What Was Jesus Dreaming Of When He Was So Rudely Roused From His Sleep?

Started by eyeshaveit, March 04, 2018, 01:03:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eyeshaveit

"On that day, when evening had come, Jesus said to them, ?Let us go across to the other side.? And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, ?Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?? And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ?Peace! Be still!? And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ?Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?? And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, ?Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him??? - Mark 4.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Kusa

He wasn?t dreaming anything because he wasn?t actually sleeping.

GratefulApe

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 04, 2018, 01:03:29 PM
"On that day, when evening had come, Jesus said to them, ?Let us go across to the other side.? And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, ?Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?? And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ?Peace! Be still!? And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ?Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?? And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, ?Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him??? - Mark 4.

Does the Bible tell us the answer to that?

eyeshaveit

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

"Early the next morning Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize who he was. Jesus shouted, ?Friends, have you caught anything?? ?No!? they answered.
So he told them, ?Let your net down on the right side of your boat, and you will catch some fish.? They did, and the net was so full of fish that they could not drag it up into the boat.
Jesus' favorite disciple told Peter, ?It?s the Lord!? When Simon heard that it was the Lord, he put on the clothes that he had taken off while he was working. Then he jumped into the water. The boat was only about a hundred yards from shore. So the other disciples stayed in the boat and dragged in the net full of fish.
When the disciples got out of the boat, they saw some bread and a charcoal fire with fish on it. Jesus told his disciples, ?Bring some of the fish you just caught.? Simon Peter got back into the boat and dragged the net to shore. In it were one hundred fifty-three large fish, but still the net did not rip."
- John 21.


Who counted the fish?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

GratefulApe

I haven?t a clue but I?m going to guess that it might have had something to do with being clothed correctly. The Mosaic Law.

eyeshaveit

"Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ?Father, ?into Your hands I commit My spirit.?? Having said this, He breathed His last. - Luke 23.

Was Jesus killed on the Jewish Passover or the day before?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

GratefulApe

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 07, 2018, 10:28:38 PM
"Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ?Father, ?into Your hands I commit My spirit.?? Having said this, He breathed His last. - Luke 23.

Was Jesus killed on the Jewish Passover or the day before?

Passover.

1 Corinthians 5:7 (NASB)

7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.


eyeshaveit

?And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this: ?Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...." - Matthew 6.

Why do Christians speak of God as their Father?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

GratefulApe

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 08, 2018, 06:00:49 AM
?And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this: ?Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...." - Matthew 6.

Why do Christians speak of God as their Father?

John 1  (NASB)

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Italics mine

kevin

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 07, 2018, 10:28:38 PM
"Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ?Father, ?into Your hands I commit My spirit.?? Having said this, He breathed His last. - Luke 23.

Was Jesus killed on the Jewish Passover or the day before?

This discrepancy was debated by the early church fathers almost two thousand years ago. In Mark, Jesus is crucified the day after Passover. The Last Supper is the Passover supper: Mark 14:14-15: ??...Where is the guest room for me where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?? And he will show you a large upper room...? And in Mark 14:16, "...And his disciples went forth...and they made ready the Passover." He is crucified the day after Passover, at 9 am, Mark 15:25, ?It was now the third hour, and they impaled him.?

In John, however, Jesus is crucified on the same day as Passover, hours before the Passover supper that he never eats. And he is also not crucified until after 12 pm, rather than at 9 am. The Last Supper is merely the unnamed meal the night before: John 13:2: ?So, while the evening meal was going on...? and John 13:4, ?...got up from the evening meal and laid aside his outer garments...? He is crucified the next day at 12 pm. That the day of the crucifixion is the same day as the Passover is indicated in John 19:14-16: ?Now it was preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour [12 pm]. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, ?See! Your king!?...At that time, therefore, he handed them over to them to be impaled.? Similarly, in John 19:31, ?Then the Jews, since it was Preparation, in order that the bodies might not remain on the torture stakes on the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a great one) requested Pilate to have their legs broken and the [bodies] taken away.? Preparation refers to the ceremonial cleaning and cooking that takes place before the Passover supper. In John, Jesus is already dead by the time Passover is eaten.

Was Jesus crucified before or after Passover? Both accounts cannot be simultaneously correct. Sometimes apologists suggest that the priests of John 19:31 ate Passover on a later day from ordinary Jews, but there is no evidence for that in history or Scripture that I am aware of. Harmonizing won?t fix it unless parts are ignored. John and the synoptic gospels simply do not agree on the date and the time. Did Jesus eat Passover, or not? Was he crucified at 9 am or at 12 pm?

Some apologists assert that the synoptic Gospels used Jewish clock time, and the Gospel of John used Roman clock time. Even if this is true, it still cannot explain the cricifixion occurring on different days.

Other apologists simply say that Jesus asked the disciples to obtain a room for the Passover, but never intended to eat there. If so, then Jesus deceived his disciples by specifically asking for a room where he "... might eat the Passover ..."
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Dexter

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 04, 2018, 01:03:29 PM
"On that day, when evening had come, Jesus said to them, ?Let us go across to the other side.? And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, ?Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?? And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ?Peace! Be still!? And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ?Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?? And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, ?Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him??? - Mark 4.

Your talking the sea of Galilee here right? A fairly big boat too to hold his disciples. I think this story may well be a metaphor for some greater truth.
"Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road"
― T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Dexter on March 08, 2018, 04:24:19 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 04, 2018, 01:03:29 PM
"On that day, when evening had come, Jesus said to them, ?Let us go across to the other side.? And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, ?Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?? And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ?Peace! Be still!? And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ?Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?? And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, ?Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him??? - Mark 4.

Your talking the sea of Galilee here right? A fairly big boat too to hold his disciples. I think this story may well be a metaphor for some greater truth.

Yeah, the Sea of Galilee, or Sea of Kinneret, or Sea of Ginosar, or Lake of Gennesaret, or Sea of Tiberias, etc.,
But do you agree that there was a historical Israelite in the first century, named Jesus of Nazareth: who lived, ate, drank, bled, dreamed, etc.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on March 08, 2018, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 07, 2018, 10:28:38 PM
"Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ?Father, ?into Your hands I commit My spirit.?? Having said this, He breathed His last. - Luke 23.

Was Jesus killed on the Jewish Passover or the day before?

This discrepancy was debated by the early church fathers almost two thousand years ago. In Mark, Jesus is crucified the day after Passover. The Last Supper is the Passover supper: Mark 14:14-15: ??...Where is the guest room for me where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?? And he will show you a large upper room...? And in Mark 14:16, "...And his disciples went forth...and they made ready the Passover." He is crucified the day after Passover, at 9 am, Mark 15:25, ?It was now the third hour, and they impaled him.?

In John, however, Jesus is crucified on the same day as Passover, hours before the Passover supper that he never eats. And he is also not crucified until after 12 pm, rather than at 9 am. The Last Supper is merely the unnamed meal the night before: John 13:2: ?So, while the evening meal was going on...? and John 13:4, ?...got up from the evening meal and laid aside his outer garments...? He is crucified the next day at 12 pm. That the day of the crucifixion is the same day as the Passover is indicated in John 19:14-16: ?Now it was preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour [12 pm]. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, ?See! Your king!?...At that time, therefore, he handed them over to them to be impaled.? Similarly, in John 19:31, ?Then the Jews, since it was Preparation, in order that the bodies might not remain on the torture stakes on the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a great one) requested Pilate to have their legs broken and the [bodies] taken away.? Preparation refers to the ceremonial cleaning and cooking that takes place before the Passover supper. In John, Jesus is already dead by the time Passover is eaten.

Was Jesus crucified before or after Passover? Both accounts cannot be simultaneously correct. Sometimes apologists suggest that the priests of John 19:31 ate Passover on a later day from ordinary Jews, but there is no evidence for that in history or Scripture that I am aware of. Harmonizing won?t fix it unless parts are ignored. John and the synoptic gospels simply do not agree on the date and the time. Did Jesus eat Passover, or not? Was he crucified at 9 am or at 12 pm?

Some apologists assert that the synoptic Gospels used Jewish clock time, and the Gospel of John used Roman clock time. Even if this is true, it still cannot explain the cricifixion occurring on different days.

Other apologists simply say that Jesus asked the disciples to obtain a room for the Passover, but never intended to eat there. If so, then Jesus deceived his disciples by specifically asking for a room where he "... might eat the Passover ..."

Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Dexter

Comments on this board presuppose the supernatural. Whether I believe or disbelieve should not be posted here.
I think that story is a metaphor that is to be used to teach in a sermon.
"Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road"
― T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Dexter on March 08, 2018, 04:44:22 PM
Comments on this board presuppose the supernatural. Whether I believe or disbelieve should not be posted here.
I think that story is a metaphor that is to be used to teach in a sermon.

OK.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 08, 2018, 04:38:34 PM
Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.

it's one of those very old debates about scripture that goes back to the ante nicene fathers, like the discussions of the gospel accounts of jesus's travels that get the geography of palestine wrong. i don't think it's particularly important, because i believe that details like that got messed up in the years between the acts and the recording, and don't affect any content of the new testament gospel.

if you're inclined, one interesting discussion could be trying to figure out the sequence of events in the graveyard after the resurrection, which don't match between the gospel accounts and cannot be assembled into a single story, as far as i know. the events on the morning of the th eresurrection are very important in christianity, yet it seems to be an event that christians don't actually look at closely.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on March 08, 2018, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 08, 2018, 04:38:34 PM
Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.

it's one of those very old debates about scripture that goes back to the ante nicene fathers, like the discussions of the gospel accounts of jesus's travels that get the geography of palestine wrong. i don't think it's particularly important, because i believe that details like that got messed up in the years between the acts and the recording, and don't affect any content of the new testament gospel.

if you're inclined, one interesting discussion could be trying to figure out the sequence of events in the graveyard after the resurrection, which don't match between the gospel accounts and cannot be assembled into a single story, as far as i know. the events on the morning of the th eresurrection are very important in christianity, yet it seems to be an event that christians don't actually look at closely.

But the four accounts have been combined and they do come together nicely,
For instance the number of women is easily explained from the different views and perspectives.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

"Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ?Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.? When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, ?In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

??And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.??

Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, ?Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.? After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way." - Matthew 2.

Who were these wise men? How many wise men were there? Where did they come from? What was the star? Could the star have been a comet?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 08, 2018, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: kevin on March 08, 2018, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 08, 2018, 04:38:34 PM
Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.

it's one of those very old debates about scripture that goes back to the ante nicene fathers, like the discussions of the gospel accounts of jesus's travels that get the geography of palestine wrong. i don't think it's particularly important, because i believe that details like that got messed up in the years between the acts and the recording, and don't affect any content of the new testament gospel.

if you're inclined, one interesting discussion could be trying to figure out the sequence of events in the graveyard after the resurrection, which don't match between the gospel accounts and cannot be assembled into a single story, as far as i know. the events on the morning of the th eresurrection are very important in christianity, yet it seems to be an event that christians don't actually look at closely.

But the four accounts have been combined and they do come together nicely,
For instance the number of women is easily explained from the different views and perspectives.

perhaps its worth a second look.

the number of angels differ, for example. hard to get that wrong, it seemz to me.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on March 09, 2018, 02:33:49 AM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 08, 2018, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: kevin on March 08, 2018, 04:55:12 PM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 08, 2018, 04:38:34 PM
Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.

it's one of those very old debates about scripture that goes back to the ante nicene fathers, like the discussions of the gospel accounts of jesus's travels that get the geography of palestine wrong. i don't think it's particularly important, because i believe that details like that got messed up in the years between the acts and the recording, and don't affect any content of the new testament gospel.

if you're inclined, one interesting discussion could be trying to figure out the sequence of events in the graveyard after the resurrection, which don't match between the gospel accounts and cannot be assembled into a single story, as far as i know. the events on the morning of the th eresurrection are very important in christianity, yet it seems to be an event that christians don't actually look at closely.

But the four accounts have been combined and they do come together nicely,
For instance the number of women is easily explained from the different views and perspectives.

perhaps its worth a second look.

the number of angels differ, for example. hard to get that wrong, it seemz to me.

Different viewpoints and expressions - I'll look it up as time allows -
But the resurrection is the essential part - no resurrection and the rest matters not.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

Number of Angels seen at the tomb of Jesus Christ:

"Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow." - Matthew 27.

Matthew and Mark describe only one angel, but do not say there was only one angel.
Luke and John say that there were two angels, and where there are angels there is always one.
Matthew and Mark were addressing one issue and question; Luke and John were addressing another question.

Matthew and Mark address the earthquake and moving the stone,
Luke and John on the other hand were addressing the missing body,
There were two angels at the tomb, but only one rolled away the stone.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

"King Herod heard of it, for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, ?John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.? But others said, ?He is Elijah.? And others said, ?He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.? But when Herod heard of it, he said, ?John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.? For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, ?It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.? And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly.

But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. For when Herodias's daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests. And the king said to the girl, ?Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it to you.? And he vowed to her, ?Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.?  And she went out and said to her mother, ?For what should I ask?? And she said, ?The head of John the Baptist.? And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, ?I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.? And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb."
- Mark 6.

His body was buried,
But what happened to John the Baptist's head?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

the angels are certainly an interesting detail. here is mathew:

Mat 28:2  And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Mat 28:3  His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
Mat 28:4  And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
Mat 28:5  And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.


mark:

Mar 16:5  And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

luke:

Luk 24:4  And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
Luk 24:5  And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?


john:

Joh 20:12  And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

in my opinion, these accounts differ.

the single angel of mathew is so frightening that the keepers faint from fear. then in mark, he appears to be nothing more than a young man.

in luke, the young man has become two frightening and radiant men. then in john, the two men become two innocuous angels.

all of this can be harmonized if we believe that the women and apostles simultaneously could, and also could not, distinguish angels from men. and also that the angels were intensely frightening, and at the same time not alarming at all. and finally, that whether there were two or just one celestial visitor from heaven-- or not-- was a detail of so little interest to the frightened women that two accounts recorded it and two did not.

in addition, in mathew and mark, the angel or angels appears to the women and tells them to inform the disciples, which in mathew they depart to do. in mark they leave and don't tell anybody. in luke they see the angels, and then do tell the disciples, but in john, they tell the disciples and only afterwards do they see the angels. these particular accounts flatly contradict. whether they are minor or not depends upon whether one is an inerrantist or not.

there are various explanations for all this that people have put forward by making up possible actions on the parts of the people that don't have a basis in scripture but can account for everything at once. maybe so, maybe not.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

kevin

here's an interesting question.


in 1 samuel 21:1-6, the high priest named ahimelech cautions david about eating the loaves of presentation: ?...later david came into nob to ahimelech the priest, and ahimelech began to tremble at meeting david...? the hungry david asks for the showbread for himself and his men, and ahimelech gives him the loaves.

in mark 2:26, however, jesus says the event occurred during the time of abiathar, ahimelech?s son:

?...entered into the house of god, in the account about abiathar the chief priest, and ate the loaves of presentation...? nwt,
?...in the time of abiathar the high priest...? neb,
?...in the days of abiathar the high priest...? niv,
?...how he entered into the house of god in [the days of] abiathar the high priest...? textus recepticus, english/greek interlinear.

according to the old testament, the event actually took place in the days of ahimelech, not in the days of abiathar. abiathar (ahimelech?s son), is high priest during much of david?s reign, and is prominent in episodes later in david?s life, in 1 samuel, 2 samuel, kings, and chronicles, but he is not introduced until 1 samuel 22:20, and not as priest until 1 samuel 23:9. ahimelech his father is the prominent priest through the early exile of david, and he and the entire suite of priests were executed by saul as result of this very episode. if the old testament is correct, then jesus is wrong. if jesus is correct as quoted, then the old testament authors confuse the the priesthood succession in some 39 additional scriptural references.

it's easy to say that abiathar was alive at the time of this event, but he was not high priest, played no part in this event, and isn't mentioned until later.

did jesus mess up on his old testament history?
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

kevin

. . . and one that has always puzzled me. scripture describes how jesus was mocked on his last day by being dressed in royal clothing, but contradicts itself on where it took place.

matthew 27:28. jesus is costumed by pontius pilate.
mark 15:17. jesus is costumed by pontius pilate.
luke 23:11. jesus is costumed by herod at his palace, not by pilate.
john 19:2. jesus is costumed by pontius pilate.

if the bible is accurate as written, then jesus was costumed twice in two different places and each account ignores the other.

where was jesus dressed in royal clothing, and who did it?
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

kevin

this one too. following the return to jerusalem, ezra and nehemiah contradict each other for census numbers of the hebrew families.

ezra 2:64 and nehemiah 7:66 both give the total to be 42,360. but adding the numbers up gives 29,818 men for ezra, and 31,089 men for nehemiah. the difference comes from the two books sometimes giving contradictory numbers for the same sons within the same families.

i confess that i was curious, and actually went in and counted up the numbers for myself long ago.

were the ancient israelites unable to count?
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 09, 2018, 07:46:17 PM
here's an interesting question.


in 1 samuel 21:1-6, the high priest named ahimelech cautions david about eating the loaves of presentation: ?...later david came into nob to ahimelech the priest, and ahimelech began to tremble at meeting david...? the hungry david asks for the showbread for himself and his men, and ahimelech gives him the loaves.

in mark 2:26, however, jesus says the event occurred during the time of abiathar, ahimelech?s son:

?...entered into the house of god, in the account about abiathar the chief priest, and ate the loaves of presentation...? nwt,
?...in the time of abiathar the high priest...? neb,
?...in the days of abiathar the high priest...? niv,
?...how he entered into the house of god in [the days of] abiathar the high priest...? textus recepticus, english/greek interlinear.

according to the old testament, the event actually took place in the days of ahimelech, not in the days of abiathar. abiathar (ahimelech?s son), is high priest during much of david?s reign, and is prominent in episodes later in david?s life, in 1 samuel, 2 samuel, kings, and chronicles, but he is not introduced until 1 samuel 22:20, and not as priest until 1 samuel 23:9. ahimelech his father is the prominent priest through the early exile of david, and he and the entire suite of priests were executed by saul as result of this very episode. if the old testament is correct, then jesus is wrong. if jesus is correct as quoted, then the old testament authors confuse the the priesthood succession in some 39 additional scriptural references.

it's easy to say that abiathar was alive at the time of this event, but he was not high priest, played no part in this event, and isn't mentioned until later.

did jesus mess up on his old testament history?

in the account about: The Greek preposition e?pi? used here can refer to time or to place/location, such as a passage of Scripture. Most translators understand it to mean ?when (Abiathar was . . . ).? However, as explained in the study note on Abiathar the chief priest in this verse, the historical event that Jesus is referring to (1Sa 21:?1-6) makes it more likely that the Greek preposition should be understood in a locative sense, that is, referring to a Scriptural account. A similar Greek structure is found at Mr 12:26 and Lu 20:37, where many translations use the phrase ?in the account (passage) about.?

Abiathar the chief priest: The Greek term used here may be rendered ?high priest? or ?chief priest.? The latter rendering is more appropriate for Abiathar, since his father, Ahimelech, was high priest on the occasion described. (1Sa 21:?1-6) Abiathar is first mentioned shortly after David entered the house of God and ate the showbread. It seems that as a son of High Priest Ahimelech, Abiathar was already serving as a prominent, or chief, priest at that time. He was the only son of Ahimelech to survive the slaughter by Doeg the Edomite. (1Sa 22:18-?20) He later became high priest, evidently during David?s reign. Even if the rendering ?high priest? is used, the Greek construction rendered ?in the account about? is broad and may refer to the larger section of 1Sa chapters 21 to 23, where Abiathar was the most well-known high priest. Some Greek scholars favor the rendering ?in the time of Abiathar the high priest,? which could also refer to the overall time period, including the time when Abiathar later became high priest. Whatever the explanation, we can be sure that this statement of Jesus was in harmony with the historical facts.

NWT Study Edition
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
. . . Whatever the explanation, we can be sure that this statement of Jesus was in harmony with the historical facts.

NWT Study Edition

jst, i am neither a witness nor a roman catholic, so ^^^this type of explanation is of less than no value, because it obscures the actual words of scripture with dogma.

i addressed each of tbe points that tbe watchtower tries to suggest as solutions.

they dont work for the reasons i gave. please read my post again with tbe watchtower explanation in mind.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 13, 2018, 10:11:00 PM
Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
. . . Whatever the explanation, we can be sure that this statement of Jesus was in harmony with the historical facts.

NWT Study Edition

jst, i am neither a witness nor a roman catholic, so ^^^this type of explanation is of less than no value, because it obscures the actual words of scripture with dogma.

i addressed each of tbe points that tbe watchtower tries to suggest as solutions.

they dont work for the reasons i gave. please read my post again with tbe watchtower explanation in mind.

Your objection was, "it's easy to say that abiathar was alive at the time of this event, but he was not high priest, played no part in this event, and isn't mentioned until later."

This is talked about in what I posted.  The text does not have to mean "when he was high priest" 

1.  "High" Priest can also mean "Chief" Priest which is lower in station than High Priest.

2.  The text does not have to mean "when Abiathar was" high Priest, but "in the time of" or "the account about".  It was during his time but it occured before he was the high priest.

But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

that is straining tbe plain sense of tbe scriptures, jst, in order to conform what tbey actually say to what human interpreters would like them to say.

fhe conclusion of tbe quote from tbe watchtower i posted indicates tbe motivation more clearly tban anything i could say myself.

i think it more likely that eitber jesus got the names mixed up or his recorders did.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 14, 2018, 06:04:22 PM
that is straining tbe plain sense of tbe scriptures, jst, in order to conform what tbey actually say to what human interpreters would like them to say.

fhe conclusion of tbe quote from tbe watchtower i posted indicates tbe motivation more clearly tban anything i could say myself.

i think it more likely that eitber jesus got the names mixed up or his recorders did.

How is it straining the plain sense of the scriptures?  Because it can be translated different ways or something else?

"How, in the account about A?bi?a?thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests,+ and he also gave some to the men who were with him??

^ Do you think that is historically inaccurate or translated incorrectly?
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Mr. Blackwell

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 04, 2018, 01:03:29 PM
"On that day, when evening had come, Jesus said to them, ?Let us go across to the other side.? And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, ?Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?? And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ?Peace! Be still!? And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ?Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?? And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, ?Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him??? - Mark 4.


That I may sleep through the storm and still dream of you is the greatest peace I have ever known.
At this time the answer is not no. The question is why?

kevin

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 15, 2018, 06:37:47 PM

How is it straining the plain sense of the scriptures?  Because it can be translated different ways or something else?

"How, in the account about A?bi?a?thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests,+ and he also gave some to the men who were with him??

like this, jst:

"how, in the account about donald trump the president of the united states, the japanese attacked the american naval base of pearl harbor, and destroyed th eamerican pacific fleet there."

donald trump was not present in any account of th ejapanese attack on pearl harbor-- the american president at th etime was roosevelt. to say that the story of pearl harbor is a actually an account of donald trump is not reasonable. likewise, to assert that jesus would name an uninvolved third party as high priest instead of the actual high priest who is important in the story is simply reaching for something that scripture doesn't provide.

the new world translation has it this way:

?...entered into the house of god, in the account about abiathar the chief priest, and ate the loaves of presentation...?

the account in 1 samuel is not about abiathar. it is about ahimelech.

Quote
^ Do you think that is historically inaccurate or translated incorrectly?

there isn't any way to tell. scripture gets a number of unimportant details like this wrong, and there's no reliable way to second-guess something that old that has so many different renderings and collections.

here's another mistake that jesus made, in matthew 23:35. in that verse, jesus refers ?...to the blood of zechariah son of berekiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.? (or ?zacharias son of barachias...?) this is a reference to 2 chronicles 24:21, but the zechariah murdered there was the son of jehoiada, not berechiah, as it reads in the previous verse, 2 chronicles 24:20. the son of berechiah was the prophet zechariah (zechariah 1:1), and there is no tradition or record that he was murdered.

so jesus gets the two zechariahs mixed up.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 15, 2018, 10:56:43 PM
donald trump was not present in any account of th ejapanese attack on pearl harbor-- the american president at th etime was roosevelt. to say that the story of pearl harbor is a actually an account of donald trump is not reasonable. likewise, to assert that jesus would name an uninvolved third party as high priest instead of the actual high priest who is important in the story is simply reaching for something that scripture doesn't provide.

But there are many years between those things and they are completely unrelated unlike what we are talking about here.  I think it would be more like me talking about the great flood of Shem's day.  That would be odd but not historically inaccurate.  However, if Shem was more well-known than Noah, it wouldn't be so odd, I think.

Quotethe account in 1 samuel is not about abiathar. it is about ahimelech.

The WT suggested it may refer to the broader account of 1 Sa 21-23 where Abiathar was the most well-known high priest.

Quote
there isn't any way to tell.....and there's no reliable way to second-guess something that old that has so many different renderings and collections.

True.  But there is more than one possible explanation.

Quotei think it more likely that eitber jesus got the names mixed up or his recorders did.

These are other explanations but to me these seem unlikely as well.  Jesus appeared to have a very intimate knowledge of scripture and it's hard for me to imagine the recorder didn't also.

I think it falls to what did Jesus and his listeners consider to be the account about abiathar the chief priest.  Where did they divide the account about the father and the account about the son?

Quotehere's another mistake that jesus made, in matthew 23:35. in that verse, jesus refers ?...to the blood of zechariah son of berekiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.? (or ?zacharias son of barachias...?) this is a reference to 2 chronicles 24:21, but the zechariah murdered there was the son of jehoiada, not berechiah, as it reads in the previous verse, 2 chronicles 24:20. the son of berechiah was the prophet zechariah (zechariah 1:1), and there is no tradition or record that he was murdered.

"son of Barachiah: According to 2Ch 24:20, this Zechariah was ?the son of Jehoiada the priest.? It has been suggested that Jehoiada may have had two names, as is the case with others in the Bible (compare Mt 9:9 with Mr 2:14), or that Barachiah was Zechariah?s grandfather or an earlier ancestor" -- NWT Study Edition

Quotejst, i am neither a witness nor a roman catholic, so ^^^this type of explanation is of less than no value, because it obscures the actual words of scripture with dogma.

Even forgoing that Jesus was the son of God, I find it unlikely that Jesus made a mistake in the area of scripture.  If it was simply an error, why wasn't it ever corrected?  Whatever the case, placing blame on Jesus doesn't seem to be the simplest explanation to me even if we was just an ordinary man.

But I am just exploring ideas here.  I see no reason to demand that the Bible is 100% free of human error.  But I also see no reason to jump to the conclusion that something is an error just because it may appear to be.






But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

so long as youre willing to say that the plain sense of scripture isnt what it means, i agree.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

"And about the ninth hour....Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.? - Matthew 27.

Who were these resurrected saints, who "went into the holy city [Jerusalem] and appeared to many"?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 16, 2018, 05:53:27 PM
so long as youre willing to say that the plain sense of scripture isnt what it means, i agree.

On the surface, I agree.  I cannot completely agree because I don't think there is a "plain sense" in this case.  Every explanation requires a little stretching.  If it is an error then how did such an error actually make it into the permanent record?  I mean, surely someone would have noticed and corrected it. 

That leads me to believe it is in there like that intentionally and it wasn't viewed as an error.  Were they ignorant or are we?  I think most likely, we are missing information.  The explanation could be something we haven't even considered or maybe we have.

 
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 16, 2018, 11:03:16 PM

On the surface, I agree.  I cannot completely agree because I don't think there is a "plain sense" in this case.  Every explanation requires a little stretching. 

it's not worth fussing over, jst. jesus simply screwed up, or his earliest copyists did. in all the thousands of new testament fragments, papyri and codices, there are tens of thousands of little differences. most are inconsequential typos, but a few are bigger, like this one. they don't affect anything important unless absolute, literal, 100-percent inerrancy is a requirement.


Quote
If it is an error then how did such an error actually make it into the permanent record?  I mean, surely someone would have noticed and corrected it. 

That leads me to believe it is in there like that intentionally and it wasn't viewed as an error.  Were they ignorant or are we?  I think most likely, we are missing information.  The explanation could be something we haven't even considered or maybe we have.


there are lots of uncorrected errors in scripture, jst. and sometimes they were corrected, and sometimes new errors were added.

if you're interested in knowing th eprocesses by which the new testament was actually put together, this is a good book to read. most decent libraries would have a copy, i think.

https://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/019516122X

people desribe this book as scholarly and technical, but it's immensely readable.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 16, 2018, 11:52:01 PM
jesus simply screwed up

That is one explanation but it still doesn't make sense to me that, even if Jesus made a mistake, that is was not corrected for record.  That means Jesus and the recorder are responsible.

Quotein all the thousands of new testament fragments, papyri and codices, there are tens of thousands of little differences.

Okay, but that's not evidence the error originated with Christ.  To me, that makes the least sense, as if his adversaries wouldn't have taken the first opportunity to point one out.

Quotethey don't affect anything important unless absolute, literal, 100-percent inerrancy is a requirement.

No, I don't have that requirement.  But I am not ready to claim something is an error, or place the blame for it without evidence, when there are other explanations.  I think that would make me guilty of confirmation bias.  I really see no reason for me to commit one way or the other.  I don't think it can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that Christ made the error.  Do you?

Quotethere are lots of uncorrected errors in scripture, jst. and sometimes they were corrected, and sometimes new errors were added.

While not aware of all the specifics, I am aware that errors exist and have existed.  That's why I value newer translations.  Many errors have been corrected.  Entire accounts were evidently added, like Christ's conversation with a prostitute.  Some things were evidently removed, like Jehovah's name from the Greek scriptures.

This passage could be a copyist's error.  But whatever the case, I don't think Christ was inaccurate.  I find that to be the least likely explanation.  He learned from childhood.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

it's not important to me whether the error originated with christ or with his recorders, or some long ago typo. we'll never know.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 13, 2018, 07:20:40 PM

Whatever the explanation, we can be sure that this statement of Jesus was in harmony with the historical facts.

NWT Study Edition

^^^this would be troubling to me, personally, were i to be told to think this way.,
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 17, 2018, 01:39:24 AM
it's not important to me whether the error originated with christ or with his recorders, or some long ago typo. we'll never know.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 13, 2018, 07:20:40 PM

Whatever the explanation, we can be sure that this statement of Jesus was in harmony with the historical facts.

NWT Study Edition

^^^this would be troubling to me, personally, were i to be told to think this way.,

No one is telling anyone to think that way.  They are telling their thoughts.

This is based on their faith that Christ is the son of God, was a perfect man, studied the scriptures from childhood, and was directly lead by God.

For the sake of this discussion, I have dropped the part about him being God's son and a perfect man and I still find the least likely explanation to be that he was in error. 

You have stated you think Jesus just messed up.  Do you find that to be the most likely explanation?  If so, why?
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 18, 2018, 12:45:10 AM
You have stated you think Jesus just messed up.  Do you find that to be the most likely explanation?  If so, why?

either he messed up, or his recorders did. that's what i've said. the text contradicts itself unless you supply explanations that don't come with the text. that's the watchtower solution, but i don't buy it. you find it sufficient, but i don't. that's okay with me.

i don't come into this discussion with the assumption that scripture must be without error, jst. i know enough about it to know that there have been significant errors, and that there have been significant disputes about not only what it says, but about what books to use to see what it says.

we've been over that, and we don't agree.

so to have a well-researched answer, i'd have to look at the four or five text traditions of this passage, to see what the various historic lineages have jesus saying in this verse. they might be the same, or they might not. maybe this event is discussed in non-canonical books. if so, i'd look in them as well. the texts are readily available online.

given that, i'd try to make a decision about whether they text traditions agreed on what jesus had said. if they all agreed, i would assume it likely that the record was correct and jesus was wrong in his statement.

if the various text traditions disagreed on what jesus said in this verse, i might as a result conclude that the transmission was likely wrong, and that we couldn't conclude that jesus made an error.

this is the technique used to produce the bible you read every day, jst. your new testament is based on the westcott and hort, and it was produced on the basis of a common sense consensus of what the various old bible texts said, weighing the differences and making decisions. not by apostles, but by mssrs. westcott and mssrs. hort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westcott-Hort
Quote
The Greek master text by the Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (1881) was used as the basis for translating the New Testament into English. The committee also referred to the Novum Testamentum Graece (18th edition, 1948) and to works by Catholic Jesuit scholars Jos? M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948). The United Bible Societies' text (1975) and the Nestle-Aland text (1979) were used to update the footnotes in the 1984 version. Additional works consulted in preparing the New World Translation include the Armenian Version, Coptic Versions, the Latin Vulgate, Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts, Textus Receptus, the Johann Jakob Griesbach's Greek text, the Emphatic Diaglott, and various papyri.[35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

There is no reason to single out the WT or the NWT.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(26) In the days of Abiathar the high priest.--St. Mark's is the only record that gives the name of the high priest, and in so doing it creates an historical difficulty. In 1Samuel 21:1, Ahimelech is named as exercising the high priest's office in the Tabernacle at Nob. He is slain by Doeg, at the command of Saul, and his son Abiathar joins David at the cave of Adullam (1Samuel 22:20), and continues to act as high priest till his deposition by Solomon (1Kings 2:26). Two conjectural explanations suggest themselves as probable: (1) that St. Mark, or that our Lord, may have given the name of the more famous priest of the two, who, though not then high-priest, was at the Tabernacle at the time referred to; (2) that he might have acted then as a coadjutor to his father, as Eli's sons seem to have done to him (1Samuel 4:4), and being, as his flight showed, of David's party, was the chief agent in allowing him to take the shew-bread.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Abiathar the priest - From 1 Samuel 21:1, it appears that Ahimelech was high priest at the time here referred to. And from 1 Samuel 23:6, it appears that "Abiathar" was the son of "Ahimelech." Some difficulty has been felt in reconciling these accounts. The probable reason as to why Mark says it was in the days of "Abiathar" is that Abiathar was better known than Ahimelech. The son of the high priest was regarded as his successor, and was often associated with him in the duties of his office. It was not improper, therefore, to designate him as high priest even during the life of his father, especially as that was the name by which he was afterward known. "Abiathar," moreover, in the calamitous times when David came to the throne, left the interest of Saul and fled to David, bringing with him the ephod, one of the special garments of the high priest. For a long time, during David's reign, he was high priest, and it became natural, therefore, to associate "his" name with that of David; to speak of David as king, and Abiathar the high priest of his time. This will account for the fact that he was spoken of rather than his father. At the same time this was strictly true, that this was done in the days of "Abiathar," who was afterward high priest, and was familiarly spoken of as such; as we say that "General" Washington was present at the defeat of Braddock and saved his army, though the title of "General" did not belong to him until many years afterward. Compare the notes at Luke 2:2.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges (k) Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, "under Abimelech the high priest"; and in an ancient copy of Beza's, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle may be so rendered, about, or "before Abiathar was high priest", as it is in Matthew 1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews (l) themselves give, "the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, , "lo! he is called an high priest".''
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

same old stuff in longer sentences  jst.

i dont find it credible. but you are free to interpret tbe psssage as you choose.

its not an important issue to me. dont tbink im singling out tbe witnesses, btw, i just like the westcott and hort.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

"Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." - Matthew 24.

Jesus is clearly speaking of the future when he says,
"Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath",
But are Christians really subject to Jewish Sabbath travel restrictions? 
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

Biblical Inerrancy by the Numbers

"(8) It is no objection to inerrancy that authors of the NT cite or allude to the OT with less than verbal precision. We must be careful not to artificially impose on authors in the first century the literary standards of the twenty-first century. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for example, had never heard of Kate Turabian or the The Chicago Manual of Style!

"Related to the above is the fact that the authors of Scripture round off or approximate numbers and measurements. Thus, alleged ?inaccuracies? must be judged by the accepted standards of the cultural-historical context in which the author wrote, not by the scientifically and computerized precision of 21st century technology. ?The limits of truthfulness,? notes Grudem, ?would depend on the degree of precision implied by the speaker and expected by his original hearers? (Systematic Theology, 91). John Frame agrees, reminding us that ?precision and truth are not synonyms, though they do overlap in meaning. A certain amount of precision is often required for truth, but that amount varies from one context to another? (171). For example, if you asked me how old I was when I wrote this paragraph, I would say, ?67.? But that is not precise. I was literally 67 years, 1 month, 11 days, 7 hours, and 22 minutes old. Although I did not answer you precisely, I did answer you truthfully. Or if you wanted to know how far I live from my church office, I would be truthful in saying ?10 miles,? although the precise distance is 9.4. Thus, as Frame notes, inerrancy ?means that the Bible is true, not that it is maximally precise. To the extent that precision is necessary for truth, the Bible is sufficiently precise. But it does not always have the amount of precision that some readers demand of it. It has a level of precision sufficient for its own purposes, not for the purposes for which some readers might employ it? (173).

"(9) It is no objection to inerrancy that the recorded account of certain events is not exhaustive in detail. That the description of an event is partial does not mean it is false. Inerrancy simply means that when Scripture does speak, however, extensive or minimal it may be, it speaks accurately. Related to this are those instances when two authors record the same event from differing perspectives and for different purposes. Thus, it is no error that Matthew mentions one angel at the tomb of Jesus (Matt. 28:2) while Luke mentions two (Luke 24:4). After all, if there were two, there was assuredly one. If Matthew had said there was ?only? one angel and Luke had said there were two, we?d have a problem. But such is not the case."

10 Things You Should Know about Biblical Inerrancy by Sam Storms:
http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-biblical-inerrancy
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

Luke writes that Paul went directly to Jerusalem after his escape from Damascus. Paul himself says he didn?t go there for three more years.

In Acts 9:25-26, Luke describes how the converted Paul fled Damascus for Jerusalem: ?So his disciples took him and let him down by night through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. On arriving in Jerusalem, he made efforts to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him...?

In Galations 1:15-17, however, Paul says that, ?But when God...thought good to reveal his son in connection with me...I did not go at once into conference with flesh and blood. Neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles previous to me, but I went off into Arabia, and came back again to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas...?

If both accounts are accurate as written, then Luke (Paul?s long-term scribe and companion) ignored three years of Paul?s journeys, between two sentences, or Paul in Galations is mistaken about his own travels.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 18, 2018, 05:45:31 PM
same old stuff in longer sentences  jst.

i dont find it credible. but you are free to interpret tbe psssage as you choose.

its not an important issue to me. dont tbink im singling out tbe witnesses, btw, i just like the westcott and hort.

It's not important to me either unless it's important to you.  I don't know for certain the answer, therefore I don't look at such things as anything more than a curiosity.  It doesn't really have anything to do with you or me or being a Christian or making your way in the world.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

its only important to people who make a big deal out of inerrancy, jst.

scripture is full of errors, misquotes, miscounts, and mis-told history.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 20, 2018, 03:14:24 PM
its only important to people who make a big deal out of inerrancy, jst.

scripture is full of errors, misquotes, miscounts, and mis-told history.

When I think of biblical inerrancy, I think of it's ability to do it's job.  How well does it fill it's purpose?  According to the scriptures, this appears to be their primary purpose:

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."  (2 Tim 3:16,17)

I am largely in agreement with you that doctrines are not the primary things.  Being equipped for every good work is the primary thing.  If God faults us for having a some misunderstandings about hell, the trinity, and other such things then I guess we'll just have to accept that.  But I don't believe that will occur. 

What God will blame us for is how we treat him, and others.  Yes, we are all sinners (imperfect people) but that's not an excuse to abuse one another.  Misunderstandings and disagreements on doctrine can be worked out in due time.  If God were to miraculously appear and say "this is the way it is......." who would disagree or argue? 

What the Bible does, and does well in my opinion, beyond the immediate message of forgiveness, is teach us how to be "fully competent for every good work".  It teaches us how we ought to treat God, ourselves, and one another for best results.

Yes, Eyes, we will still be sinners.  This will not earn anyone salvation.  But it will help us make the most of what we do have, which is largely each other.

So I think studying doctrine is important, but if that is your primary focus then I think you may be putting the cart before the carriage to some extent.  If we are abusive toward one another, is God really going to care about our doctrine?  I think not.  If we have love and mercy toward each other and we make some mistakes in doctrine, is he going to toss us aside?  I hope not.  Who would survive?
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

kevin

 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 20, 2018, 09:23:41 PM
Yes, Eyes, we will still be sinners.  This will not earn anyone salvation.

Again,
Salvation is not "earned",
Salvation is a gift; a gift of grace from God.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 20, 2018, 09:23:41 PM
So I think studying doctrine is important, but if that is your primary focus then I think you may be putting the cart before the carriage to some extent.  If we are abusive toward one another, is God really going to care about our doctrine?  I think not.  If we have love and mercy toward each other and we make some mistakes in doctrine, is he going to toss us aside?

'Once saved, always saved';
The keyword is "once saved" - are you saved, Jstwebbrowsing?


Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 20, 2018, 09:23:41 PM
When I think of biblical inerrancy, I think of it's ability to do it's job.  How well does it fill it's purpose?

Words have meanings,
It isn't what you think the words mean:
Biblical inerrancy affirms that the Holy Bible is without error,
No error in the original autographs, and it "does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

eyes, the original autographs do not exist to look at. with romans or luke, there may have been more tban one autograph, dictated bythe same author, but transcribed differently by fallible scribes or later edited by tbe author.

the copies made from them have many differences.

assuming the unknowable supposition tbat tbe autographs were witbout error, there is now no way to tell which of the current variants reflect tbe autographs and which don't.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on March 21, 2018, 11:40:07 AM
eyes, the original autographs do not exist to look at. with romans or luke, there may have been more tban one autograph, dictated bythe same author, but transcribed differently by fallible scribes or later edited by tbe author.

the copies made from them have many differences.

assuming the unknowable supposition tbat tbe autographs were witbout error, there is now no way to tell which of the current variants reflect tbe autographs and which don't.

"The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian." - Google.

That's more than 25,000 MSS: complete or fragments,
And the majority of the variants are minor things like misspellings and grammar issues.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

thats true.

and not one of tbose fragmsnts is an original autograph, which is what you say you follow.

tbe text you use was assembled by scholars, divinity studentz, linguists, and historians.

not an apostle in tbe bunch.

were tbey inspired by god to choose the correct texts, tbis long after tbe apostles?
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on March 21, 2018, 03:25:22 PM
thats true.

and not one of tbose fragmsnts is an original autograph, which is what you say you follow.

We both understand that no original autographs are known to exist at this juncture in time.

Quote from: kevin on March 21, 2018, 03:25:22 PM
tbe text you use was assembled by scholars, divinity studentz, linguists, and historians.

not an apostle in tbe bunch.

The Apostles were allowed no more than man's alloted years (most of them less) and they died off.
Then God's church decided on the canon; it wasn't a bunch of secular beekeepers, short-order cooks and locker-room attendants. 

Quote from: kevin on March 21, 2018, 03:25:22 PM
were tbey inspired by god to choose the correct texts, tbis long after tbe apostles?

Certainly the early church fathers, the Church Councils and the Westminster Assembly,
Guided by the Holy Spirit, passed on to us a Bible, rooted in doctrinal truth (the Divinty of Christ, etc.),
But no doubt, as your posting history here would suggest, you will disagree, so have a go at it and take the last word.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

lol

the westcott and hort was assembled by scholars who disparaged baptism and evangelical doctrine in general, one stating tbat protestantism was a fashion that would soon pass away.

tbe rsv's editors included henry cadbury, a quaker agnostic.

if these were the divinez inspired and guided by tbe holy spirit, then you are stating tbat prophetic inspiration has not ceased.

may i reccommend quakerism to you, which explicitly practices what you just affirmed? you might find it to your liking.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

eyeshaveit

Quote from: kevin on March 21, 2018, 07:48:02 PM
may i reccommend quakerism to you, which explicitly practices what you just affirmed? you might find it to your liking.

My pre-conversion self would most likely delight in being a Quaker,
But my sanctified and justified self could naught turn my back on he who brought me this way this far.
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

kevin

that's okay, eyes. best wishes.

Joh 1:5  And the Light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
anytime an atheist says that somebody else is wrong, or has some sort of inferior way of looking at the world, its reasonable to ask on what basis they are making that judgement. if they have no answer, you can disregard what they say -- tom terrific

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: kevin on March 20, 2018, 11:08:53 PM
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Yes exactly.  If you skip this step then all the doctrine in the world won't save you, will it?
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Jstwebbrowsing

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 21, 2018, 08:29:35 AM
Again,
Salvation is not "earned",
Salvation is a gift; a gift of grace from God.

Thank you for restating the obvious.

Quote'Once saved, always saved';
The keyword is "once saved" - are you saved, Jstwebbrowsing?

That is up to Christ to decide.  Even though I strive to imitate Christ, I still can't muster any more than the tax collector that, "would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'" (Lk 18:13)

Anything good that I have tried to do pales in comparison to the sinner that I am.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that real faith produces works.  And where can we learn about the works it produces?   
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 22, 2018, 07:06:06 PM
Even though I strive to imitate Christ, I still can't muster any more than the tax collector that, "would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'" (Lk 18:13)

Anything good that I have tried to do pales in comparison to the sinner that I am.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that real faith produces works.  And where can we learn about the works it produces?

By definition, post conversion Christians have "works". The question is, what kind of works? There are insular so-called Christian cults who exhibit fine works among themselves, but are they imitating God's church, as evidenced by the example of the early Christians, when encountering Roman society? A simple, "No" is the answer.

The Roman world had little use for the poor, but Christians, of that era, were very generous with their money, and provided for those of other religions. And during the plagues of the early centuries, while Romans were fleeing the scene, Christians would care for the sick and dying, often at the cost of their own lives.

These unique social projects have come down to us through the centuries. Christians continue this organized care for the poor, sick, elderly, imprisioned, etc. Christians do all of these things (and more) in the present, while the cults are out there advancing themselves and promoting a false gospel.   

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Jstwebbrowsing

So if you agree that faith produces works then we can't stop talking about Witnesses trying to earn salvation through works.
But the greatest one among you must be your minister.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Mt 23:11,12

Teaspoon Shallow

Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 23, 2018, 06:13:16 AM
but are they imitating God's church

Are you talking about the church with heritage?  The one prior to scisms? The Roman Catholic Church?

Or are you talking about one of the Johnny come lately break away churches like the kiddy fiddler Lutherans? (50 reported cases in Australia alone according to the Australian Royal Commision...what rotten fruit they produce).
"If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would.    That's the difference between me and your God." Tracie Harris

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing on March 24, 2018, 05:04:35 AM
So if you agree that faith produces works then we can't stop talking about Witnesses trying to earn salvation through works.

But we have your example,
Of stating your fear of being baptized,
Because of something (bad?) going on in your life,
And in other words: you had/have to earn your way into God's good grace ???
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on March 24, 2018, 06:46:27 AM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on March 23, 2018, 06:13:16 AM
but are they imitating God's church

Are you talking about the church with heritage?  The one prior to scisms? The Roman Catholic Church?

Crack a book when you get a chance:
There was only one church for the first millenium;
In the initial centuries Jesus' disciples followed his pattern of living/teaching;
The Roman Catholic Church and its different teaching on salvation came hundreds of years after Christ.   

Quote from: Teaspoon Shallow on March 24, 2018, 06:46:27 AM
Or are you talking about one of the Johnny come lately break away churches like the kiddy fiddler Lutherans? (50 reported cases in Australia alone according to the Australian Royal Commision...what rotten fruit they produce).

All religions are corrupt:
They produce 'bad apples'
And that includes the Atheist faiths,
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

?Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:...."Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

"Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

"Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ?What shall we eat?? or ?What shall we drink?? or ?What shall we wear?? For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

?Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
- Matthew 5,6.


Should a Christian ever worry or be anxious about the future?

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

eyeshaveit

"And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, ?Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?? He said to him, ?What is written in the Law? How do you read it?? And he answered, ?You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.? And he said to him, ?You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.? But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, ?And who is my neighbor??

Jesus replied, ?A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ?Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.? Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?? He said, ?The one who showed him mercy.? And Jesus said to him, ?You go, and do likewise.?
- Luke 10.

Is this Parable of the Good Samaritan a treatise on the character and essence of human kindness, or is it a study on how to inheirit eternal life?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.