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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2016, 09:48 AM
 
1,168 posts, read 652,647 times
Reputation: 1550

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
let me know when any large document doesn't contradict itself.

Then I will be amazed.
It's one thing if an author makes a mistake. The issue with the Gospels is that the "mistakes" are clearly intentional. The other 3 Gospel writers took Mark's stories and completely rewrote them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2016, 09:58 AM
 
10,506 posts, read 4,141,914 times
Reputation: 1193
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaldDuth View Post
It's one thing if an author makes a mistake. The issue with the Gospels is that the "mistakes" are clearly intentional. The other 3 Gospel writers took Mark's stories and completely rewrote them.
I agree.

I think the people that assembled the bible intended the discrepancies so that it would never be taken literally. heck, they can even believe god put them in there so they wouldn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 05:44 PM
 
37,514 posts, read 25,243,901 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaldDuth View Post
It's one thing if an author makes a mistake. The issue with the Gospels is that the "mistakes" are clearly intentional. The other 3 Gospel writers took Mark's stories and completely rewrote them.
They were written for an audience that lacked any real knowledge of reality, was terrified of Spirits, and was hugely superstitious and barbaric in their beliefs about God. They needed "carnal milk." The entire context of the teachings of Christ was surreptitious and cloaked in metaphor and parables for "those who have ears to hear." IF they were intended to serve for a future more sophisticated and knowledgeable audience, they needed to leave sufficient clues and inconsistencies so that eventually the "solid food" would become obvious. Regrettably, the perverse and agenda-driven religious leaders that followed did the exact opposite. They made it a test of faith in God to believe every word as written. Thus, we have had 2000+ years of absurd and ridiculous beliefs that completely corrupt the original Gospel message of Christ. The majority Christian churches are anti-Christ apostate as prophesied for these latter days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,593 posts, read 5,118,701 times
Reputation: 3917
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaldDuth View Post
It's one thing if an author makes a mistake. The issue with the Gospels is that the "mistakes" are clearly intentional. The other 3 Gospel writers took Mark's stories and completely rewrote them.
That is simply not so. There are so many attempts in the gospels to meet OT prophecy---and dramatically different like the Nativity stories---that it would mean the relatively uneducated folks (not more than 10% could read or write even one language) were geniuses with regard to planning how people would be fooled by PUTTING INTENTIONAL ERRORS in their writings after discussing it with one another??

The errors point out the overall truth while revealing the same word of mouth traditions from which they came. Jesus did not say "He who is not against us is with us" according to one gospel AND say "He who is not with us is against us" in another. What it illustrates is what is far more likely---people remembered the story differently---and someone didn't recall it correctly.

Modern studies on eyewitness testimony in courts shows that people seeing events or recalling conversations frequently differ. Eyewitness testimony basically sucks more than any other evidence. It doesn't make sense that there would be a conspiracy when the dates for writing the four gospels span some four decades. In addition we see progression in the gospels from the oldest to the later. There are definite theological subtleties from one gospel (Mark being the oldest) to the latest (John). So we know the early church was being impacted as it developed its beliefs--and those were recorded by the later authors.

There is evidence that later writers were aware of Mark. But Luke and Matthew have material unique to both of them--not found in Mark. The majority of scholars hold that it was the Q source--another written or strong oral tradition unfamiliar to Mark.

The discrepancies we find are the ones lawyers find when dealing with witnesses. The overall story may be so and so shot Mr. Smith. Yet when it happened as in times, whether there were three shots or four (one woman, two women, or three or more at the Resurrection) are simply misremembered. It becomes a larger problem for writers who are trying to recall oral stories from different people.

While there may and IS plenty of doubt about many of the doctrines formulated around the Christ, the fumbled reports about the man Jesus which have definetly been draped in religiosity point toward a charismatic man who spurred enough interest to get people to remember him and perhaps even enhance his image beyond its already powerful impact. As Muslim Reza Aslan wrote at the end of his book, ZEALOT, "---Jesus the man --is every bit as compelling, charismatic, and praiseworthy as Jesus the Christ. He is, in short, someone worth believing in."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2016, 08:40 PM
 
37,514 posts, read 25,243,901 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
They were written for an audience that lacked any real knowledge of reality, was terrified of Spirits, and was hugely superstitious and barbaric in their beliefs about God. They needed "carnal milk." The entire context of the teachings of Christ was surreptitious and cloaked in metaphor and parables for "those who have ears to hear." IF they were intended to serve for a future more sophisticated and knowledgeable audience, they needed to leave sufficient clues and inconsistencies so that eventually the "solid food" would become obvious. Regrettably, the perverse and agenda-driven religious leaders that followed did the exact opposite. They made it a test of faith in God to believe every word as written. Thus, we have had 2000+ years of absurd and ridiculous beliefs that completely corrupt the original Gospel message of Christ. The majority Christian churches are anti-Christ apostate as prophesied for these latter days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
That is simply not so. There are so many attempts in the gospels to meet OT prophecy---and dramatically different like the Nativity stories---that it would mean the relatively uneducated folks (not more than 10% could read or write even one language) were geniuses with regard to planning how people would be fooled by PUTTING INTENTIONAL ERRORS in their writings after discussing it with one another??
The clues are there, Warden. The "carnal milk" versus "solid food" references. The not being ready for the complete truth. The fact that not everything Christ taught is in the writings. The "those who have ears to hear" qualifications. They DID know far more than they could reasonably convey to such limited minds. It is not an unreasonable hypothesis to think the inconsistencies and contradictions might be deliberate clues that would only be needed when the audience developed the knowledge and understanding to see them and question them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2016, 04:52 AM
 
7,367 posts, read 6,529,443 times
Reputation: 1248
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
They were written for an audience that lacked any real knowledge of reality, was terrified of Spirits, and was hugely superstitious and barbaric in their beliefs about God. They needed "carnal milk." The entire context of the teachings of Christ was surreptitious and cloaked in metaphor and parables for "those who have ears to hear." IF they were intended to serve for a future more sophisticated and knowledgeable audience, they needed to leave sufficient clues and inconsistencies so that eventually the "solid food" would become obvious. Regrettably, the perverse and agenda-driven religious leaders that followed did the exact opposite. They made it a test of faith in God to believe every word as written. Thus, we have had 2000+ years of absurd and ridiculous beliefs that completely corrupt the original Gospel message of Christ. The majority Christian churches are anti-Christ apostate as prophesied for these latter days.
If the scriptures are so unreliable as you claim, how do you know that these teachings of the Bible character Christ are legitimate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2016, 07:03 AM
 
34,541 posts, read 8,904,414 times
Reputation: 4797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
I concur!
I, too. Raffs is doing excellently. Certainly when I first became aware of the Flavian testament, the general view was that, as Josephus remained a Jewish believer, hints of Christianity could not be his. Thus they had to be later glosses. If so, why couldn't the whole thing be a Christian interpolation? The clue of failure of any church father before 300 AD (or maybe I mean 3rd c (1) or so to refer to this very significant if true) extra -church account of Jesus is telling.

That noted, we also note that the Flavian testament is rather parenthetical.It is slotted in between two 'Misfortunes' of the Jews, one of which (or both) refer to Pilate's doings. If someone, keenly aware of the worrying failure of Josephus to say anything about Jesus or the international crowds that travelled miles to hear him talk, decided that it would be a pious act to rectify that omission and concocted a likely sounding potted biography (based somewhat on Luke 24. 20 -on), that would be a good place to slip it in.

No matter what this or that Bible scholar thinks about it, there can be few who at least accept that some of the Flavian Testament is faked. And it is too tempting to simply dismiss the bits that can't be accepted as true and say all the rest is. They do it with the entire Bible.

(1) The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian Eusebius, who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Writing no later than 324. (Wiki)

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-29-2016 at 07:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2016, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,870 posts, read 9,656,549 times
Reputation: 2398
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I, too. Raffs is doing excellently. Certainly when I first became aware of the Flavian testament, the general view was that, as Josephus remained a Jewish believer, hints of Christianity could not be his. Thus they had to be later glosses. If so, why couldn't the whole thing be a Christian interpolation? The clue of failure of any church father before 300 AD (or maybe I mean 3rd c (1) or so to refer to this very significant if true) extra -church account of Jesus is telling.

That noted, we also note that the Flavian testament is rather parenthetical.It is slotted in between two 'Misfortunes' of the Jews, one of which (or both) refer to Pilate's doings. If someone, keenly aware of the worrying failure of Josephus to say anything about Jesus or the international crowds that travelled miles to hear him talk, decided that it would be a pious act to rectify that omission and concocted a likely sounding potted biography (based somewhat on Luke 24. 20 -on), that would be a good place to slip it in.

No matter what this or that Bible scholar thinks about it, there can be few who at least accept that some of the Flavian Testament is faked. And it is too tempting to simply dismiss the bits that can't be accepted as true and say all the rest is. They do it with the entire Bible.
I suspect he will ignore your fact as he is ignoring mine. He's having a 'flounce' at the moment.

Quote:
(1) The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian Eusebius, who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Writing no later than 324.
I highly suspect Eusebius as the culprit for this scam. He was a celebrated 'Liar for Jesus'. Certainly not to be trusted: One need look no further than his own words.

That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment.
Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelfth book of Evangelical Preparation

The great religious historian, Eusebius, ingenuously remarks that in his history he carefully omitted whatever tended to discredit the church, and that he piously magnified all that conduced to her glory.
Robert Green Ingersoll. "The Ghosts".

The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 3

In a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a 'good idea' worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.

Richard Carrier, Footnote 6 from "The Formation of the New testament Canon"


It wouldn't be the first time he (and other Christians) deliberately lied and altered documents. One should wonder why, if Christianity is true, so many Christians tell so many lies about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2016, 08:59 AM
 
1,168 posts, read 652,647 times
Reputation: 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
That is simply not so. There are so many attempts in the gospels to meet OT prophecy---and dramatically different like the Nativity stories---that it would mean the relatively uneducated folks (not more than 10% could read or write even one language) were geniuses with regard to planning how people would be fooled by PUTTING INTENTIONAL ERRORS in their writings after discussing it with one another??
First of all, the people who wrote the Gospels were highly educated.

Second of all, they didn't discuss anything with each other, didn't even know who each other were. All they had were one or more of each other's anonymously written Gospels. The original Gospel may have been Mark or may have been "Q".

Third of all, they didn't think of their changing of the stories as errors, per se. They knew the stories were made-up to begin with. They were simply inventing their own versions of the stories.

Think of this as analogous to the Star Wars and Star Wars: Special Edition movies. They are 2 versions of the same made-up story, the latter was based on the first and represents a more George Lucas-ified version.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2016, 09:15 AM
 
34,541 posts, read 8,904,414 times
Reputation: 4797
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaldDuth View Post
First of all, the people who wrote the Gospels were highly educated.
Second of all, they didn't discuss anything with each other, didn't even know who each other were. All they had were one or more of each other's anonymously written Gospels. The original Gospel may have been Mark or may have been "Q".

Third of all, they didn't think of their changing of the stories as errors, per se. They knew the stories were made-up to begin with. They were simply inventing their own versions of the stories.

Think of this as analogous to the Star Wars and Star Wars: Special Edition movies. They are 2 versions of the same made-up story, the latter was based on the first and represents a more George Lucas-ified version.
Nice post. I broadly agree. Luke and Matthew certainly couldn't have even seen the others' gospel or their nativities and resurrection accounts would have conflicted so much. Mark is close in some ways to the original, but then in others so is Luke! That's because mark also contains the Decapolis material common to Matthew, but omitted by Luke (The "Great Omission") so in someways Luke is a Check of the form of the original that Mark used - as did the other Synoptics. Mark also made some additions of his own (Pilate's surprise; the assistants in the boat), and Mark 6.31 and 45 and between,which isn't an addition but a mix up, where Jesus takes the disciples to a 'Lonely place' which is Bbethsaida (compare with Matthew, Luke and indeed John) for the feeding of loaves and fishes and then they return "To Bethsaida" when in fact they should be returning to Capernaum.

It is these discrepancies and contradictions that show us how the gospels were written (or re -written) and we can then know why, and that tells us a lot about the writers. At one time I had a result of numerous revisions of the original, that was so complex doubted it myself, but now it looks a lot simpler.

I know this isn't a common view, but the fact is that all the Bible scholars seem to start with the assumption that the gospels are a broadly reliable account of the doings and sayings of Jesus, and that scuppers all their efforts from the start.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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