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.
Did you ever notice how you guys keep saying I was proven wrong, yet never provide the evidence for such a dismal. You always speak of some pasttime, yet never quote the post number where this occured. And the Gospels are belivable, because they fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. And those who do not believe the Gospels have ignored the historical discoveries that help to confirm them. So what do they base their beliefs on? (Personal opinion?)
Is personal whims enought evidence for you?
Oh, Campbell! You never learn. You said the same thing about the Gill -evolution quotes thread and I posted the pages (nealy all of them) where we had explained it to you. Do I really have to post the east gate pages again where it was made clear that the present east gate is not the shut portico of the sanctuary, that the outer east gate is just the ruined foundation and is not blocked. The blocked gate being one of byzantine or later date. Do you really claim you don't remember that?
....and do we not catch John with his trousers down when when he transcribes verbatim, the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane......while he (John) was tired, hungry and SLEEPING with all the others.
Actually, Raffs, John does not mention the prayer at all. This is the synoptic prayer three times in the same words, though only two lines are recorded, Mark 14.32. 42, Matthew 26.36 -46, and Luke 22.42 to which he adds an angel appearing, though how they knew that when they were asleep and why Luke didn't kick them awake. 'Hey, look, lads, angel!' is inexplicable.
Luke slips up by adding an angel just as he slips up adding the haul of fish to the calling of the disciples. But the thing is that the basic story can be explained. Sorta. Jesus prayed and they heard just the two lines then slept. They know Jesus prayed for a hour because he said so. And there's always the post - resurrection debriefing, though I would suppose that the risen Jesus had better things to tell than what he'd prayed that night.
More interesting is again the identical wording and order, tweaked a bit and added to by Luke. Clear fingerprints and evidence of their method. And this odd John dichotomy. John is often the whackiest and most magical and preachy of the Evangelists and yet, in what actually happened, he often appears very factual. No hour long praying - three times (total of three hours plus) or conveniently dozing disciples, much less a 'strengthening' angel. Nor a symbolic traitor's kiss. It's just a straightforward arrest of the leader of an armed gang.
3 So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. 4 Jesus,.. , went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?" 5 "Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)
(I discard the precognition, the awestruck falling back "they drew back and fell to the ground" and the fulfilled prophecy as just some more of John's nonsense)
I feel that John does have an eyewitness account though he tinkers with the text a lot (shifting the Temple punch - up to page 1, for instance) and adds all the bloody sermons and daft fulfillment of prophecy.
So if the Holy Spirit inseminated Mary how would Joseph's blood line be part of the equation?
I'll deal with this, first.
This is a cop-out! By mentioning this question at all, you're presupposing the existence of a Creator.
PLUS.......
You're trying to ignore the question of the genealogy of Jesus and the awareness of the Jewish populace. Why don't you deal with that? In view of their repeated expressions on the subject, do you think they knew his genealogy?
Inseminated? You're joking - - - again!
Why would THAT be necessary? That's purely physical and you're talking about holy SPIRIT - right?
If humans know how to achieve fertilization without sperm, do you think that would be a problem for the Creator of all life?
Why wouldn't they leave out the biggies? Because you wouldn't? Because I wouldn't? They're not necessarily like you or I.
And for what reason do you think they had no good reason? For some what matters about Christ is his ministry. There's no reason for John to get into his childhood or nativity as that's not his interest. Biographers even now will sometimes ignore important swaths of a person's life to focus on an area that links best to what they want to say.
In the end, we have to be honest with ourselves and ask, would the synoptics have left out the raising of Lazarus if it had been known to them? I think it takes a lot of faith to see no question there. And it's not as though it's a one off. There's the lifting of the temple bust up and shifting to before the baptism by John. Though attempts have been made to claim it was a different event, clearly it wasn't. Even the screenplay is the same. Therre are so many divergences of wording, events timing.
When undeniable (to anyone but a theist determined not to see any problems) tinkerings are found, one has to ask whether omissions of really significant events are justifiably explained by 'probably there's some good reason'. Maintaining faith and dismissing doubts is not a good reason.
Apart from John just not recording the nativity (not to mention the star and massacre of the innocents which not only John but Mark and Luke and every historian thought it not worth a mention) look here. John 7.
40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man is the Prophet." 41 Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.
Now surely John with his penchant for adding his sermons and prohecy fulfillments would have put hem right with Jesus saying that he was, indeed, born in David's city or even if not, could John have resisted saying (but they knew not that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem the city of David). If he'd any inkling of it?
If you have any good explanation other that who knows what John was thinking (in fact I can see a lot of what John was thinking from the way he writes) I should like to hear it.
In fact our pal Mr. Wilson has something to say about the Son of David. He flags up each mention of it. I looked myself and we find Matthew, Matthew, Matthew, Matthew and yet again, Matthew. And Mark 10 and Luke 18 only - the healing of bar - Timaeus (with Matthew 20) and Matthew again at the procession.
Matth 21 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Hosanna in the highest!"
though Mark 11 follows closely. 9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, "Hosanna! " "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" 10 "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!" "Hosanna in the highest!"
Luke 19 diverges as usual As he went along, people spread their cloaks on the road. 37 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen: 38 "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
and John 12 at least records the same event, tweaked in his own way, so I give this event a bit more credence than the transfiguration. "They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the King of Israel!"
So it's really only Matthew alone, who makes this Son of David issue important. It would be, since the nativity accounts look so dodgy that (together with the genealogies and John's omission above) we can see we have a Galilean who had no claim to messiahship. Matthew alone makes an issue of this and that looks 'hinkey' (thanks for the term) except for the healing of bar - timaeus and, even if that really happened, it still looks hinkey.
Now, I am not so naieve as to think this is going to persuade any believer - until they have brought themselves to consider these matters rather than dismiss them. I just say that, pet theories aside, there is a lot to doubt about the Gospel stories and those who cannot take the Christian Jesus picture as reliable have some good reasons for that disbelief and those who do believe it are rather in the position of Creationists on evolution - they don't actually have any answer other than Faith and the Bible says so, but the evidence has to be dismissed rather than explained. I can at least say that my explanations, dedustions and the pet theory, too, explains these very real discrepancies very well indeed.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-11-2010 at 07:44 AM..
Reason: And, not A
Mr Wilson will furnish you with two. (1)
“First, over 700 years in advance, the prophet Micah foretold that the promised One would be born in Bethlehem, a small town in the land of Judah. (Micah 5:2) Where was Jesus actually born? Why, in that very town! (Matthew 2:1, 3-9) Second, many centuries in advance, the prophecy recorded at Daniel 9:25 pointed to the very year when the Messiah was to appear—29 C.E. The fulfillment of these and other prophecies proves that Jesus was the promised Messiah.” (Bible Teach, pp.39-40)
1 Marshal your troops, O city of troops, for a siege is laid against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod. 2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned until the time when she who is in labor gives birth and the rest of his brothers return to join the Israelites. 4 He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.
Do you know, that didn't happen, even if you say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He wasn't as John knows nothing of it (nor Mark(2) and Matthew and Luke had to fake up contradictory stories to have Jesus born there.
I don't think he was even born in Nazareth as there is evidence of nothing much more than farmsteads there in 1st c. AD Galilee.
This bit of Micah is to do with the hopes of the Judeans who took it on the chin time after time hoping their God would help them and it resulted in defeat and exile. This is no prophecy of Jesus, pal. It is, at best, an OT prophecy that had to be applied to Jesus retrospectively to give hime some credibility as messiah.
Of course, you won't accept that. I know you won't. Nor will any other believer. I only point out that it is worthless as any proof of your beliefs. You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. Not with any success. I know. I've seen myriad attempts to do so.
(1)the second is even less credible as proof. Jesus said many would not believe, so that proves that they should?
(2) he knows nothing of the resurrection appearances either.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-11-2010 at 07:46 AM..
Yet how did the writers of the New Testament manage to get the sun to darken for three hours at the time Christ died on the cross, as reported by historians of His time?
Locusts? Dust/sand storm? Solar eclipse as part of it? Folks' fear-soaked imaginations? Mythology? Fiction?
Q: were there any trained observers there, taking notes, looking skyward with a stopwatch in their hands? Since this was written up ("documented", to use the term loosely) some years later (wasn't it at least 40+?), what are the chances it could have been fabricated?
From your own link, this admission:
Quote:
One might wonder why other historians of the time did not also mention the darkness. First of all, the darkness was localized so it would not be a widespread phenomena that other historians would naturally record.
This has all the earmarks of a dust storm, frankly. A localized dust storm. Which may have stirred up the locust population, "enhancing" the imagery, and thus scaring the peons, who then ran indoors. Whoop-dee-do!
Add in the very real possibility that Jesus was a fictitious construct, an intermediary between an unapproachable God and the man in the street. So heck; if you're going to make up the man, why not add in some amazing climatology or astrophysical event?
So many of the things reported in the bible are either purely intended as fable, or have been subsequently discounted as mental meanderings of an illiterate goatherd author intending to make his point to even less educated goatherds and street vendors, and to fit it into a larger cohesive picture that supports spiritual obedience. Add in the Council of Nicea's obviously severe hand in "editing for effect", and what do you end up with? An absolutely believable, irrefutable document?
You be the judge of it's veracity. But so will I. Thank god this is a democracy and the church has forever lost it's stranglehold on us.
Locusts? Dust/sand storm? Solar eclipse as part of it? Folks' fear-soaked imaginations? Mythology? Fiction?
Q: were there any trained observers there, taking notes, looking skyward with a stopwatch in their hands? Since this was written up ("documented", to use the term loosely) some years later (wasn't it at least 40+?)
So many of the things reported in the bible are either purely intended as fable, or have been subsequently discounted as mental meanderings of an illiterate goatherd author intending to make his point to even less educated goatherds and street vendors, and to fit it into a larger cohesive picture that supports spiritual obedience. Add in the Council of Nicea's obvious hand in editing, and what do you end up with? An absolutely believable, irrefutible document?
You be the judge. But so will I.
Was there darkness? Nobody records it other than the synoptics (and, as I argue, that is only one source, edited three times) John does not mention that apparently significant event and the individual must make up their own minds whether this is a medium biggie that quite understandably John did not think was worth mentioning.
I should not have to mention that there is no historical record of a mysterious darkness of that time, merely some speculations of what such a darkness might have been, if it ever occurred, but of course, I do have to mention it.
I'll deal with this, first.
This is a cop-out! By mentioning this question at all, you're presupposing the existence of a Creator.
PLUS.......
You're trying to ignore the question of the genealogy of Jesus and the awareness of the Jewish populace. Why don't you deal with that? In view of their repeated expressions on the subject, do you think they knew his genealogy?
Inseminated? You're joking - - - again!
Why would THAT be necessary? That's purely physical and you're talking about holy SPIRIT - right?
If humans know how to achieve fertilization without sperm, do you think that would be a problem for the Creator of all life?
Again, your missing the point altogether. Most believers accept that Mary was a VIRGIN, and I am presupposing that you accept this as well, that is the only presupposing here. You did a nice job pulling verses that oppose that view. The mechanics of Mary becoming pregnant by the holy spirit are irrelevant, whether by insemination, test tube implantation, or by spirit 'poof'. In fact it's ridiculous that you even take issue with the method. The point is that most believers (and I presuppose that includes you) believe the holy spirit caused her to be pregnant without loss of her virginity, I.e. non sexual intercourse. If you believe she was not a virgin and DID have sexual intercourse with Joseph prior to Jesus conception, then my presupposition is wrong and we can drop this point. However if you do support the virgin birth position, then all the scriptures that you cited about the genealoy of Jesus are directly opposed to that.
Either Joseph bonked Mary, impregnated her with Jesus, and the blood link to David through Joseph can be claimed (but not virgin birth) OR you can go with holy spirit virgin birth, you can't have both. That's the point.
Oh, Campbell! You never learn. You said the same thing about the Gill -evolution quotes thread and I posted the pages (nealy all of them) where we had explained it to you. Do I really have to post the east gate pages again where it was made clear that the present east gate is not the shut portico of the sanctuary, that the outer east gate is just the ruined foundation and is not blocked. The blocked gate being one of byzantine or later date. Do you really claim you don't remember that?
Yes, he will. Predictable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Was there darkness? Nobody records it other than the synoptics (and, as I argue, that is only one source, edited three times) John does not mention that apparently significant event and the individual must make up their own minds whether this is a medium biggie that quite understandably John did not think was worth mentioning.
I should not have to mention that there is no historical record of a mysterious darkness of that time, merely some speculations of what such a darkness might have been, if it ever occurred, but of course, I do have to mention it.
Thanks for this enlightening commentary, Arequipa. I should have learned by now that if it comes from Campbell34, it may well be totally false. Ertugrul's artifacts, Ica stones, Ararat, Acambara, dinosaur theories, prophecies claimed to be true that haven't happened yet. All now well-known attempts at subterfuge.
He tried to claim that God's bragging commentary in Job about His ability to create hypothetical leviathons was proof of co-existing dinosaurs. And at that, it's only one line in that Book! A simple read of that entire book by me easily disproved that sad and dishonest attempt at misinforming us.
So I can now see where he's created a non-existent darkness. If pushed, perhaps he will provide us with the Christian website he "borrowed" it from. Tom, where is it exactly? I'll happily read that one too!
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.
Blind belief in a dust-storm. Rational?
