilled these prophecies:

B.Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C.Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D.Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah.

>>Jesus proved He was Messiah when God raised Him from the dead. Get over it.<<

RESPONSE:

God raised Lazarus from the dead first. Does that make Lazarus the messiah ? (Evidently, Jesus wasn’t divine and had to be “raised.” If he were divine, he could have risen by his own power, couldn’t he?)

>>2Sa 7:12 `When your days are full, and you have lain with your fathers, then I have raised up your seed after you which goes out from your bowels, and have established his kingdom;"
2Sa 7:13 He does build a house for My Name, and I have established the throne of his kingdom unto the eon.

That refers to Solomon.<<

RESPONSE:


Yes, then read the rest of the prophecy which refer to the future kings (including the messiah), not just the first lines. If Jesus was not the biological descendent of the seed of David, he wasn't the messiah.

14I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. 16Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me;* your throne shall be established for ever. 17In accordance with all these words and with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.

Once more, If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah.

Are you claiming that Jesus actually fufilled them all?

Last edited by ancient warrior; 06-15-2012 at 06:10 PM.. Reason: removed [brackets]
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. The time now is 03:56 PM.

© 2005-2017, 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