Which is historically accurate, inspired, and inerrant? (Torah, exodus, scripture)
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.
Actually if you read the Gospels you would not believe Jesus was originally a disciple of John.
RESPONSE:
On the contrary, they show that Jesus was originally a disciple of John the Baptist.
John 1: 35- 40 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples, 36and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.”* 37The two disciples* heard what he said and followed Jesus. 38Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39He said to them, “Come, and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon.* 40Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
Note that John's mission began first, and Jesus was baptized by John indicating Jesus was following John's teachings (not John by Jesus). This wasbeforeJesus selected his apostles and began his ministry.
And,
"We may reasonably argue, therefore, that those baptized by John considered themselves
to be adherents to his teaching, and thus to be disciples of John, regardless of whether or
not they remained at the Baptist’s side. The baptism of John had placed them within a
prophetic-ethical teaching demanding a whole new lifestyle. It constituted a people who
believed John (Matthew 21:25) and who undoubtedly saw themselves as a cleansed
remnant awaiting the Coming One and the eschaton to follow." [William B. Badke, “Was Jesus a Disciple of John?” The Evangelical Quarterly 62:3 (1990): 195-204.]
Sorry to have to break this to you a.w. but the verse you quoted does not in any way, shape or form show that Jesus was a disciple of John.
If Jesus was a disciple of John the two disciples would have known where Jesus was staying.
John 1:40 Now Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who hear from John and follow Him."
"Disciple" means "learner." Jesus never sat at John the Baptists feet to learn from him. Jesus was the Rabbi, the Teacher.
Just because one is baptized by John does not mean they sit under his teaching.
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."
And if one claims a virgin birth for Jesus then he was not of the "seed" or "loins" of David through Solomon either.
II Samual 7: 12-14, 16-17 "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He shall build a house for my name, (Note: Solomon built the Lord's Temple) and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. W16Your 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.
Jesus never sat of the throne of Israel, built a Temple, gathered Jews back to the promised land, ushered in a period of world peace, or spread universal knowledge of God.
And, if we consider the virgin birth to be fact, then Jesus didn't meet the requirements of II Sam 7:14 either. "I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom forever."
(The claim that Jesus could have be of Davidic blood through Mary is false because, Hebrew geneologies never passed through a woman, but Mary's descent (see Luke) comes through Nathan, not Solomon. Nathan never was was a king of Israel. And lacking the Y chromosome, Mary couldn't transmit maleness to Jesus).
Last edited by ancient warrior; 06-14-2012 at 03:14 PM..
Reason: addition
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.
Jesus proved He was Messiah when God raised Him from the dead. Get over it.
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.
The anointing in Luke 7:37 took place in Caparnum.
The anointing in the other accounts took place in Bethany; at Simon the leper and at Lazarus' home years later, separated by about four days.
I would put the Bethany anointing right around Luke 22:1.
There is no "internal evidence" to suggest any such thing. Only a wild imagination.
I'd hate to see Eusebius assemble a jigsaw puzzle. Where the pieces didn't fit he'd take a hammer and hammer them into place.
But re the point: I can believe that Jesus' head was anointed twice, even thrice. What I can't believe is that two different people---Judas and guests---would make the exact same comment about the waste and the money being used for the poor afterwards. That is stretching credibility way too far.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 06-14-2012 at 05:54 PM..
I'd hate to see Eusebius assemble a jigsaw puzzle. Where the pieces didn't fit he'd take a hammer and hammer them into place.
But re the point: I can believe that Jesus' head was anointed twice, even thrice. What I can't believe is that two different people---Judas and guests---would make the exact same comment about the waste and the money being used for the poor afterwards. That is stretching credibility way too far.
Thank you. I have to remark that in John it is just Judas who makes the fuss whereas it is the disciples in Mark and Matthew, but it still looks like the same event but with changes, to remove the row from the disciples at large and blame it all on ol' Judas. And to change the anointing from head to feet as feet looks more worshipful and head looks a bit too much like anointing a king of the Jews..which is what Jesus was supposed to be anyway and more likely to be known to Mary than that he was going to be buried in a day or so.
This is just one small problem of that kind that leads me to strongly argue that a considerable amount of rewriting had gone of in respect of the original story and I do not think it 'reasonable' to say that each divergence represents a different event. It is not only unreasonable, it is absurd.
I just noted something posted by our Pal Eusebius that did not seem to follow. "If Jesus was a disciple of John the two disciples would have known where Jesus was staying."
That would work if there were only a dozen or so of them, but there were surely hundreds if not a few thousands. It is more reasonable to suppose that the disciples were originally followers of the baptist (in the gospel of John) because they didn't know Jesus or where he was staying.
Thus, while one could ask what Jesus was doing there if not to join John and the answer would have to involve a divinely ordained Plan, the point is that Eusebius' argument is demonstrably inept. It smacks of trying to find anything to push away gospel problems than to reasonably assess them.
Our friend's feathers are already ruffled enough so the reason I mention this is to note that it is unlikely that he will be persuaded by us, as he is clearly not willing to be reasonable. I would rather ask our friends here to consider whose argument is the more 'reasonable' but I have to suppose that our Christian friends here would much rather that we just go away and leave them to wrangle about matters of doctrine.
While I tell myself that at least we are showing that we have good reasons for our doubts, probably the real reason I get involved in threads like this is that you are some of the few bods interested in gospel Higher Criticism (1) as atheists are not interested in critically examining the gospels because they don't believe the Bible and the believers are not interested in doing it because they do.
(1) there's a term of red- faced righteous denunciation we don't often hear these days
One of the Pharisees asked Jesus[ to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment.
Font and commercial edited without prejudice.
Yes, a comment on "to change the anointing from head to feet as feet looks more worshipful and head looks a bit too much like anointing a king of the Jews..which is what Jesus was supposed to be anyway and more likely to be known to Mary than that he was going to be buried in a day or so."
The fact is that Luke rewrote his material extensively - much more than the other two synoptics. IF (and it is an if) my argument that this and the Mark/Matthew anointing are the same two stories but heavily edited by Luke is 'bought', then one has to ask what Luke would have altered, and what would have remained original.
There is also this feeling one has - it has been noticed by theist commentators who used it to argue that Luke actually knew the gospel according to John - that Luke and John shared some common material, just as Luke and Matthew share what it called 'Q' material.
For example, note the 'miraculous haul of fish' in Luke 5.4 which is added to the 'calling of the disciples' - which it clearly is because of the 'fishers of men' remark. I formerly argued here that Luke 'made it up', but I now reckon it is the same story as John used in 21. 5 -which is long after the resurrection.
The common synoptic story is that an anonymous woman in the house of Simon the leper poured spikenard over Jesus' head. There is the disciples' complaint and Jesus explaining that it was done to prepare him for burial.
John's account is obviously the same event (obvious except perhaps to Eusebius) except that the house of Simon the leper is now replaced by the house of Lazarus and the unknown woman by Mary, sister of Lazarus. To an ol' skeptic like me, that would look like John taking the anonymous woman in 'Simon's' house and replacing them with the people in his story - Lazarus and his sisters. If it really was Mary, sister of Lazarus, how could Mark and Matthew have just said 'a woman'?
However, that means that Luke's anointing has some features in common with Mark and Matthew. Simon the leper becomes Simon Peter and not the person who owns the house and the anonymous woman is not honouring Jesus but repenting for her sins.
The footwiping with her hair links up very much with John's story and that surely can't be a coincidence. That at least should surely make Luke's anointing the same event as in John 12.3 -and thus the same as the Bethany anointing in Matthew and Mark but -as I said - moved to Galilee and rewritten - to anyone who is 'reasonable' at least.
WHY Luke should do that is obvious to me - that he didn't like the way it looked when you linked John's anointing by Lazarus' sister with Spikenard on the head in the Synoptic gospel. So he altered it.
BTW, I suspect he might have altered 'Nard' to 'Myrrh'. I'll check that. I do hope this is interesting, but if not, talk amongst yourselves.
later....
Mar 14:3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment (myron) of spikenard (nardos pistekos) very precious; and she brake the box, and poured [it] on his head.
nardos Pronunciation nä'r-dos (Key) Part of Speech feminine noun 1) nard, the head or spike of a fragrant East Indian plant belonging to the genus Valerianna, which yields a juice of delicious odour which the ancients used (either pure or mixed) in the preparation of a most precious ointment ) nard oil or ointment pistikos Pronunciation pē-stē-ko's (Key) Part of Speech adjective 1) pertaining to belief a) having the power of persuading, skilful in producing belief b) trusty, faithful, that can be relied on. (the translation is 'true Nard' or 'pure Nard'
Mat 26:6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment (myron Pronunciation mü'-ron (Key) Part of Speech neuter noun 'ointment'), and poured it on his head, as he sat [at meat].
Jhn 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, ...12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served : but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
Jhn 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment (myron) of spikenard (nardos pistekos -pure nard), very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
It is evident that ointment was known to be spikenard, which Matthew omits to mention for reasons known only to him, but he admits that it was very precious. The head or feet looks like a clear contradiction, but I am aware that there are those who can quite happily believe that Matthew and mark mentioned the head but didn't think the feet important and John mentioned the footwiping with Mary's hair but that slipped the memory of the synoptics.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-15-2012 at 06:48 AM..
Originally Posted by thrillobyte I'd hate to see Eusebius assemble a jigsaw puzzle. Where the pieces didn't fit he'd take a hammer and hammer them into place.
Actually, the pieces fit perfectly without using a hammer, thank you very much.
Your snide remark reminds me of a 1st grader that, because he/she doesn't understand something can only strike out at the one who knows more than the child.
Quote:
But re the point: I can believe that Jesus' head was anointed twice, even thrice. What I can't believe is that two different people---Judas and guests---would make the exact same comment about the waste and the money being used for the poor afterwards. That is stretching credibility way too far.
This statement of yours shows your true ignorance. Who said Jesus was being anointed? Not any of the four accounts.
You say you can't understand why they'd make such remarks. I believe you can't.
Sorry - forgot what I was supposed to be looking up - Luke has an alabaster box of ointment (myron), which supports Matthew's reading, but really both of them could have dropped the reference to spikenard because it was too appropriate for anointing rather than burial preparation, but the alabaster box is surely a strong link of the anointing even in the three synoptics.
Note, despite the attempts to translate 'albastron' as variously 'box' or 'jar', 'albastron' (albaster container) is the same in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is more likely a stoppered phial which is 'brake' by taking the stopper out. Don't you just love bringing the gospels to life?
Kindly posted for use by the Archaeological Museum Beit Miriam in kibutz Palmahim, Israel
And 'anointing' is what we conveniently call it and Eusebius' dickering about whether it was a Royal anointing or some other kind (which is arguable, of course) is just a piece of misdirection.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-15-2012 at 08:07 AM..
Sorry - forgot what I was supposed to be looking up - Luke has an alabaster box of ointment (myron), which supports Matthew's reading, but really both of them could have dropped the reference to spikenard because it was too appropriate for anointing rather than burial preparation, but the alabaster box is surely a strong link of the anointing even in the three synoptics.
Note, despite the attempts to translate 'albastron' as variously 'box' or 'jar', 'albastron' (albaster container) is the same in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is more likely a stoppered phial which is 'brake' by taking the stopper out. Don't you just love bringing the gospels to life?
Kindly posted for use by the Archaeological Museum Beit Miriam in kibutz Palmahim, Israel
And 'anointing' is what we conveniently call it and Eusebius' dickering about whether it was a Royal anointing or some other kind (which is arguable, of course) is just a piece of misdirection.
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.
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.
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.
Why Jesus was not the messiah
