Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:47 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 486 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 17  Next

Does the Bible contradict itself?
Yes. 30%  30%  [ 15 ]
No. 26%  26%  [ 13 ]
Only if you take it literally. 44%  44%  [ 22 ]
Total votes : 50
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 1809
Location: lol.
Didymus wrote:
Actually, Matthew and Mark don't tell us what Jesus' last words are. They only say that he said, "Eloi Eloi." They record that he cried out, but not what he cried out.


I'm going to guess it was something like "Aaaaaaugh!!!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Oh, great. Now a giant monster with horns and like 50 eyes is going to chase us around until the animator dies of a fatal heart attack. Thanks a lot, Simon!

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:38 pm
Posts: 176
Didymus wrote:
Actually, Matthew and Mark don't tell us what Jesus' last words are. They only say that he said, "Eloi Eloi." They record that he cried out, but not what he cried out.


Right, that's my point. The last words they record are different, but gave a space.

Didymus wrote:
Of all the disciples, we only know for certain that John was at the cross. Mark, whom most scholars believe based his gospel on accounts from Peter, and Matthew were not there. Luke very likely got his information from Mary and others who were there. Furthermore, "Eloi" is a direct quote of Psalm 22, which, if compared with the crucifixion accounts, is remarkably similar. By quoting that Psalm, Jesus is essentially saying, "What David described, you are now seeing." So I'm pretty sure that his quote of the Psalm would have been common knowledge among those who were there.


Serious problem here, namely that Mark based his gospel off of the lost Q and Matthew came from Mark. Moreover, the Gospel of Peter actually says that Herod had Jesus killed, which would have put the entire story 30-odd years prior to the canonical books. So saying Mark was based off of Peter is not something I'd agree with.

Didymus wrote:
But here's the thing: From what we understand, John's Gospel was the last to be written, and it often tells information that was not contained in the others. This is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke are often called the "Synoptics": for the most part, they contain the same information with only slight differences in the details included. John, however, being Jesus' closest friend, would certainly have known more intimate details of Jesus' life.


This would be true if there was any indication that the "John" in the gospel of John was actually a disciple of Jesus's. Given that Mark was written, at the earliest, roundabout 75CE and possibly later (remember, he mentions the destruction of the Jewish temple), John can be put around 130CE or later. The author was certainly not the same John.

Didymus wrote:
As for the significance of the different accounts, my own personal thoughts are that they're pretty easy to understand and don't exactly present a crisis of faith. Again, I think Matthew and Mark are referring to the rather well-known quoting of Psalm 22, and for whatever reason, John wants to make sure we know about "Tetelesthai!"


Ah, now you're following my thoughts. Consider that Mark/Matthew wanted to endear the story of Christ to the Jews and Luke wanted it for the Gentiles.

Didymus wrote:
And I just had a thought: what if by saying, "I give over my spirit (breath)," he was deliberately doing just that? Laying down his life in those very words? You have given me much to think about, HH.


I asked the question with my own answer for it, I was just curious how you would reconcile what I perceive to be a serious problem with the New Testament. :)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:33 pm
Posts: 269
Didymus wrote:

After some study, I conclude that the above order is correct: the Greek words for spirit (pneuma) and breathe out (exepneusen) are etymologically related. It would be highly appropriate if Jesus' very last breath (pneuma) was the word "spirit" (pneuma).



he probably wouldn't have actually been speaking in Greek, you know. the Gospels were written in Greek but Jesus likely would have been speaking Aramaic. so the Greek grammar is somewhat irrelevant, as it's a translation anyway and not what he really would have said (assuming the story is accurate in the first place).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:06 am
Posts: 2049
Location: Standing on Watterson's front lawn
Obviously Jesus didn't speak in Greek. And yet the Greek is what we have. The people who wrote about it wrote in Greek, so they would have chosen the words in Greek that best describe what they mean. So talking about Greek grammar and meanings is completely relevant.

HippityHomsar wrote:
Serious problem here, namely that Mark based his gospel off of the lost Q and Matthew came from Mark. Moreover, the Gospel of Peter actually says that Herod had Jesus killed, which would have put the entire story 30-odd years prior to the canonical books. So saying Mark was based off of Peter is not something I'd agree with.

A little mixup here: It's believed that Mark was standalone and Matthew was Q + Mark. Also, Didy didn't mean that Mark would have got his info from "The Gospel of Peter", which Christians would say wasn't actually written by Peter, but that he could have gotten it from the dude Peter himself.

HH wrote:
This would be true if there was any indication that the "John" in the gospel of John was actually a disciple of Jesus's.

The commonly given reasoning is that the apostle John is always referred to as "the one Jesus loved" instead of by name like the rest of the apostles. That's an indication, though certainly not proof.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Quote:
Serious problem here, namely that Mark based his gospel off of the lost Q and Matthew came from Mark. Moreover, the Gospel of Peter actually says that Herod had Jesus killed, which would have put the entire story 30-odd years prior to the canonical books. So saying Mark was based off of Peter is not something I'd agree with.

Tiger is right. I did not say that Mark based his on the Gospel of Peter, but rather that Mark likely based his writing on information from the Apostle Peter himself. Q is an entirely hypothetical document: it does not exist in reality, so the precise relationship of the Gospels to such a document is pretty much conjecture anyway. The Gospel of Peter is considered by most scholars to be pseudopygryphal, that is, written not by Peter himself, but by someone claiming to be Peter. For that reason, it is not considered reliable, especially when it introduces "facts" that are clearly contradicted by history.

Quote:
I asked the question with my own answer for it, I was just curious how you would reconcile what I perceive to be a serious problem with the New Testament. :)

Ah, but that's just it. I don't see it as a serious problem. It's like pieces of a puzzle; even though they're all different, they fit together and give us a picture. From Matthew and Mark, we know he quoted Psalm 22, from John, we know he declared "Tetelesthai!", and from Luke, we know he literally surrendered his breath to the Father. In fact, thanks to your question, I now see it a bit clearer than I did before.

As for why they're different:

Mark's Gospel, which some scholars consider the first, is the shortest. Dr. Paul Maier, biblical archaeologist, believes it is because, with writing supplies being less available and very expensive, Mark had limited space in which he could complete his Gospel (who knows? Maybe that's what happened to the ending).

Matthew clearly is writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, so he does tend to focus on elements of Jewish culture and significance.

Luke is writing for Theophilus, perhaps a Gentile patron. Luke also states he did investigative research before writing. Also, he seems to have more readily available writing supplies, which would allow him to include details the others left out.

John, it is believed, wrote his Gospel near the end of his life. His tends to include LOTS of information not addressed by the others. As Jesus' "beloved disciple," he was probably privy to more intimate details of Jesus' life. Plus, if the other Gospels had already been circulating by that time, he may have felt it necessary to "fill in some gaps."

Quote:
This would be true if there was any indication that the "John" in the gospel of John was actually a disciple of Jesus's. Given that Mark was written, at the earliest, roundabout 75CE and possibly later (remember, he mentions the destruction of the Jewish temple), John can be put around 130CE or later. The author was certainly not the same John.

1. You're assuming that Mark could have only been written after the temple destruction, and that based on an assumption that Jesus could not have actually foretold the event. Conservative scholars (i.e., ones without a priori assumptions against prophetic foresight) place Mark's Gospel much earlier, around 60AD.

2. You're also assuming that the author of John had to base his writing on Mark. Since John's Gospel is not synoptic, this isn't necessarily the case. If John was writing it himself, he wouldn't need to refer to Mark at all.

3. Even if the writer of John used Mark, there's no need to assume such a lengthy period of time between the completion of one and the start of the other.

4. We actually have papyrii fragments of the Gospel of John dated to about 130AD. This places the Gospel at being written NO LATER THAN 130AD. There is still strong likelihood that the Gospel existed much earlier.

5. Not only that, but I seem to remember early Church Fathers citation of this Gospel. But I'd have to look it up, and I really need to be somewhere in a short while, so I'll get back to you on that.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Cobalt wrote:
he probably wouldn't have actually been speaking in Greek, you know. the Gospels were written in Greek but Jesus likely would have been speaking Aramaic. so the Greek grammar is somewhat irrelevant, as it's a translation anyway and not what he really would have said (assuming the story is accurate in the first place).


Cobalt: You are familiar with the Hebrew term ruach, right? Doesn't it also mean both "spirit" and "breath"? And if I'm not mistaken, the Aramaic term is essentially the same as the Hebrew.

And I was referring to John's grammar in what he was writing. When he says that Jesus "gave over" his spirit, he could very well be referring directly to the quote in Luke, as in Jesus surrendering or commending his spirit to the Father.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
When you die, Where do you go?

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:15 am
Posts: 1019
Location: Earth
COLA: Most Christians believe that we go to heaven after we die. Now, there are different beliefs between different sects as to what exactly it is like, but most agree that the righteous return to live with God, and the unrighteous are sent to Hell, or are otherwise not granted the privilege to live with God.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 2713
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
When you die, Where do you go?

You usually end up in a grave or something. And unless you're attacked by graverobbers or geologists, you stay there. :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 326
Location: >You are in a dank dungeon, possible exists are just Dennis
yes COLA, when we die: if we led a life through Christ, we go to live with God for eternaty. That being said, It is of my churches belife and (very resistant, but accepting) my belief that those who don't lead a life through Christ are forsed to be in Hell. While God does not "send" people there, people make an unconsious decision to go there when they die. I believe, while going against my church's beliefe, that God offers people many chances in life and after death to come to his kingdom...all we need to do is keep silent and listen to what God has to say to us. As I said, God denies none of his children the chance to be at his side.

_________________
Ragnarök is coming: Cthulhu is on your side!
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:38 pm
Posts: 176
Inverse Tiger wrote:
Obviously Jesus didn't speak in Greek. And yet the Greek is what we have. The people who wrote about it wrote in Greek, so they would have chosen the words in Greek that best describe what they mean. So talking about Greek grammar and meanings is completely relevant.


Well that's just gonna open up a whole can of worms. An English Bible passed down through generations that came from Greek manuscripts discussing what people said in Aramaic. We could easily get into translation errors (such as the "virgin" Mary snafu) if we're going that route.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:38 pm
Posts: 176
As for a more general post, and a short one until I dredge up the energy to get into things more deeply, here is my problem with these "answers":

One who is independent of the faith would look at the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible as evidence of severe flaws in it. Translational errors account for who knows how many problems, especially if things were passed down by word of mouth for a generation or two before being written down. The fact that the books themselves were selected from a field of HUNDREDS is another, and to dogmatically insist that only the Canonical books are the "real" books gets into the main issue.

Christian apologists (or any apologists of any faith, "faith" here meaning a set of beliefs based on instincts or desires over empirical evidence) do not look at these things and draw the logical conclusion. Rather, they start with the conclusion, that The Bible is the correct and infallible word of God, and struggle to construct scenarios in which this pre-determined conclusion can fit with the facts as we come about them.

If this were to happen in any other field, it would be laughed at. Consider the geocentric/heliocentric debate and the Tychonic system. Tycho Brahe attempted to reconcile the observations of Copernicus and Galileo with the geocentric universe and came up with a diagram that involved the sun going around the Earth and the other planets moving along in bizarre orbits around the sun, while the Earth stayed at the center.

Mathematically, this system works. However, it goes completely against logical scientific reasoning and defies Occam's Razor entirely. Rather than examining the evidence and drawing the logical conclusion, Brahe and others started with the conclusion and crafted an explanation for how the evidence could still fit with said conclusion. Is it a coincidence that Brahe and his followers were influenced by the Church? I'll leave that one up to you.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:06 am
Posts: 2049
Location: Standing on Watterson's front lawn
HippityHomsar wrote:
Well that's just gonna open up a whole can of worms.

I don't think it does. When the earliest thing we have to go by is the Greek, when that is what was decided to be the canonical scripture (and so the scripture that people today would actually follow), and when the people who wrote it were roughly contemporaneous to the events and knew Aramaic enough to choose the words in Greek that best describe it (or, if they were less educated, used Semiticized Greek that we can read with a knowledge of Aramaic to see very clearly what they meant), then the Greek is extremely important. In fact, what I was trying to say is the Greek is really the only thing that matters. I agree with you that translations are problematic. If I was gonna stake my life on the meaning of a Bible verse, I'd never go off the English. The Greek is really it.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Quote:
One who is independent of the faith would look at the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible as evidence of severe flaws in it.

Someone might. However, the problem that I feel you're missing is that these "contradictions" and "inconsistencies" can often be cleared up with just a little bit of study of the text itself. If I felt these inconsistencies could not be so understood, then I would not be a believer myself. Oh, and incidentally, there was a time in my life when I thought at you, that they could not be explained and therefore proved the Bible wrong. But then someone did exactly as I have attempted to do here: show that they do not.

Think about it like this: these are pieces of a puzzle - they do in fact fit together. Your complaint seems to be that all the pieces are not the exact same shape. Nevertheless, they still fit.

Quote:
Translational errors account for who knows how many problems, especially if things were passed down by word of mouth for a generation or two before being written down.

Current estimates among scholars is that they account for less than one percent of the text. And the vast majority of them are simple misspellings or transposition of words, or even simple mistakes that change very little of the overall text. (For example, a copyist might write "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"). There are a few lengthy passages, for example the end of Mark. Nevertheless, even if we were to remove all the contested passages, you're still looking at less than half a percent difference in the overall text. The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Grecae has a pretty comprehensive inclusion of the textual variants found in the available manuscript evidence.

Quote:
The fact that the books themselves were selected from a field of HUNDREDS is another, and to dogmatically insist that only the Canonical books are the "real" books gets into the main issue.

The reason the non-canonical books are considered non-canonical is because their authorship and authority was contested even by the early church, whereas the canonical books are included precisely because the early church had good reason to trust their authenticity. You make it sound as if the selection process was completely haphazard, and it most certainly was not.

Quote:
Christian apologists (or any apologists of any faith, "faith" here meaning a set of beliefs based on instincts or desires over empirical evidence) do not look at these things and draw the logical conclusion. Rather, they start with the conclusion, that The Bible is the correct and infallible word of God, and struggle to construct scenarios in which this pre-determined conclusion can fit with the facts as we come about them.

On the contrary. I believe that it is those who argue against the Bible's authenticity who construct the circular argument, rejecting the book as false without beforehand attempting to verify it, and then formulating arguments based on their faulty conclusions. On the other hand, when the Bible can be confirmed by archaeological data and outside historical data, then I see no reason why it ought to be distrusted. The charge of circular reasoning would only be true if and only if such outside confirmation were unavailable.

The only reason I feel anyone has for disbelieving it is if they begin with the a priori assumption that either God does not exist, or, if he does, then he is either powerless to act or unwilling to act in the ways portrayed therein. Again, circular reasoning on the part of the skeptic.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:38 pm
Posts: 176
The inconsistencies and contradictions are "cleared up" by reading into things in a way that would only be thought up if one presupposed that the text was correct. If one reads the gospels and notices that Matthew and Luke reverse where Christ was born and where he moved to, or that John says Jesus was crucified the day before passover while Mark says it was the day after, he'd notice that these are irreconcilable.

However, the apologists "know" that the Bible is true, and thus scenarios are concocted to "make the puzzle fit". That explanation assumes that, for no discernible reason, the canonical books were made as a group, like John/Mark/Matthew/Luke all sat around a table and split up their facts so they all interwove and interlocked.

But that gets into this:

Quote:
The reason the non-canonical books are considered non-canonical is because their authorship and authority was contested even by the early church, whereas the canonical books are included precisely because the early church had good reason to trust their authenticity. You make it sound as if the selection process was completely haphazard, and it most certainly was not.


No, I act like the selection process was so the Bible had the optimum compatibility with itself. It doesn't work to have the Gospel of Thomas in there with Jesus turning his friends into frogs or whatever, or putting in the Gospel of Peter and having Herod kill Christ. The apocryphal texts are of the same authorship as any of the other books (meaning, they weren't written by the people whose perspective they take, but rather much later), but they are EXTREMELY incompatible with the others, so they got scrapped.

The biblical selection process was to take the books that mixed best with each other, not due to which ones were "inspired" or "authentic". That may be true for some, but certainly not all.

Quote:
On the other hand, when the Bible can be confirmed by archaeological data and outside historical data, then I see no reason why it ought to be distrusted. The charge of circular reasoning would only be true if and only if such outside confirmation were unavailable.


But it CAN'T and that's the problem. There is zero none nada historical evidence of a Jesus Christ, for one thing. None. Any and all evidence of Christ's existence comes from Christian writers, there aren't any secular non-Christian historians who have written about a man named Christ. And before you start, Josephus/Tacitus/Pliny/et al are disqualified due to the blatant inauthenticity of the supposed "writings".

And then you get actual heads of the Church who say the Old Testament isn't literal. Well of course not, our society has evolved beyond a time where we can consider it literal. But what in the BOOK says it wasn't literal? What in the book makes you think we should take Adam and Eve symbolically? Or Sodom and Gomorrah? Where in the Bible itself does it suggest that Noah's Ark (including that he lived to 950!!) shouldn't be taken literally?

It doesn't. There's nothing in the book itself to suggest these things. The Bible was written in a very ignorant day and age (strictly speaking, this is true, as they knew nothing of medicine, astronomy, geology, etc). People today seem to decide that some parts of the bible are "symbolic" or to be completely disregardable. This seems to fly in the face of a verse that I cannot remember which says, basically, "follow these words, add nothing to them, take nothing away."[/quote]

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Quote:
No, I act like the selection process was so the Bible had the optimum compatibility with itself. It doesn't work to have the Gospel of Thomas in there with Jesus turning his friends into frogs or whatever, or putting in the Gospel of Peter and having Herod kill Christ. The apocryphal texts are of the same authorship as any of the other books (meaning, they weren't written by the people whose perspective they take, but rather much later), but they are EXTREMELY incompatible with the others, so they got scrapped.

1. You claim the canonical gospels could not have been written by the people they are attributed to. That is a faulty assumption on your part, and a claim which I would like to see you support.

2. It is still my claim that the canonical books are distinct from the non-canonical ones based on the support that the early church did have for their authorship.

Quote:
If one reads the gospels and notices that Matthew and Luke reverse where Christ was born and where he moved to

Oh, really? Funny how I've been studying those texts for years and completely overlooked such a detail. Perhaps I better do a bit of checking on that:
St. Luke wrote:
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David (2:4).


St. Matthew wrote:
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king (2:1).

Funny, it looks to me that they both claim he was born in Bethlehem.

Quote:
However, the apologists "know" that the Bible is true, and thus scenarios are concocted to "make the puzzle fit". That explanation assumes that, for no discernible reason, the canonical books were made as a group, like John/Mark/Matthew/Luke all sat around a table and split up their facts so they all interwove and interlocked.

I never made that claim at all. I claimed that they were different accounts by different men in different times, and for that reason contain different details. But at least in the case you cited - Jesus' last words - I feel I was adequately able to demonstrate that their accounts, while different, were not contradictory.

Quote:
or that John says Jesus was crucified the day before passover while Mark says it was the day after

Really? Funny how I missed that too. You say Mark claims he was crucified AFTER Passover? Can you cite me a resource for that?

Oh, and incidentally, you might want to take into account that, according to ancient Hebrew reckoning, the Passover starts in the evening and continues all day through the next day.

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:
The use of the word Parasceve in the Gospels raises the question concerning the actual day of Our Lord's crucifixion. All the Evangelists state that Jesus died on the day of the Parasceve (Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31), and there can be no doubt from Luke, xxiii, 54-56 and John, xix, 31, that this was Friday. But on what day of the month of Nisan did that particular Friday fall? St. John distinctly points to Nisan 14, while the Synoptists, by implying that the Last Supper was the Paschal meal, convey the impresion that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 15. But this is hardly reconcilable with the following facts: when Judas left the table, the disciples imagined he was going to buy the things which were needed for the feast (John 13:29)–a purchase which was impossible if the feast had begun; after the Supper, Our Lord and his disciples left the city, as also did the men detailed to arrrest Him–this, on Nisan 15, would have been contrary to Ex., xii, 22; the next morning the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover; moreover, during that day the Council convened; Simon was apparently coming from work (Luke 23:26); Jesus and the two robbers were executed and were taken down from the crosses; Joseph of Arimathea bought fine linen (Mark 15:46), and Nicodemus brought "a mixture of myrrh and aloes about an hundred pound weight" (John 19:39) for the burial; lastly the women prepared spices for the embalming of the Saviour's body (Luke 23:55)–all things which would have been a desecration on Nisan 15. Most commentators, whether they think the Last Supper to have been the Paschal meal or an anticipation thereof, hold that Christ, as St. John states, was crucified on the Parasceve of the Pasch, Friday, Nisan 14.


Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979. wrote:
paraskeuhv, h`", hJ (trag., Hdt.+; inscr., pap., LXX, Ep. Arist., Philo, Joseph.) lit. preparation (Polyaenus 7, 21, 6 tou` deivpnou; 7, 27, 3 polevmou), in our lit. only of a definite day, as the day of preparation for a festival; acc. to Jewish usage (Jos., Ant. 16, 163; Synes., Ep. 4 p. 161d) it was Friday, on which day everything had to be prepared for the Sabbath, when no work was permitted Mt 27:62 (CCTorrey, ZAW 65, ’53, 242=JBL 50, ’31, 234 n. 3, ‘sunset’. Against Torrey, SZeitlin, JBL 51, ’32, 263-71); Mk 15:42; J 19:31. hJmevra paraskeuh`" Lk 23:54 (v.l. hJm. prosabbavtou, cf. Mk 15:42). paraskeuh; tw`n jIoudaivwn J 19:42. paraskeuh; tou` pavsca day of preparation for the Passover (or Friday of Passover Week) vs. 14. For the Christians as well paraskeuhv served to designate the sixth day of the week (ESchürer, ZNW 6, ’05, 10; 11f) Friday MPol 7:1, and so in Mod. Gk. For Christians it is a fast day, as the day of Jesus’ death D 8:1.—M-M. B. 1008.

(Sorry about the odd characters here. It was cut/pasted from Bauer's lexicon, which far from being an "apologetic" work, is strictly a lexicon, and is considered an authoritative resource by both liberal and conservative scholars alike). The gist of my quoting it is that, apparently, the term "Preparation Day" became widely accepted as the name for Friday in ancient Judea. That being the case, it is highly probable that John is using the term to mean "Friday of the Passover" rather than "Day of Preparation for Passover."

Quote:
But it CAN'T and that's the problem. There is zero none nada historical evidence of a Jesus Christ, for one thing. None. Any and all evidence of Christ's existence comes from Christian writers, there aren't any secular non-Christian historians who have written about a man named Christ. And before you start, Josephus/Tacitus/Pliny/et al are disqualified due to the blatant inauthenticity of the supposed "writings".

You obviously have done no reading on this subject. No serious scholar would ever make the kind of claim you have just made. At the very least, if you wish us to take such claims seriously, cite some scholarship.

Besides, weren't these men writing for Roman authorities, and not for Christians? And is there any distinct evidence of this "tampering/fabricating" that you hint at?

Quote:
And then you get actual heads of the Church who say the Old Testament isn't literal. Well of course not, our society has evolved beyond a time where we can consider it literal. But what in the BOOK says it wasn't literal? What in the book makes you think we should take Adam and Eve symbolically? Or Sodom and Gomorrah? Where in the Bible itself does it suggest that Noah's Ark (including that he lived to 950!!) shouldn't be taken literally?

Point conceded. There is no evidence within these accounts to suggest we shouldn't take them literally.

HH, I'm getting the distinct impression that you really don't care what we have to say. You've already made up your mind on this topic, and even when I present a reasonable answer to your question, you persist in rejecting it (and that, based on your own form of illogical circular reasoning - you're already presuming that anything we say is wrong, for no other reason than that we believe it). In fact, you seem to take exception to the fact that I offer any answer at all. That pretty much makes posting on this thread pointless. Therefore, I will suggest that, if you wish to continue this conversation, then it might be best if you focus your attention on presenting a specific text or texts that we can examine, rather than persist in posing arguments based on vague generalizations.

_________________
ImageImage


Last edited by Didymus on Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:59 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:30 am
Posts: 326
Location: >You are in a dank dungeon, possible exists are just Dennis
I have a link that my pastor, Ryan Ventoura, provided:
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/mcdowell_davinci.html

_________________
Ragnarök is coming: Cthulhu is on your side!
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Ah, McDowell. The very name proves at least one of HH's presumptions wrong. In case you're wondering what I mean, McDowell was an atheist who set out to prove the Bible wrong. But the more research he did, the more he concluded that it must be right. Eventually, he became a Christian.

The same with Lewis. Lewis was an atheist, then a pagan, and a Deist before he finally became a Christian. G. K. Chesterton, likewise, followed a similar path.

So maybe, just maybe, Christian apologists DON'T always start with the assumption that the Bible is God's Word, and then set out to prove it.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:40 am
Posts: 48
Location: gyrru gyrru gyrru
First off: I'm not really much of a Christian, doubt I'll ever believe in Christianity wholeheartedly. I'll admit, however, I don't have the philosophical muscle to make clear, concise arguments. I like the academic study of evangelicalism, and I'm getting into Islam right now... way interesting stuff. But I know when I'm outclassed, and the discussion of theology is one of those places.

I was wondering about the trinity, though. What's the support for the doctrine of the trinity? I'm just getting a bit more interested in this after reading parts of the Qur'an, and reading up on early Islamic history and their misinterpretation of the trinity consisting of Jesus, Mary, and God, and a class discussion in another class of the seeming paradox of god manifest in three, and where that branches into polytheism and whatnot (not saying the trinity is polytheism, from my understanding, it isn't but hey, it can give the impression of such if you don't know anything about it whatsoever). But where did the Christian version of the trinity come from? What kind of Biblical support is there for it?

Cheerio.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
Well, for starters, we have Matthew 28:19-20.
Quote:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Jesus Himself speaks of the Trinity in which he is a part.

Then we have Acts 2:38. Peter says to "turn from your sins and turn to God" and be "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". After this, "you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit." So it's clear that there is a Trinity.

Didy will explain it further. (And likely, much better than me! ^^;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Ahh, now a challenging question. Now where do I begin?

Well, first, to discuss the Trinity, it is necessary to first look at the relationship between the man Jesus Christ and God. John 1:1-5[url]speaks of the Word of God (Logos - a term used in some Greek schools of philosophy to describe the governing principle of the universe, similar to Tao in Chinese). This Word is both God and yet somehow distinct from God. And later, in [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14-18;&version=47;]v. 14ff[/url], we learn the identity of this Word - none other than a certain man, Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, here's the thing: it seems that during his life, Jesus made certain claims about himself. He seems to equate himself with YHWH, the Lord God of the Old Testament. For example, in Matthew 25, he refers to himself as the one who judges between sheep and goats (i.e., different kinds of herd animal). This is a direct reference to Ezekiel 34, in which the Lord God (Adonai YHWH) says is his task. Furthermore, when Jesus claims himself to be the Good Shepherd, he is equating himself with this Lord God, as well as the YHWH spoken of in Psalm 23.

In Mark 2:28, Jesus even claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath. Again, he seems to be referring to the Third Commandment, in which YHWH claims the Sabbath to be a day unto himself, a day that rightly belongs to him. For Jesus to claim to be Lord of the Sabbath is to claim the right of ownership, i.e., that he is in fact YHWH.

Ooh. One of my personal favorites: the story of Jesus walking on the sea, in Mark 6:45-52, mostly because of a common awkward translation of Jesus' statement to his disciples. What he says is actually better rendered, "Take heart. I AM (ego eimi). Do not fear." When Jesus says, "Ego Eimi," he is essentially equating himself with I AM (YHWH) from Exodus 3:14.

Here are some other related passages:

Philippians 2:5-11

Colossians 1:15-20

Colossians 2:8-9

I could go on, but I'll leave this list for now.

So here we've established our reasons for believing Jesus to be God, but then our next question: how then do we understand the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Are they all the same person, only with different manifestations, or are we to believe in three separate gods? Well, that's the tricky question. Certainly, we are not permitted to believe in more than one God, and yet somehow, we believe that these are distinct persons. In all the accounts of Jesus' baptism, we see all three persons present: the Father speaks, and the Holy Spirit descends upon the Son. Also, on the Mount of Transfiguration, the Father again speaks on behalf of the Son. And, as Ian states above, when Christ commissioned his apostles, he invokes the Name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I once attempted to use the analogy of a three-headed giant, but the associations with such an odd being brought laughter rather than understanding:
    "Quick, get the sword out! I want to chop 'is 'ead off!"
    "Oh, chop you're own 'ead off!"
    "Yes, do us all a favor!"
    "What?"
    "Yappin' on all the time!"
    "You're lucky. You're not next to 'im."
    "What do you mean?"
    "You snore!"
    "Do not! And anyway, you've got bad breath!"
    "Only because you won't brush my teeth!"
    "Oh, let's just kill 'im and go and 'ave tea and biscuits."
    "Oh, not biscuits."
    "Alright, not biscuits, but let's kill 'im anyway!"
    "Right!"

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages.

It makes no sense for Jesus to have His own voice coming down from heaven at His baptism saying how pleased He is with Himself. While referring to Himself as His Son.

See? Confusing.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
So are you proposing that we believe in more than one God, which is clear contrary to Deuteronomy 6, Romans 3:30, and James 2:19?

Either that, or we must propose that Jesus is not God in any real sense, that he is merely "a god" rather than "the God." Of course, this then makes it very difficult to explain why he continually referred to himself in ways that rightly apply only to the Lord God, YHWH. Neither unitarianism nor tritheism really makes much sense of this phenomenon.

Confusing? Yes. Scriptural? Also yes.

But that's just the thing I was talking about with the John 1 passage. Somehow, the Word is both God and with God: the same, and yet distinct.

We, too, confess that there are three distinct persons, but of one divine substance, unified in essence. Or, in the words of the Athanasian Creed:
Quote:
And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:40 am
Posts: 48
Location: gyrru gyrru gyrru
the only creed i have any kind of familiarity with is the nicene creed, admittedly. hm. i know that there are quite a few, though. is that just an excerpt of the entire thing?

i've only read three of the four gospels, and only once, and it wasn't a particularly close reading, admittedly. i was just trying to see things that caught my interest (a lot of it was the relationship between the disciples and jesus, literary form for the class part o' it, and little bits on eschatology) but i'll have to check out those passages you mentioned eventually, i'm feeling a bit tired and worn out intelectually right now.

it really is a weird concept. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
There is a story of St. Augustin. He was walking along the beach one day, trying to grasp the whole concept of the Trinity, when he observed a little child playing in the sand with a bucket. The child dug a hole in the sand, then went to the water, filled his bucket, and poured the water into the hole. Then he filled his bucket again and repeated the process. Finally, Augustin asked him, "Son, what are you doing?" And the little boy replied, "I'm trying to empty the ocean."

Then it hit him: we human beings are like that hole. We are small and insignificant, finite. And God is like the ocean: vast, deep, and infinite by comparison. How, then, can the limited faculties of human reasoning ever grasp the immeasurable glory of the infinite God? Such it is with the Trinity. We will never fully grasp it; we can only trust.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:23 am
Posts: 1132
Location: Accepting CHAAALLLEEENGEEESSS! with the Kool-Aid Man.
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
When you die, Where do you go?

Heaven or Hell. If you were saved by God (whether a murderer or the greatest preist ever known) you will go to heaven. If you haven't (even if you saved countless lives) you will forever be condemned to suffering in the lake of fire.

I have a question: Are God and Jesus essentially one being or are the separate entities?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:44 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
Wesstarrunner wrote:
[
I have a question: Are God and Jesus essentially one being or are the separate entities?

Yes.

Read Didymus' post a few posts above about the Athanasian Creed.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:23 am
Posts: 1132
Location: Accepting CHAAALLLEEENGEEESSS! with the Kool-Aid Man.
That scripture?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:06 am
Posts: 2049
Location: Standing on Watterson's front lawn
It's the consensus the early church came to regarding the meaning of scripture concerning the nature of God.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 486 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group