U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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 12-27-2017, 08:49 AM
 
32,590 posts, read 7,939,814 times
Reputation: 4597

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
The "tree" was obviously a reference to Israel.

You are not getting anywhere by reading the story as a fundamentalist, and challenging the facts within it. It will make no sense unless you are familiar with the Old Testament as well. The gospels have very little factual information, as people who had knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures would have known. Read the Old Testament. The gospel stories were entirely symbolic.

This entire thread makes no sense.
I certainly agree - factual, no, symbolic yes. As I have always argued, the discrepancies are a strong clue. It isn't in John, so it isn't part of the basic story. It isn't in Luke, so it isn't even part of the Synoptic version of the Gospels. It was added later for a reason. The reason is symbolic.

I don't think the 'camping outside Jerusalem for several days' is part of the symbolism. In Luke and John that didn't happen. Jesus did the whole thing in one go - donkey ride and temple -cleansing. The 'camping outside' was to invent a way of separating the donkey -ride and the temple cleansing. John does it by simply removing the temple -cleansing altogether.

The reason is because it made Jesus look like the wrong kind of Messiah. I'm going to go even further and suggest that another un-factual bit - the 'passover release' which is not known to have actually been a custom, was originally (and it is in all the gospels) to show the Jews being given a choice, the Christian messiah, or the Jewish Messiah, the teacher of the Good news or the insurrectionist. Jesus Christ or Jesus Barabbas.

The Jews choosing Barabbas and rejecting Jesus (never mind getting the blame for his crucifixion - by Rome!) is all of a piece with Jesus lamenting over Jerusalem (Luke 19.41) and Matthew 23.37, which tries to link OT records of Jews killing prophets (1) with the rejection and death of Jesus (2) And of course the "prophecy" of 'one stone not left on another' (3).

This is all part of the agenda of the Gospels, and the reason they were written - to turn Jesus from a failed Jewish messiah in to a risen (and therefore triumphant) one, to have Jesus replace Jewish teachings with Paulinist (indeed Greek Christian) teachings as what was required to be one of God's people, and - most particularly in the events of Bethany and the Temple, to link the crucifixion with a supposed Jewish rejection of Jesus as a Christian prophet, and the linking of that with their supposed punishment - the Jewish war and the destruction of the Temple. And the cursing of the Fig -tree is all part of that.

(1) I have read a challenge to this - there is little or no killing of prophets in the OT. But I can't be sure. If anyone knows of an example of this, I'd be pleased to hear it.

(2) which was done by Rome, of course, which is why the gospels bend over backwards to make it look like the Jews forced Pilate to do it. And indeed in Matthew 27.24, he pretty much hands the crucifixion and responsibility for it over to 'The Jews' who eagerly accept the responsibility.

I don't think it can be put too strongly. This passage above all the others is what led to the medieval persecutions, the Pogroms, German antisemitism in the 19th century, and in the end, the Holocaust. The Gospels bear the blame for that, totally.

(3) the absurd stooge -cue of Jesus' disciples pointing out to him all the wonderful stones and Buildings (Mark 13.1) as if they had never seen the place before, and indeed one of Mark's OWN alterations of the Synoptic Original - meaning that his is Not the original Gospel that Matthew and Luke copied - he uses the absurd device of Jesus looking around at everything like a bloody tourist (Mark 11.11) as a device for inserting a day between the donkey -ride and the temple -cleansing.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-27-2017 at 09:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2017, 12:30 PM
 
4,266 posts, read 1,045,645 times
Reputation: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaldDuth View Post
One of the reasons why I think the 4 Jesus stories aren't literal stories about the literal life of a literal figure, and aren't supposed to have any theological meaning, is because of how "random" they are. Jesus travels to this town, says this weird thing, does this weird miracle, than travels to some other town. The events feel "forced," like the authors are trying hard to make the story fit some predefined template.

But this makes perfect sense if you believe a theory like Joseph Atwill's that claims the Jesus story is based on Titus Flavius's military campaign.

For example, the following happens in the Jesus story right before the "Triumphal Entry" into Jerusalem:
  • Jesus stays right outside the city for days (Why? Makes no sense.)
  • Jesus says that trees that don't bear fruit should be cut down (Why? Makes no sense.)

Christian scholars will say that this is infused with theological meaning -- an unfalsifiable claim. After all, with enough creativity, I can give meaning to any text.

I'm more convinced that this is a parallel of what happened when Titus's military reached Jerusalem:
  • The army camped on the perimeter of the city for days
  • Titus ordered that the fruit trees outside the city walls be cut down

Same with pretty much every Gospel story.
The Gospels were never intended to be a complete biography of Jesus' life. They are collections of stories based off of the teachings of Jesus. They were each composed by the author with a certain demographic in mind, which is why the stories are in different order, and they emphasize different things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2017, 01:39 PM
 
32,590 posts, read 7,939,814 times
Reputation: 4597
That is simply the stock excuse as to why they contradict each other so as to fatally compromise their reliability as a record - whatever point they were trying to emphasize. It does not explain away the discrepancies where they describe the same event.

You can wave away the monumental contradictions and omissions of important 'proof of Jesus and his resurrection' material, while having room for tedious parables, or you can do the other thing and rewrite the account to fiddle them together or invent stuff to try to produce some possible explanation. You can do that as much as you like, but it doesn't fool us for a minute.

The omission of the Transfiguration by John was discussed here some time ago and they did their best; it wasn't the same event (I proved that it was), Jesus told them to keep quiet about it (only until after his death, and that didn't stop Mark, Matthew and Luke writing about it). To their credit, nobody tried your argument that the synoptics 'emphasized different things' and John didn't see the need to emphasize the transfiguration at all to the extent that he describes the event
John 6. 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
And not a transfiguration in sight.

Nobody tried to pull "John didn't think it was important" because that won't wash and they knew it wouldn't. If it washes for you it is because your idea of laundry is 'Whatever I believe is clean, is clean'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2017, 02:03 PM
 
10,028 posts, read 3,839,600 times
Reputation: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
That is simply the stock excuse as to why they contradict each other so as to fatally compromise their reliability as a record - whatever point they were trying to emphasize. It does not explain away the discrepancies where they describe the same event.

You can wave away the monumental contradictions and omissions of important 'proof of Jesus and his resurrection' material, while having room for tedious parables, or you can do the other thing and rewrite the account to fiddle them together or invent stuff to try to produce some possible explanation. You can do that as much as you like, but it doesn't fool us for a minute.

The omission of the Transfiguration by John was discussed here some time ago and they did their best; it wasn't the same event (I proved that it was), Jesus told them to keep quiet about it (only until after his death, and that didn't stop Mark, Matthew and Luke writing about it). To their credit, nobody tried your argument that the synoptics 'emphasized different things' and John didn't see the need to emphasize the transfiguration at all to the extent that he describes the event
John 6. 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
And not a transfiguration in sight.

Nobody tried to pull "John didn't think it was important" because that won't wash and they knew it wouldn't. If it washes for you it is because your idea of laundry is 'Whatever I believe is clean, is clean'.
lmao. yes, one can pluck any two sentences out of most lessons and claim "they contradict each other". It happens every day. In fact, many lessons include contradictions to try and unlock a stuck brain. AKA zen.

I guess that's why you deny anything, its the easy way out. Like the fundy theists that claims literal bible. Just fist pump, shout down, and stand on literal wording to make your world seem more real.

No thinking involved. No dealing with how the universe works. flat deny everything and keep the feud alive. When lesson get in the way of the personal venda, just flat deny them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2017, 02:23 PM
 
4,266 posts, read 1,045,645 times
Reputation: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
That is simply the stock excuse as to why they contradict each other so as to fatally compromise their reliability as a record - whatever point they were trying to emphasize. It does not explain away the discrepancies where they describe the same event.

You can wave away the monumental contradictions and omissions of important 'proof of Jesus and his resurrection' material, while having room for tedious parables, or you can do the other thing and rewrite the account to fiddle them together or invent stuff to try to produce some possible explanation. You can do that as much as you like, but it doesn't fool us for a minute.

The omission of the Transfiguration by John was discussed here some time ago and they did their best; it wasn't the same event (I proved that it was), Jesus told them to keep quiet about it (only until after his death, and that didn't stop Mark, Matthew and Luke writing about it). To their credit, nobody tried your argument that the synoptics 'emphasized different things' and John didn't see the need to emphasize the transfiguration at all to the extent that he describes the event
John 6. 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
And not a transfiguration in sight.

Nobody tried to pull "John didn't think it was important" because that won't wash and they knew it wouldn't. If it washes for you it is because your idea of laundry is 'Whatever I believe is clean, is clean'.
what specific passages do you believe contradict each other?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2017, 02:23 PM
 
7,717 posts, read 6,445,452 times
Reputation: 1333
People who don`t believe in the spirit , as God is Spirit with substance , so people who don`t believe in this unseen realm have no witness of Spirituality , so religion of the natural which Christianity is Not any thing to do with natural thinking ,....... God is indeed real and His miracle are still being performed even today through His follower , ..... Like the tree that does not bare fruit should be cut down is a metaphor of people who don`t have gifts of the Spirit of God is like a tree with no fruit , has no purpose to God for growing the kingdom of God
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2017, 02:32 PM
 
32,590 posts, read 7,939,814 times
Reputation: 4597
Since, Arach chum, you are the one and only on my ignore list (best decision I made while here ) I am unable to respond, whatever it was.

So let me say a bit about my Pet Theory. As with all those claimed by unqualified crackpots "I have been working on it for thirty years" and you -all have seen quite a bit of it. Several times in fact

It differs from all those I have read, leaving out some of the truly cracked ones involving a conspiracy between Pilate, Antipas and Jesus to invent a religion to extinguish Judaism, or (it has to be said) that the Jesus story is simply borrowed from that of Julius Caesar. I also have been able to dismiss the idea that Paul was invented by Marcion.

No, the ones I thought worth the read were the skeptical and the Christian -scholarly. The Christian scholarly were...scholarly, until they came to a problem, and then it was fingers in the ears and any excuse -time. They will not help with the question of serious doubts about the gospels, because they ignore them. The skeptical 'This is Who Jesus really Was" type tends to come up with an idea and then cherry pick (and Interpret) Gospel passages to try to support the theory.

Experienced apologists will know that starting with the conclusion and finding evidence (suitably fiddled) to support it, is Not the right way to go about it.

Nope..you can get back to finishing off the Xmas cake and single malt. I am not going to upset your digestion by a a dissertation of the Tranponderian Methodology. I am rather going to say that if fitting the evidence (with little or no fiddling) and following the conclusions counts for anything, then I am right.

And while my Pet theory may well be ignored now ..give it say 15 years, until somebody else cracks it and publishes and will get all the credit.

But Good News, Raffs and Trouts. After struggling with my Other piano which will not understand the difference between a Bible reference and a new paragraph, I have transferred the Book here ..hang on... Remember the one thing I finished..the cover?

despite not having Office so it won't read half the stuff, I will..like Bruckner doing hin 9th, .. make efforts to Finish the Book, because they way I bin feeling..I don't know how long I got left.
Attached Thumbnails
One of the most suspicious elements of the Gospels, in my opinion-cover.gif  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2017, 03:04 PM
 
32,590 posts, read 7,939,814 times
Reputation: 4597
Quote:
Originally Posted by hljc View Post
People who don`t believe in the spirit , as God is Spirit with substance , so people who don`t believe in this unseen realm have no witness of Spirituality , so religion of the natural which Christianity is Not any thing to do with natural thinking ,....... God is indeed real and His miracle are still being performed even today through His follower , ..... Like the tree that does not bare fruit should be cut down is a metaphor of people who don`t have gifts of the Spirit of God is like a tree with no fruit , has no purpose to God for growing the kingdom of God
I flatter myself that what I have already provided (indeed if Random Factors takes me off, Raffs could probably do the Book himself from my posts ) is better fruit that the dry and rattling husks of theophany such as we get from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie View Post
what specific passages do you believe contradict each other?
The Touchstone cases are the nativities, which conflict in many areas, but mainly Matthew starting out in Judea, Fleeing to Egypt and then returning to Judea but changing their mind and going to live in Galilee.

Luke has then living in Galilee and merely going back there after the Temple rites. The c ten year discrepancy is an additional problem.

The other is the resurrection, where Matthew has the women running headlong into Jesus on the way from the tomb to the disciples, but Luke while having Cleophas reporting the women on the angels (even though nobody believed it) he doesn't mention that they claimed to have seen Jesus. However, Luke does have an appearance 'First' to Simon (which I believe is to try to fiddle 1 cor.15.5 into the resurrection narrative) which he does not describe! And of course nobody else even mentions it.

These are the two Touchstones, as I say, that do for Gospel credibility, rather as (for me) the Cetan sequence proves "Macro" evolution and the salt and fresh water mixing debunks the Quran.

There are many other conflicts, such as the penitent thief, the stabbing with a spear, the lack of a transfiguration in John, the lack of any angelic message in John, no Lazarus in the synoptics, no walking on water in Luke - a bit of a puzzle that and some other major ones..yes the paralytic in Jerusalem in John but in Galilee in the synoptics, and oh yes, the announcement in the Nazareth synagogue.

And some other ones such as of course the death of Judas (mainly in how the OT is fudged and mangled in order to get the prophecies out of it) Acts getting the revolts of Judas and Theudas the wrong way around (though it clearly relates the Lucan census to the Roman takover of 6 AD), the fudged and fiddled events at Bethany such as the anointing shifted to Galilee in Luke and the Temple dust up in John moved to before the baptism!

As I say, these are lesser as there are apologetics. They were two different events and if they didn't mention the one the others did..different Emphasis or lapse of memory. Well, if the Temple cleansing having vanished from where it should be at John 12.20 isn't evidence enough, the principle laid down by the touchstone discrepancies should settle the matter.

There are many others, such as Luke spreading half the sermon on the mount along the route from Galilee to Peraea, sinking Simon, which none of the other synoptics have heard of, the business of Jesus before Antipas, the omission of several really memorable parables from Mark or Matthew (aside from the evidence that they were all working from a common text so they should have at least hinted at everything that the others say) not to mention John having not one Parable, and the Synoptics not one Johannine sermon. Nothing that Jesus said in them was worthy of being recorded by the synoptics?

But that's enough and I must beware, mustn't I of getting to where I might come up with a Problem like John's messengers of Jesus caliing his disciples in Galilee when he had already (according to John) recruited them in Peraea 0 if he hadn't brought them along with him! But you could propose a half -way plausible Explanation which, if I can't totally debunk it, will be taken as disproving everything I said.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-27-2017 at 03:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2017, 03:11 PM
 
4,266 posts, read 1,045,645 times
Reputation: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I flatter myself that what I have already provided (indeed if Random Factors takes me off, Raffs could probably do the Book himself from my posts ) is better fruit that the dry and rattling husks of theophany such as we get from you.

The Touchstone cases are the nativitoes, which conflict in many areas, but mainly Matthew starting out in Judea, Fleeing to Egypt and then returning to Judea but changing their mind and going to live in Galilee.
I fail to see an issue. What's to say that all that was mentioned in them happened?
Quote:
Luke has then living in Galilee and merely going back there after the Temple rites.

The other is the resurrection, where Matthew hads the women running headlong into Jesus on the way from the tomb to the disciples, but Luke while having Cleophas reporting the women on the angels (even though nobody believed it) he doesn't mention that they claimed to have seen Jesus. However, Luke does have an appearance 'First' to Simon (which I believe is to try to fiddle 1 cor.15.5 into the resurrection narrative) which he does not describe! And of course nobody else even mentions it.
Again.....nothing to say all that didn't happen.
Quote:
These are the two Touchstones, as i say, rather as (for me) the Cetan sequence proves "Macro" evolution and the salt and fresh water miing debunks the Quran.
um...what? I'm sorry I won't defend the Quran.
Quote:
There are many other conflicts, such as the penitent thief, the stabbing with a spear, the lack of a transfiguration in John, the lack of any angelic message in John, no Lazarus in the synoptics, no walking on water in Luke - a bit of a puzzle that and some other major ones..yes the paralytic in Jerusalem in John but in Galilee in the synoptics, and oh yes, the anouncement in the Nazareth synagogue.

And some other ones such as of course the death of Judas (mainly in how the OT is fudged and mangled in order to get the prophecies out of it) Acts getting the revolts of Judas and Theudas the wrong way around (though it clearly relates the Lucan census to the Roman takover of 6 AD), the fudged and fiddled events at Bethany such as the anointing shifted to galilee in Luke and the Temple dust up in John moved to before the baptism!
As I say, these are lesser as there are apologetics. They were two different events and if they didn't mention the one the others did..different Emphasis or lapse of memory. Well, if the Temple cleansing having vanished from where it should be at John 12.20 isn't evidence enough, the principle laid down by the touchstone discrepancies should settle the matter.

There are many others, such as Luke spreading half the sermon on the mount along the route from Galilee to Peraea, sinking Simon, which none of the other synoptics have heard of, the business of Jesus before Antipas, the omission of several really memorable parables from Mark or Matthew (aside from the evidence that they were all working from a common text so they should have at least hinted at everything that the others say) not to mention John naving not one Parable, and the Synoptics not one Johannine sermon. Nothing that Jesus said in them was wothy of being recorded by the synoptics?

But that's enough and I must beware, mustn't I of getting to where you could propose a half -way plausible Explanation which, if I can't totally debunk it, will be taken as disproving everything I said.
If you'd like to talk about one, we an...but I just see you making generalized statements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2017, 03:23 PM
 
32,590 posts, read 7,939,814 times
Reputation: 4597
If you don't see fatal contradictions there, then you are welcome to your blinkered denial, and as I predicted, you picked up on the last one that you thought might be worth trying to argue rather than dismiss out of hand. But the measure of your stock in trade intellectual dishonesty is to be seen as dismissing particular passages and the problems as "generalized statements" (1).

But I do not intend to try to hold up clear evidence before someone who simply isn't looking to see, because I have been too cheeky already peddling my wares in a thread specifically about the fig leaf..no I mean figtree.

What I might say is - compare them yourself, gospel by Gospel, and you test how pure your faith is by the amount of denial you'll need to ignore the discrepancies and contradictions.

(1) the omission of several really memorable parables from Mark or Matthew (aside from the evidence that they were all working from a common text so they should have at least hinted at everything that the others say) not to mention John naving not one Parable, and the Synoptics not one Johannine sermon. Nothing that Jesus said in them was wothy of being recorded by the synoptics? That's 'generalized statements'?
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

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 - Top