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, 07:12 PM
 
34,940 posts, read 9,030,391 times
Reputation: 4818

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Who gives a flying flip if you're impressed or not. I could care less.


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.

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.



Oh brother. It was one crucifixion, two stabbings.

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.

The only problems are the ones you make up. There are no problems for me.

Sure, whatever.
Well, we have ended up where we usually do, with you simply ignoring the problems. Your irrelevant point about exactly when John's temple - cleansing actually is shown as taking place ignores the real point -that it is absolutely NOT during passion week and you are no doubt simply going to overlook the massive omission where it ought to be.

If this is not a problem for you, it is down to a closed mind. I can only leave it to others to judge. It is always stimulating debating with you and you nearly always get me looking a but further, but it does end up with me having to give up with your insistence that what clearly doesn't look right is nevertheless right.

"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 another in Bethany. ..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."

If they were doing eyewitness on the spot reporting then yes, minor 'witnesses don't always agree' divergences allowable, they should agree better than that. They clearly do not.

Is your contention that they were describing three different events, two of them in Bethany, one in the house of Simon the leper with an unnamed woman anointing the head and another in the house of Lazarus with Mary anointing the feet believable? There are just too many similarities and the failure of any of them to report even TWO of the three events should cause some doubt. Not in your case. That's what I call dismissing problems.

I can see why taking those problems on board would answer the OP with 'none of them'. None are historically accurate, (God) inspired or inerrant. That of course is why many will want to find reasons to explain away the problems or simply say the problems don't exist.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-15-2012 at 07:24 PM..

 
Old 06-15-2012, 09:21 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,464,894 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Well, we have ended up where we usually do, with you simply ignoring the problems. Your irrelevant point about exactly when John's temple - cleansing actually is shown as taking place ignores the real point -that it is absolutely NOT during passion week and you are no doubt simply going to overlook the massive omission where it ought to be.

If this is not a problem for you, it is down to a closed mind. I can only leave it to others to judge. It is always stimulating debating with you and you nearly always get me looking a but further, but it does end up with me having to give up with your insistence that what clearly doesn't look right is nevertheless right.

"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 another in Bethany. ..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."

If they were doing eyewitness on the spot reporting then yes, minor 'witnesses don't always agree' divergences allowable, they should agree better than that. They clearly do not.

Is your contention that they were describing three different events, two of them in Bethany, one in the house of Simon the leper with an unnamed woman anointing the head and another in the house of Lazarus with Mary anointing the feet believable? There are just too many similarities and the failure of any of them to report even TWO of the three events should cause some doubt. Not in your case. That's what I call dismissing problems.

I can see why taking those problems on board would answer the OP with 'none of them'. None are historically accurate, (God) inspired or inerrant. That of course is why many will want to find reasons to explain away the problems or simply say the problems don't exist.

But that's just it, you say, on your own authority (which is no authority) that they are not historically accurate. You give no absolute verifiable PROOF that the three different anointings are not historically accurate. It is just you saying "They are not historically accurate" and therefore they are not." If I said to an atheist "I declare that God exists, therefore God exists," he would consider me a lunatic or at the least, very lacking in the most basic tenets of logic. My dear boy, do not insult my intelligence even if you think it far below yours! for in so doing you make me think yours below mine.

Now then, the writers of the four accounts took pains to ACCURATELY describe to their audience WHEN, WHERE, BY WHOM, HOW MUCH, WHAT PART OF JESUS' BODY WAS ANOINTED that they are described not as ill thought out make-believe reporting but very ACCURATE historical reporting of the facts. And I state that not because I SAY SO but because as we are given human logic, that I know for a fact that the accounts are reporting, not what they think might have occurred but, what they know absolutely occurred. They weren't pulling an O.J. Simpson by just taking a stab in the dark.

You keep trumpeting "There are problems." The only problems which exist in the accounts exist only in YOUR mind, not mine and not in many well trained minds. We have been given a sound mind and a spirit of sanity. It is just not sound nor sane to say that if six days before Passover in Lazarus' home that Judas OPENLY complained that Mary wasted this valuable attar, and that four days later in Simon the leper's home when an unnamed woman poured attar down on His head and some of the disciples "resent this to themselves," and it was THEN that Judas went to get money to give Jesus up to the chief priests, it is not sound minded nor sane to suggest that the two events are one and the same. The first time Jesus corrected Judas was not good enough. I wouldn't doubt that Judas mumbled amongst the disciples in the leper's home about this supposed waste. Rather than confront Jesus openly in the leper's home Judas takes a more sinister approach by trying to make Jesus look bad by not helping the poor.

To me, this PROVES the two accounts are not the same. If you think they show the same then you are just not sane. I don't say that to put you down nor to make me look good. It just is what it is. If you go to an insane asylum you can see people all day long picking up things off the floor that are not really there. They are not sane. If you see something in these writings that just is not there then you are not sane as to that.
 
Old 06-15-2012, 09:29 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,464,894 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
[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?
Moses stated:

Deu_18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

This did not happen in Moses' lifetime. Yet all Jews consider Moses a true prophet of God. And it proves my point.
 
Old 06-16-2012, 04:13 AM
 
34,940 posts, read 9,030,391 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Moderator cut: Orphaned .
Effectively yes, though of course, I take the view that our arguments stack up better. But it is, as I said, always going to push one a bit arguing with Eusebius and gives us a chance to put our points.

You keep missing the point - and I must say that far more reasonable theists than you have done so, in putting it down as just my opinions rather actually looking at the case, material or evidence, which ever terms one wants to use. It isn't what I claim -it is in the internal evidence. Of course by historically inaccurate I am not talking about the general view of the bible from historians, but whether the gospels add up to reliable reporting of events that happened in the past.

You almost see the problems which you say exist only in my own mind, but which actually you refuse to allow into yours.

"It is just not sound nor sane to say that if six days before Passover in Lazarus' home that Judas OPENLY complained that Mary wasted this valuable attar, and that four days later in Simon the leper's home when an unnamed woman poured attar down on His head and some of the disciples "resent this to themselves,"

you go on to say "it is not sound minded nor sane to suggest that the two events are one and the same." But the argument that you consistently dismiss is that there are too many similarities for them be different events and this point: is it reasonable to suppose that in none of these cases do any of the gospels report TWO of these supposedly 'different' events together in the same gospel?

Yes, that is just what I am saying. It makes no sense to say that these two so similar but different events happened so close together -they have to be the same event but described differently. But you also said that the reporters should have been accurate.

"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 another in Bethany. ..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."

So what conclusion can one possibly come to but they were not eyewitness reports but independent adaptations of ONE original story which they all adapt to read differently? Do you see the conclusion which you almost reach yourself?

Probably not, because you ignore or dismiss the points of similarity and even evidence of the same original passage of text being used and the question that it always comes down to in this argument I put forward - is it reasonable to suppose that in none of these cases do any of the gospels report TWO of these supposedly 'different' events together in the same gospel? You absolutely do dissmiss that as does all theist countering of the discrepancies by the 'witnesses don't always agree' ploy which you pretty much say yourself won't wash.

Isn't it a more reasonable conclusion that they are the same events but written so differently that they cannot be eyewitness report?

Last edited by june 7th; 06-17-2012 at 04:14 PM..
 
Old 06-16-2012, 06:22 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,464,894 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Effectively yes, though of course, I take the view that our arguments stack up better. But it is, as I said, always going to push one a bit arguing with Eusebius and gives us a chance to put our points.

You keep missing the point - and I must say that far more reasonable theists than you have done so, in putting it down as just my opinions rather actually looking at the case, material or evidence, which ever terms one wants to use. It isn't what I claim -it is in the internal evidence. Of course by historically inaccurate I am not talking about the general view of the bible from historians, but whether the gospels add up to reliable reporting of events that happened in the past.

You almost see the problems which you say exist only in my own mind, but which actually you refuse to allow into yours.

"It is just not sound nor sane to say that if six days before Passover in Lazarus' home that Judas OPENLY complained that Mary wasted this valuable attar, and that four days later in Simon the leper's home when an unnamed woman poured attar down on His head and some of the disciples "resent this to themselves,"

you go on to say "it is not sound minded nor sane to suggest that the two events are one and the same." But the argument that you consistently dismiss is that there are too many similarities for them be different events and this point: is it reasonable to suppose that in none of these cases do any of the gospels report TWO of these supposedly 'different' events together in the same gospel?

Yes, that is just what I am saying. It makes no sense to say that these two so similar but different events happened so close together -they have to be the same event but described differently. But you also said that the reporters should have been accurate.

"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 another in Bethany. ..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."

So what conclusion can one possibly come to but they were not eyewitness reports but independent adaptations of ONE original story which they all adapt to read differently? Do you see the conclusion which you almost reach yourself?

Probably not, because you ignore or dismiss the points of similarity and even evidence of the same original passage of text being used and the question that it always comes down to in this argument I put forward - is it reasonable to suppose that in none of these cases do any of the gospels report TWO of these supposedly 'different' events together in the same gospel? You absolutely do dissmiss that as does all theist countering of the discrepancies by the 'witnesses don't always agree' ploy which you pretty much say yourself won't wash.

Isn't it a more reasonable conclusion that they are the same events but written so differently that they cannot be eyewitness report?
I went to a Lion's football game in Detroit. This woman spilled a drink on my friend sitting next to me. I yelled, "Gosh lady! what's the matter with you?"

Seven days later I went to a Lion's football game in Cleveland, Ohio with a bunch of friends. Mary spilled a drink on my friend. We all yelled, "Why don't you pay attention to what you are doing!?"

Conclusion: It was the exact same football game. Why? There are just too many similarities.
 
Old 06-16-2012, 07:52 AM
 
34,940 posts, read 9,030,391 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
I went to a Lion's football game in Detroit. This woman spilled a drink on my friend sitting next to me. I yelled, "Gosh lady! what's the matter with you?"

Seven days later I went to a Lion's football game in Cleveland, Ohio with a bunch of friends. Mary spilled a drink on my friend. We all yelled, "Why don't you pay attention to what you are doing!?"

Conclusion: It was the exact same football game. Why? There are just too many similarities.
No, you are fiddling the analogy to support your case. It wasn't a 'drink' it was a small bottle of champagne, very expensive. In the written statements of two friends this woman deliberately spilled it over her friend's head. In one other statement, it was purposely spilled by this girl Mary over the friends' t shirt. The statements of the first two friends are not only so identical that it gives rise to suspicion of collusion (1) but do not mention the other event, even though they should have been there or had certain knowledge of it.

In the case of the fourth statement, not only does he have this story about champagne (very expensive) being spilled over the shirt rather than the head, but makes no mention of anyone spilling champagne over a head.

In addition, this is specifically statements (e.g in a small claims court) about a specific fact of a drink spilled at a game. Further, this is a game played in one town in a 7 day time - frame.

What is worse, a fourth statement doesn't mention either of these events even though he was there at the time, but he says that champagne was spilled on the same friends' t shirt by accident at a ball game several months before.

"How do you explain these conflicting statements, sir?" Eusebius QC explains that they were all different events.

"But your friend must be very unfortunate to have so much champagne spilled on him three separate times. He must be a magnet for well - heeled champagne drinkers. And I am concerned, sir, that these statements in no way confirm each other as regards the different spillage events which they surely must have known about. What's your view, officer Bird?"

(Bird, who hasn't quite grasped the argument, but knows a cue when he hears one) "I don't buy it judge."

"I don't buy it either, Mr Eusebius."

Of course,the analogy creaks and is not exact, but it is needful to point out your fraudulent ploy of trying to prove your case with a barely similar analogy. (2) Of course I am not the Judge and neither are you. we are both advocates, though I would prefer to regard myself as a forensic witness The public must decide, on the basis of the evidence presented.

(1) in your analogy of statements of living persons, that is the conclusion. In the case of the gospels, working from a common text is the better conclusion.

(2) I have something to say about analogies. They are useful in clarifying complicated or confusing arguments, but they should not be used (but often are) in trying to PROVE an argument by concocting an analogy which doesn't always fit. This is a common cheat used in theist apologetics as in the learning curve analogy used to explain the problem of evil, the barber shop analogy of ...the same problem and the asinine whirlwind in the junkyard' analogy intended to prove intelligent design.

They fail because they are not close analogies- they do not fit and they leave out important aspects of the argument. In short, an analogy can only hope to prove a point when it it is absolutely watertight. Otherwise it is just a dishonest attempt to mislead.
 
Old 06-16-2012, 08:02 AM
 
2,757 posts, read 2,179,470 times
Reputation: 566
The 'false doctrine' of '(ALL) scripture...' being
Infallible, Inerrant Word 0f God? which is not scripture.

Is not about
the different similarites in the speaking of Scriptural stories.

But about contratictions to what God said.

- Jesus said, call no one your father.
- Paul often refered to 'the fathers' of Israel
and even referring to himself as their father as well.
Now which is to be reguarded as the Words of God?

Not every word written of Scripture
is the infallible, inerrant Word 0f God to be obeyed.

In the 'like manner' of men & women
Paul spoke on his own 'Desire' for them. - 1Tim.2:8-12
This is not the Words of God.

People who hold to '(ALL) scripture...' being the infallible, inerrant Word 0f God?

Reguard not, nor preach '(ALL) scripture...' AS God's Word to be obeyed either.
Which is Hypocrisy to their own doctrine.

Amazing The Church has been Wrong so many times with this 'false doctrine'?

But, Their So Afriad To Be Word Without It ??? NO!!

This 'false doctrine' is not about being right or wrong; IT'S ABOUT POWER CONTROL!!!
 
Old 06-16-2012, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,944,655 times
Reputation: 255
Revelation Writer stated emphatically:

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

RESPONSE:


Matthew 27:52-53

52The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. (NRSV)

All these people were raised by God from the dead, and this happened before Jesus' Resurrection. Were they thus proven to be messiahs too?

........

And we are still awaiting your post showing how Jesus "fulfilled" these messianic 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).

Last edited by ancient warrior; 06-16-2012 at 02:55 PM.. Reason: addition
 
Old 06-16-2012, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,944,655 times
Reputation: 255
Revelation Writer posted:

>>Not every word written of Scripture is the infallible, inerrant Word 0f God to be obeyed.<<

RESPONSE:

Congratulations on your insight! Now the next logical question is how do we tell which are the Word of God and which are not?

Or does everyone get to pick the passages he personally considers inspired and reject those he does not?
 
Old 06-16-2012, 03:24 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,464,894 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
Revelation Writer stated emphatically:

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

RESPONSE:


Matthew 27:52-53

52The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. (NRSV)

All these people were raised by God from the dead, and this happened before Jesus' Resurrection. Were they thus proven to be messiahs too?

........

And we are still awaiting your post showing how Jesus "fulfilled" these messianic 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).
Moderator cut: Rude comments are deleted and infractable. Remember what I posted about what Moses said?

As to those Jews who were raised from the dead:
Mat 27:51-53 And lo! the curtain of the temple is rent in two from above to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks are rent, (52) and the tombs were opened. And many bodies of the reposing saints were roused, (53) and, coming out of the tombs after His rousing, they entered into the holy city and are disclosed to many."

First of all, Christ is the Firstfruit of vivification from the dead (1 Cor.15:22-28).
Secondly, the earthquake opened up some of the tombs of the righteous. They came to life after He came to life. They were not given immortality for they all died later.

Being raised from the dead does not prove they were Messiah's. Jesus, being given immortality and still being alive proves His Messiaship. He will return and you will shut your freakin mouth when He does.

Last edited by june 7th; 06-17-2012 at 03:58 PM..
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