Using the Bible to prove the Bible (believing, perspective, testimony)

[MysticPhD]

[quote=Rabbi Dakota;13628281]Adam was formed from particles of adamah not earth. Adamah is living matter and the statement "Adam was formed out of particles of adamah " can be applied to any phase of evolution from a simpler living organism into a a more complex one. In the case of Adam 6000 years ago Adam was formed from tribes from all of the known world much like how Jesus Christ descended from a genetic program started by Adam back short of 6000 years ago. If you want to know who Eve was take a look at who Abraham Issac and Jacobs wives were. Eve was his blood relative. In this respect the Torah certainly does illuminate/validate itself. We learn by reading it and holding it up to creation just how deep, complex and cohesive those ancient verb forms are. Not to meantion how much is lost in translation. Not too many people realize the full implications of "dust of the earth," Rabbi.

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything better. You apparently ignore a glaring discrepancy and dismiss it with the 'witnesses don't always agree' argument. If witnesses came into court with a story as discrepant as that - and in the case of Matthew and Mark so obviously in the same wording - they would throw the case out and lock up the witnesses for perjury.

Calm down! Let cooler heads prevail!
Now let’s go back to that courtroom illustration again.
All six of the witnesses point to the same man as the one at fault. But one of them describes him as African American after noticing his color. The defense claims incorrect identification - the man is Brazilian - not African American!
Should that sway the judge? Not in the least! He HAS to go with the preponderance of the evidence and the bulk of it points to his being the one at fault. So - even though there is a seeming discrepancy in the testimony, that does not mean that the story is false. Did the witness lie under oath? Obviously he didn’t, so - where’s the perjury?

You listen up. Go back to that post and realise that it is clear how the story does not stack up on evidential basis. There are not just 'differences' there is (a) clear collusion and (b) clear falsification. Just look at it, will you?
That is what should be done the Bible. Evaluation of the evidence to arrive at a decision. Buit what happens? Those who have already made up their minds before the evidence is evaluated reject the evaluation and argue benefit of doubt on flimsy pretexts to ignore clear proof of lying and collusion.
You fell right into the trap. That is NOT what has happened in my example. It is not just the same event described in different words. If it were I could not cite it as a prime example of a discrepancy. Matthew and Mark are clearly working from the same text. Luke also but clearly adding a fanciful tale evidently derived from the same source as John, who places it at the end of the story. Isn't it clear that you are refusing to look at evidence of untruth that would be compelling in court. You are the one ignoring evidence and trying to cover up an unwelcome fact. And that's what we find again and again with bible apologists. It comes very close to dishonesty.

The story stacks up - you just don’t want to see it.
Let’s tear it apart.Jesus calls disciples to follow him. All the writers say that.
Question: Did he?
Fact: He did.
Question: Did they actually follow him?
Fact: They did.
Question: Did he assign them to a ministry?
Fact: He did!
Question: Did they accept?
Fact: They did.
Question: Did all the writers say they did?
Fact: All of them did.
Question: Did Jesus send his disciples out at missionaries into the world to increase his followers?
Fact: He did.
Question: Did Christianity spread throughout the world in the last 2 thousand years?
Fact: It did.
Question: Is it if earth-shaking importance how or when that call went out?
Fact: It is not.
So - what do we have here? Jesus calls his disciples. They respond favorably. Where’s the discrepancy? Where’s the collusion?
If you are trying to say that Jesus did NOT issue a call for his disciples to follow him, then you’ve got a lot of really hard facts to deal with.

Stop looking for specious arguments to avoid looking at the evidence and attend to the evidence!

I looked and I saw what the story indicated. I checked subsequent historical data on the spread of Christianity and the story pans out.

What in the world does that prove? It is a story quite unrelated to the point I was making.

You don’t seem to know what point you were making. If the call went out and the disciples followed Jesus, what are you getting all “het up” about (as Delta Burke would say)?

And it STILL means that Jesus could not have 'called' his disciples after the return to Galilee. Why won't you look at the facts?

We can all see now who didn’t look at the facts.

Even here, there are problems. As I said, Jesus had his disciples even before John supposedly introduced them to him. Further, John supposedly knew Jesus to be the 'one' at the Baptism and - as you say - even before. Yet in Matthew and Luke we find John after his arrest supposedly sending disciples along to ask that very question (Matthew 11.3-4; Luke 7.19-20).

This bit of information is totally irrelevant.

The Bible and especially the gospels are full of such textural problems and that, together with the evidence of 'collusion' that you spoke of (that they used the same basic text), is clear evidence of what is going on.
It is also clear that you won't look - not can't - won't. You prefer to use the hopelessly inadequate 'witnessses don't always agree' and a story that actually conflicts presented as proof that it doesn't. Have some respect for yourself and for me and look at the evidence honestly and realise that you can't decieve me so easily.

Well - I tried to go easy with the courthouse illustration, but you forced me to use the hard facts. You cannot deny those facts. You’re looking for minor differences but missing the true picture. So busy looking for small potholes close up and failing to see that stationary truck down the road. You are “straining out the gnat but gulping down the camel” as Jesus so plainly put it at Matthew 23:24.
Your effort to paint the Bible as erroneous has flopped!
Now - let me see those many “textural problems” that evidently baffle you. If you want to try again, make sure you see the BIG picture: Did what the NT Bible writers mention actually happen? THAT’S THE BIG PICTURE!!
No need for deceipt. That gets me nothing.

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by mmm...mabeynot

The Greek for sorcories is pharmekia i.e. medication, pharmacy.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Which would be great if we were reading a Greek Bible.

Anyway, that's the claim of "Christian" blogs and and websites. The only problem is that every etymology site, including Merriam-Webster, sorcery is

c.1300, from O.Fr. sorcerie, from sorcier "sorcerer," from V.L. *sortiarius, lit. "one who influences, fate, fortune," from L. sors (gen. sortis) "lot, fate, fortune" (see sort). Sorceress (late 14c.) is attested much earlier than sorcerer (1520s).

mmm...mabeynot is right!
It is of interest to us that the Greek word used in the Bible for “practice of spiritism,” “sorcery” or “witchcraft” is phar·ma·ki´a, which is very closely related to our word “pharmacy.”
Phar·ma·ki´a means, literally, “druggery.”
Why is this word used for spiritism or sorcery?

One authority says:
“PHARMAKIA .　.　. (Eng., pharmacy, etc.) primarily signified the use of medicine, drugs, spells; then, poisoning; then, sorcery, .　.　. See also Rev. 9:21; 18:23. .　.　. In sorcery, the use of drugs, whether simple or potent, was generally accompanied by incantations and appeals to occult powers, with the provision of various charms, amulets, etc., professedly designed to keep the applicant or patient from the attention and power of demons, but actually to impress the applicant with the mysterious resources and powers of the sorcerer.”—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. (WT 73 3/15 p. 181)

[TRANSPONDER]

=wilsoncole;13639647]Calm down! Let cooler heads prevail!
Now let’s go back to that courtroom illustration again.
All six of the witnesses point to the same man as the one at fault. But one of them describes him as African American after noticing his color. The defense claims incorrect identification - the man is Brazilian - not African American!
Should that sway the judge? Not in the least! He HAS to go with the preponderance of the evidence and the bulk of it points to his being the one at fault. So - even though there is a seeming discrepancy in the testimony, that does not mean that the story is false. Did the witness lie under oath? Obviously he didn’t, so - where’s the perjury?

Where the perjury is is where six of the witnesses come in and three use the same wording to describe what they saw - evidence that they were 'fed' the story and another adds some story that there was a mysterious fall of a shoal of fish in the town square which nobody else mentions, and the other two who were there say they saw the man get his gang together at a different time and place. That, rather that the false analogy about identification (which is not the discrepancy here) is why the witnesses would have their testimony thrown out as unreliable. Would you claim under those circumstances they would be believed? Apparently you expect the judge to dismiss all that and 'go with the preponderance of the evidence' which is a wildly discrepant account of a gang being got together.

The story stacks up - you just don’t want to see it.
Let’s tear it apart.Jesus calls disciples to follow him. All the writers say that.
Question: Did he?
Fact: He did.
Question: Did they actually follow him?
Fact: They did.
Question: Did he assign them to a ministry?
Fact: He did!
Question: Did they accept?
Fact: They did.
Question: Did all the writers say they did?
Fact: All of them did.
Question: Did Jesus send his disciples out at missionaries into the world to increase his followers?
Fact: He did.
Question: Did Christianity spread throughout the world in the last 2 thousand years?
Fact: It did.
Question: Is it if earth-shaking importance how or when that call went out?
Fact: It is not.
So - what do we have here? Jesus calls his disciples. They respond favorably. Where’s the discrepancy? Where’s the collusion?
If you are trying to say that Jesus did NOT issue a call for his disciples to follow him, then you’ve got a lot of really hard facts to deal with.

I looked and I saw what the story indicated. I checked subsequent historical data on the spread of Christianity and the story pans out.

Only if you shut your eyes to the discrepancy. Don't you see that (to get back to a correct analogy) three witnesses say they saw a man getting his gang together (african american or Hispanic I agree would not be a problem) one reports a rain of fish and the two others have a different story. So the prosecution (like you) glosses over the problems and says 'well, they all say they saw a man get his gang together. And it can't be denied that a robbery was committed'. That testimony would be justifiably ripped apart by the defense.

You don’t seem to know what point you were making. If the call went out and the disciples followed Jesus, what are you getting all “het up” about (as Delta Burke would say)?

I know the point, but you are missing it. It is that the accounts of the 'calling' are so unreliable that it raises the question of whether the story is true at all. The point is that this is the case all through the gospels. We end up with a story that discredits the writers as eyewitnesses and undermines the whole Christian claims.

We can all see now who didn’t look at the facts.

We certainly can.

This bit of information is totally irrelevant.

Only if you ignore it.

Well - I tried to go easy with the courthouse illustration, but you forced me to use the hard facts. You cannot deny those facts. You’re looking for minor differences but missing the true picture. So busy looking for small potholes close up and failing to see that stationary truck down the road. You are “straining out the gnat but gulping down the camel” as Jesus so plainly put it at Matthew 23:24.
Your effort to paint the Bible as erroneous has flopped!
Now - let me see those many “textural problems” that evidently baffle you. If you want to try again, make sure you see the BIG picture: Did what the NT Bible writers mention actually happen? THAT’S THE BIG PICTURE!!
No need for deceipt. That gets me nothing.

Well, damb, didn't I know you'd use the 'big picture' argument. What that is ..(translation from theist to english) Ignore the problems. dismiss them as 'minor differences' and just believe.

I'm the one using hard facts, Matthew and Mark use the same wording - the same text. It is not their own individual account. Luke adds a tall tale that should discredit his story and John tells a completely different story. Those are the hard facts and that is what you are ignoring in favour of believing the unbelievable.

And that's where the deceit lies. In fooling yourself into faith and trying to fool others. Anyone can miss evidence. That's excusable. It is ignoring it as minor and irrelevant when pointed out that is the self - deceit.

It doesn't matter too much if you do that. The point is made and people will have to make up their own minds who is really ignoring the 'big Picture'.

[Thomas R.]

Although I was sometimes given the image of it as a young Catholic I don't think it's vital to think the Gospel writers were like modern day journalists. They were often speaking to different audiences and so may emphasize different things.

Imagine four people writing memoirs on their time in the Civil Rights Movement. One was a white Catholic priest, another was a Jewish grandmother, a third was a black woman who back then worked as a domestic, and a fourth was a black preacher who went to Fisk University. If there are disagreements on detail, even on what people said, that might be expected. The priest and the preacher may have listened more to the religious element, the domestic more on the social/economic justice element, and the Jewish lady may have tuned out any specifically Christian elements at the time. This doesn't mean the marches they went to or whatever never happened.

Or at least this is what I'm thinking at the moment.

[TRANSPONDER]

I am taking all that into consideration. I do not expect the gospels to be like the reports of Journalists, much less like historians. However, the fact is that examination of the text shows that they cannot be eyewitness. They contradict one another in a way that should reasonably call the veracity of the tale into question.

Taken with what Paul says it also becomes clear that the gospels take their cue from Paul, not the other way around. In fact I am not suggesting dismissing the whole story because of the problems but I am asking for an understanding of the text, not a shutting of eyes to the problems and just believing the message without question.

I know by now that I can't make a donkey drink just by putting water in front of it, but it gives me the opportunity to put the case forward so others can try the point for themselves and see whether it pans out. So I'm not getting 'het up' and I'm not minding pointing out that the apologists are just misrepresenting or ignoring the points I make.

I believe that smart people can come to their own correct conclusions and that's the reason I'm spending time here.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Where the perjury is is where six of the witnesses come in and three use the same wording to describe what they saw - evidence that they were 'fed' the story and another adds some story that there was a mysterious fall of a shoal of fish in the town square which nobody else mentions, and the other two who were there say they saw the man get his gang together at a different time and place. That, rather that the false analogy about identification (which is not the discrepancy here) is why the witnesses would have their testimony thrown out as unreliable. Would you claim under those circumstances they would be believed? Apparently you expect the judge to dismiss all that and 'go with the preponderance of the evidence' which is a wildly discrepant account of a gang being got together.
Only if you shut your eyes to the discrepancy. Don't you see that (to get back to a correct analogy) three witnesses say they saw a man getting his gang together (african american or Hispanic I agree would not be a problem) one reports a rain of fish and the two others have a different story. So the prosecution (like you) glosses over the problems and says 'well, they all say they saw a man get his gang together. And it can't be denied that a robbery was committed'. That testimony would be justifiably ripped apart by the defense.

I know the point, but you are missing it. It is that the accounts of the 'calling' are so unreliable that it raises the question of whether the story is true at all. The point is that this is the case all through the gospels. We end up with a story that discredits the writers as eyewitnesses and undermines the whole Christian claims.
We certainly can.
Only if you ignore it

Well, damb, didn't I know you'd use the 'big picture' argument. What that is ..(translation from theist to english) Ignore the problems. dismiss them as 'minor differences' and just believe.

I'm the one using hard facts, Matthew and Mark use the same wording - the same text. It is not their own individual account. Luke adds a tall tale that should discredit his story and John tells a completely different story. Those are the hard facts and that is what you are ignoring in favour of believing the unbelievable.

And that's where the deceit lies. In fooling yourself into faith and trying to fool others. Anyone can miss evidence. That's excusable. It is ignoring it as minor and irrelevant when pointed out that is the self - deceit.

It doesn't matter too much if you do that. The point is made and people will have to make up their own minds who is really ignoring the 'big Picture'.

The minor aspect to all this that you fail to acknowledge, Arequipa . . . is that these are oral accounts subsequently written down. To pass material orally it must be memorized and parts committed to rote memory. That accounts for the same wording in parts. Memories are not perfect so one may remember something others do not. You are making a mountain of discredit out of a molehill of oral transmission of stories.

[Rabbi Dakota]

Considering mankind's history of sweeping history under the rug and or twisting it whenever possible it is quite amazing the Torah has been handed down from generation to generations intact through millenia. It is also kind of interesting seeing how warring peoples have a habit of intentionally destroying evidence of the enemy state that archaeologists/historians don't come right out and state just how much of Ancient Israel was destroyed. Of course they are being paid hush money in the form of grants..

If you look at the amount of time that has passed and the deep seated hatreds over the millenia it is a miracle anything survived to be looked at form Israel's past. Just look at how hard society works at burying recent history let and it's not hard to see how much is lost. That is in large part why Egypt built so big. The great Pyramid is a parallel to the Bible in stone.

If one reads Revelation there is a book with seven seals no one can open and read. It wasn't until recently when Hebrew studies were so readily available and the Jerusalem Bible Koren publishers. was released , that in depth interpretations started to emerge from the collective psyche of believers. There are genetic codes encrypted within the tanak. It contains the tree of life in words.

The Koren Jerusalem Bible
Main article: Eliyahu Koren#The Koren Bible

The Koren Jerusalem Bible, (not to be confused with the Catholic translation of the same title), is a Hebrew/English Tanakh by Koren Publishers Jerusalem.
Jewish English Bible translations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[TRANSPONDER]

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is an obvious circular argument, so I make no apology for moving the argument onto whether the Bible is trustworthy enough to use to prove anything.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The minor aspect to all this that you fail to acknowledge, Arequipa . . . is that these are oral accounts subsequently written down. To pass material orally it must be memorized and parts committed to rote memory. That accounts for the same wording in parts. Memories are not perfect so one may remember something others do not. You are making a mountain of discredit out of a molehill of oral transmission of stories.

What you are missing, mate, is that it doesn't matter where the accounts originated. Eyewitness, oral accounts or taken from the files of the Sanhedrin (1). It doesn't matter. What matters is the material we have - 4 gospels, Acts, Paul and what little light contemporary writers shed on it.

What we find is that the synoptics are not just telling the same story, but using the same wording from the same original text. If you want to say it was memorized, ok. It is still the same wording to which they then add their own touches. Sometimes minor, like Mark explaining why it was ok that Simon and Andrew apparently left their old dad on his own (they went and hired hands before they followed Jesus (2) and sometimes major like that miracle of the fish. Of course Luke may have got it from the same source as John. It may have been a story circulating in their day. That doesn't matter. What matters is that it isn't right where it is.

Even that doesn't mean 'Discrepancy: Bible is false'. It means, if that account isn't true and John contradicts it, what is the true story? I explained what it must be, but our pal here just opted for the simple thread (Jesus called his disciples and never mind how) and frankly shut his eyes to the facts. And I have to say that your playing of the actually irrelevant 'oral tradition' card is just more of the same - a way of avoiding looking at Bible problems and dismissing Gospel discrepancies. It is you mate, trying to fool us into seeing a mountain of textual contradictions as no more than molehills arising from oral tradition.

Let's go on. The synoptics have the transfiguration account. All using the same wording, tweaked and Luke again adding extra material at 93. 1 (3)

Matthew 17:4 NIV
Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

Mark 9:5 NIV
Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

Luke 9:33 NIV
As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." (He did not know what he was saying.)

Compare John's version.
John 6:15 (New International Version)
15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

Don't try to tell me it's not the same time or event. It is, I can assure you. If that transfiguration happened, John should have mentioned it. He doesn't, and anyone who tries to explain it away as being too unimportant for John to have mentioned is - I cannot avoid this - showing themselves ignorant, dishonest and totally blinded by faith. And I will stand by each one of those epithets.

If, however, they do accept, as they should, that the 'transfiguration' cannot have happened the way the synoptics all copied it from the same source, that doesn't mean that the Gospels are just bunk; but it means that we should ask (again) what is the true story?

But we first have to get to that stage. Simply dismissing the matter with airy 'witnesses don't always agree' or 'we should look at the big picture' is, as I say, simply ignorance and dishonesty, brought about in intelligent and honest people by their faith and what it does to their reasoning powers.

Thanks mate, for giving me the chance to address that matter.

(1) in that little archives building outside the west Temple gate, below the ramp leading to the 2nd wall, running north by the Hasmonean palace.

(2) I luv footnotes. Cynical ol' me sees this as Mark inventing something to fend of the 'Jesus dragged away the sons from helping their Old dad - disgraceful.' remarks. However I know that it can't be discounted that it might just be a detail that Matthew and Luke didn't bother to mention.
Nevertheless, once a multitude of other examples of additions and text - fiddling have shown the gospel methods, Mark's remark does look like his own invention to get over a possible problem. In fact, an early example of 'Lying for Jesus'.

(3) his departure and the destiny at Jerusalem, because Luke needed that to fit with his other tweaking of the 'angel mesage' text later on at 24.6-7, and the reason he does that is because in Luke, the disciples do not go to Galilee, but stay in Jesusalem.

[Thomas R.]

I'm thinking I'm going to have to withdraw my positive opinion of you.

You seem insistent now that anyone who disagrees with your pet theories on the Bible is some lying fool. Well balderdash. I would say more, but that's all it deserves.