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.
Rafius, that is just not true. John was an eyewitness of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus:
I repeat what I said before. The gospel of John is dated any time between 90CE -110CE.
Even if we place it at 90CE, are you seriously asking me to believe that a person writing so long after the alleged events remembered what was said, to whom and when they said it?? In fact, you could say the same about all the gospels.
....and as you have only mentioned John, do you agree that Matthew, Mark and Luke never met your Jesus?
In the Exodus quote it was concerning Israel's agreement with God that should they fail to do the law they would received the curses of the law but if they do the law they would receive the blessings tied to the law. God was only going to give them what they agreed to.
Where do they agree to the "ten commandments"? Was not the law just laid down to them?
Quote:
I see nothing contradictory with Exodus 20 and the former verses. For instance, God agreeing with Israel and Israel agreeing with God that they (Israel) would receive the curses of the law should they fail to keep the law does not contradict God being love. Actually it was a very loving thing for God to do in order to show them their inability to keep all the law.
It was loving for God to punish their children up to 4 generations for their sins?
To show them their inability to keep all the law? So you're saying God knew they would not be able to keep all the law, but laid it down anyway, then will punish them severely for not being able to keep it?
Quote:
Here is a more literal translation of 1 Corinthians 13:
1Co 13:4-8 Love is patient, is kind. Love is not jealous. Love is not
bragging, is not puffed up, (5) is not indecent, is not self-seeking, is not
incensed, is not taking account of evil, (6) is not rejoicing in injustice, yet
is rejoicing together with the truth, (7) is forgoing all, is believing all, is
expecting all, is enduring all." (8) Love is never lapsing: yet, whether
prophecies, they will be discarded, or languages, they will cease, or
knowledge, it will be discarded."
Again, no contradiction.
God is love. Love is not jealous. God says He is a jealous God.
Christ was not born in the year ZERO if that's causing you some confusion (as if there really was a date of zero back then (lol). The terms B.C. and A.D. are not really correct. Some theologions have Christ being born around 6 B.C. Herod died about two years after Jesus was born and before Quirinius was governing Siria.
In the most ancient Uncial Greek manuscripts we have it should be written thus:
"This registration occurred before [Grk. PROTOS] Quirinius was being governor of Syria."
So instead of protos meaning first, as in:
This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
You want to reassemble the sentence, and have it mean before? These sentences are two totally different meanings.
Where can we see this Uncial Greek manuscript reading it this way?
Do you not then see the problem some of us have with the translations that we have today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Oh dear! This is why it is important to have a literal translation such as the Concordant Literal New Testament:
Joh 19:27 Thereafter He is saying to the disciple, "Lo! your mother!And from that hour the disciple took her to his own.
The Greek word for "own" is IDIOS which is in the Greek texts. "Home" would be "oikos."
The apostolic bible polyglot has:
(ABP+) ThenG1534 he saysG3004 to theG3588 disciple,G3101 Behold,G2400 G3588 your mother.G3384 G1473 AndG2532 fromG575 thatG1565 G3588 hourG5610 [3tookG2983 4herG1473 1theG3588 2disciple]G3101 forG1519 his own.G3588 G2398
(EMTV) Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her into his own care.
(Murdock) And he said to that disciple: Behold, thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her near himself.
(GNT-V) ειτα λεγει τω μαθητη Aιδε TSBιδου η μητηρ σου και απ εκεινης της ωρας ελαβεν TSαυτην ο μαθητης BAαυτην εις τα ιδια
I agree. I have no problem with the fact that it was His disciple John who wrote the book of John, or that John took His mother into his "home/care" from that hour. Not that my opinion counts...haha.
I repeat what I said before. The gospel of John is dated any time between 90CE -110CE.
Even if we place it at 90CE, are you seriously asking me to believe that a person writing so long after the alleged events remembered what was said, to whom and when they said it?? In fact, you could say the same about all the gospels.
John 1:15 in the AV has it translated as "before." But it is mostly translated "first."
According to Clarke's Commentary he states:
"It is easily proved, and has been proved often, that Caius Sulpicius Quirinus, the person mentioned in the text, was not governor of Syria, till ten or twelve years after the birth of our Lord."
He also states:
"Several learned men have produced solutions of this difficulty; and,
indeed, there are various ways of solving it, which may be seen at length
in Lardner, vol. i. p. 248-329. One or other of the two following appears to
me to be the true meaning of the text.
"1. When Augustus published this decree, it is supposed that Quirinus,
who was a very active man, and a person in whom the emperor confided,
was sent into Syria and Judea with extraordinary powers, to make the
census here mentioned; though, at that time, he was not governor of
Syria, for Quintilius Varus was then president; and that when he came, ten
or twelve years after, into the presidency of Syria, there was another
census made, to both of which St. Luke alludes, when he says, This was
the first assessment of Cyrenius, governor of Syria; for so Dr. Lardner
translates the words. The passage, thus translated, does not say that this
assessment was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which would
not have been the truth, but that this was the first assessment which
Cyrenius, who was (i.e. afterwards) governor of Syria, made; for after he
became governor, he made a second. Lardner defends this opinion in a
very satisfactory and masterly manner. See vol. i. p. 317. etc.
"2. The second way of solving this difficulty is by translating the words
thus: This enrolment was made Before Cyrenius was governor of Syria;
or, before that of Cyrenius. This sense the word πρωτος appears to have,
Joh_1:30 : ὁτι πρωτος μου ην, for he was Before me. Joh_15:18 : The
world hated me Before (πρωτον) it hated you. See also 2Sa_19:43.
Instead of πρωτη, some critics read προ της, This enrolment was made
Before That of Cyrenius. Michaelis; and some other eminent and learned
men, have been of this opinion: but their conjecture is not supported by
any MS. yet discovered; nor, indeed, is there any occasion for it. As the
words in the evangelist are very ambiguous, the second solution appears
to me to be the best." (end of quote)
But if it is translated "first" or "when" in Luke 2:2 it presents a problem.
Where do they agree to the "ten commandments"? Was not the law just laid down to them?
It was loving for God to punish their children up to 4 generations for their sins?
To show them their inability to keep all the law? So you're saying God knew they would not be able to keep all the law, but laid it down anyway, then will punish them severely for not being able to keep it?
God is love. Love is not jealous. God says He is a jealous God.
There is a difference between humans being jealous and God being jealous. And there are two different senses of "jealous" as given in the Scriptures, both sinful and good when the Greek word is translated as "desire" etc.
God, Who owns the universe can't, in the literal sense be jealous that someone has something He does not. Humans, on the other hand get jealous over someone having something they desire. God, anthropomorphically speaking, exhibits in a metaphorical sense, jealous traits when it concerns His special people who are the apple of His eye.
John 1:15 in the AV has it translated as "before." But it is mostly translated "first."
According to Clarke's Commentary he states:
"It is easily proved, and has been proved often, that Caius Sulpicius Quirinus, the person mentioned in the text, was not governor of Syria, till ten or twelve years after the birth of our Lord."
He also states:
"Several learned men have produced solutions of this difficulty; and,
indeed, there are various ways of solving it, which may be seen at length
in Lardner, vol. i. p. 248-329. One or other of the two following appears to
me to be the true meaning of the text.
"1. When Augustus published this decree, it is supposed that Quirinus,
who was a very active man, and a person in whom the emperor confided,
was sent into Syria and Judea with extraordinary powers, to make the
census here mentioned; though, at that time, he was not governor of
Syria, for Quintilius Varus was then president; and that when he came, ten
or twelve years after, into the presidency of Syria, there was another
census made, to both of which St. Luke alludes, when he says, This was
the first assessment of Cyrenius, governor of Syria; for so Dr. Lardner
translates the words. The passage, thus translated, does not say that this
assessment was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which would
not have been the truth, but that this was the first assessment which
Cyrenius, who was (i.e. afterwards) governor of Syria, made; for after he
became governor, he made a second. Lardner defends this opinion in a
very satisfactory and masterly manner. See vol. i. p. 317. etc.
"2. The second way of solving this difficulty is by translating the words
thus: This enrolment was made Before Cyrenius was governor of Syria;
or, before that of Cyrenius. This sense the word πρωτος appears to have,
Joh_1:30 : ὁτι πρωτος μου ην, for he was Before me. Joh_15:18 : The
world hated me Before (πρωτον) it hated you. See also 2Sa_19:43.
Instead of πρωτη, some critics read προ της, This enrolment was made
Before That of Cyrenius. Michaelis; and some other eminent and learned
men, have been of this opinion: but their conjecture is not supported by
any MS. yet discovered; nor, indeed, is there any occasion for it. As the
words in the evangelist are very ambiguous, the second solution appears
to me to be the best." (end of quote)
But if it is translated "first" or "when" in Luke 2:2 it presents a problem.
Thank you for the link, Eusebius, and also for being the first Christian (that I've seen) to actually admit there might be a problem in the transcripts we have today.
Atheists and Agnostics are quick to point out what they believe are contradictions in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
For instance They state this:
GE 1:26-27Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7; 21-22Man was created first, woman sometime later.
But there is really no contradiction. Man originally was created as a hermaphrodite in which the female was inside him. He was male/female. When God put him to sleep he took the female parts out of him and built Eve around them. This is why, when a man has sex with a woman they "become one."
Where does it say in the Bible that "Man originally was created as a hermaphrodite in which the female was inside him"? I hope you will quote the verse of scripture where it said that for all to see. Be sure and provide Bible book, chapter, and verse. Then explain to the forum why you believe the scripture you quoted means what you say it means.
Because I see the divine accuracy in their writings. I don't call them "gospels." I call them "the four accounts."
Well, duh! Of course they are biased! If you saw your Saviour killed, entombed, you lost all hope, then three days later your Saviour is risen from the dead and talking to you I am sure you'd be biased tool. Right? I mean, if you were a rational human being I take it you'd be biased.
This whole genealogy difference between accounts called Luke and Matthew has been answered time and again since the day they were written. It all makes perfect sense. The account called Matthew was perfectly accurate as was the account called Luke.
You are biased against the four accounts so why should I take your word against them? Gheesh!
And I suppose you believe your view is not correct? Or would you lump yourself in with the very groups you castigate who say they are correct?
See, your bias is showing. And you use ad hominum and guilt by association attacks to make my view look bad.
Let me ask you some direct questions: Do you believe Jesus is the Messiah? Do you believe He died to save mankind?
1- Calling them the "Four Accounts" is giving them names they never had. They may be "accounts" of Jesus' life - by four different writers (not to mention the oral tradition behind it as well) - but this in no way makes them accurate accounts.
2- Bias is what prevents accurate accounts. I'm not sure why you don't realize this. You accuse me of bias, but don't see it within yourself? I'm not someone on an agenda to "disprove" the accuracy of the Gospels - I never have been. Therfore, your accusation of bias falls short. You, on the other hand, do have an agenda to show that the Gospels are factual, historical and true and all in harmony some how. That's a big difference between me and you. I'm willing to accept the evidence as it arises, and accept what conclusions can be taken from that evidence - even if they conflict with my personal beliefs. That's how rational people work. Irrational people BEGIN with a belief, and then try to rally the evidence in favor of that belief. They always find what they seek, even if it's not there.
It's not just my view, though. Professional biblical scholars for hundreds of years now have been reviewing the evidence of the Gospel accounts and coming to conclusions after reviewing it. They don't start with a pre-conceived notion, and that's where they differ from Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism gets it's name from certain "fundamental" beliefs that must be held from the beginning, and everything must be made to fit these beliefs - no matter what. That is why Fundamentalists are biased. Sorry - take it up with the very nature of reason. I have never met a Fundamentalist who first studied the books of the Bible rationally, and in a scholarly manner, completely, and THEN became a Fundamentalist despite all that. The beliefs come first with Fundamentalism, and the evidence-searching comes last - but only to refute those who disagree.
3- Your final questions about what I believe: what I believe has absolutely NO bearing on what the Gospels are saying. None. That would be backasswards. I don't take my beliefs into a study of something. I work the opposite way: I assess the evidence, and then reach a conclusion. And then, belief is not required - for the evidence has been properly assessed in a non-biased manner, and the results are there to analyze.
So I'm afraid that your attempt to set me up as a biased party hasn't quite worked.
You may find this hard to believe, but there are plenty of professing Christians who have beliefs that aren't as rigidly dogmatic as your own concerning the "Four Accounts". You read the translations of their Bibles, no doubt, without even knowing it.
....and just how do you decide what is true, what is allegory and what is metaphor??
That's easy: anything that doesn't jive with a persons' private interpretation is allegory or metaphor...
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.
