NationStates Jolt Archive

I tried to telegraph this to a Christian friend here and at first I was told:

Uh-oh
You have attempted to post a large amount of data. Please reduce the size of your post and try again.
If possible, use your browser's BACK button to return and fix this.


So, feeling rather Solomonesque, I cut it in half, and got:

Messages
This request failed a security check.


So I decided, "what the heck? Let's see what the forum thinks of this."

If you are an atheist or agnostic, I love you :) really I do but please do not bother the posters on this thread; feel free to post if you have something on-topic to add.



The following post refers to the statement made by me here in the forum and elsewhere that Y'shua (Jesus to us goyim) is given two seperate geneologies in the gospels, and my later statement that he could not have been crucified on a friday and risen on a sunday morning and still be the Christ.

I don't have [my grandfather's SDB tracts] or I don't have them at hand, sorry :( But here are the main references they use:



Luke 1:5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.

6 Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

7 But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren; and they were both well along in years.

* * *

26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

28 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.

30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[3] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37 For nothing is impossible with God."


...and you are correct, Aaron was a Levite.

As for the other matter I do not have those tracts at hand, but the main scripture is

Matthew 12:38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."


Luke 23:53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid.

54 It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.

56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.


Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"



OK first of all, the Roman (friday night to sunday morning) version MUST be wrong or, by Y'shua's own words, he is not the Messiah. I know I do not believe the latter and I expect you do not either.

Secondly look at Luke 23:54 again. "It was the Preparation Day...". This was and still is 14 Nissan, the day that the Paschal lamb was always slain during the years that the Temple stood. "...and the Sabbath was about to begin." is taken by the Roman tradition to refer to the seventh day but in this context it can alternatively be seen as the first sabbath of the Pasach week.

The women went to buy spices after that sabbath was over, according to Mark. The spent some time preparing them and then "they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment" according to Luke. The preparation of the spices had to have taken place between two sabbaths, or else biblical inerrency is a false belief. And it had to anyway, or else Y'shua did NOT fulfil the sign of Jonah.


Now as you might have suspected although I was born and baptised into an SDB family and the SDB church, I do not regard the Bible as infallible ... unless every son of David from Nathan to Heli was a case of fraternal substitutionary impregnation, except for Rhesa and Zerubbabel. I am a Gnostic Christian; a neo-Arianite who believes in God and His Christ and his sacrifice. I believe that all who seek truth with an open mind and heart will find it opened to them.


Matthew starts chapter 26 at 2 days before the Preparation Day, at the Sanhedrin's meeting where Judas was recruited. Luke describes this day too, and immediately continues on to what he calls "the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed" (Luke 22:7). Matthew and Mark both say pretty much the same about it, and it was on this day that they went to rent the room, and at the evening of this day that they had the Last Supper.

Now... Luke was not only not there, but he was a roman. They day before the trial and crucifixion he calls "the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed", but he goes on to refer to the next day "the Preparation Day".

Matthew Mark and Luke are simply wrong. John, the only evangelist whose identity and credentials are not seriously cast into doubt by secular anthropologists, historians and literary pathologists, seems far less confused.

John 13:1 It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.

2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus.

* * *

18:27 Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.

* * *

28 Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.

[ they would not go into the pagan's house because they would be unclean until evening, and could not eat the sacrificial lamb which was eaten on the -first- night of Pasach. ]

John 19:14 It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews.



So there you have it: another example of biblical error for you to consider, unless there is an explaination for John's disagreement with his fellow evangelists over what day it was. The "Feast of Unleavened Bread" could refer to the first night of the proper seven day Pasach celebrated when Israel was free and whole in the Land, and indeed it is today a reference to the beginning of Pasach in general. Or in those days when the Land was named "Palestine" by its rulers, the extra day celebrated when God's people were in captivity. It was, I believe, a reference to that meatless seder observed on the start (evening) of 14 Nissan, before the Lamb has been slain.


Brother, I have tried to believe in biblical infallibility. I can certainly believe that all fossils were created in a single day, although I don't need to. But when my eyes were opened by the two distinct linea between David and Y'shua I took his own words to heart and tested those words... against the Law and the Prophets, against themselves and against their fourfold versions. I could no longer believe that the whole Bible is the 100% truth from the revelations of God.

I have felt the 100% truth of the revelation of God. I have tested the spirits that have come to me and cast away those that deny that Christ is come in the flesh. I am a sinner and I doubt that if I spoke my mind and my heart in the church that (I presume) you go to I would be accepted as a fellow believer. And yet, here in speaking with you and answering your request, I have discovered new proof, for I had never before realized that John disagreed with the others as to what day Y'shua was crucified on.

God's Love,
Dru

Well... people are looking.. and a few voting. I guess it's a little out of context, huh? ;)

1:6 ... David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[1] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


3:23 ... He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
24the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
26the son of Naggai, the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
28the son of Neri, the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
30the son of Levi, the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
32the son of David ...

Behold! two enitrely different linea!

This is why I say: to call the Bible the infallible Word of God is to call God a liar. I resent it when you call my God a liar.



,

Matthew Mark and Luke are simply wrong. John, the only evangelist whose identity and credentials are not seriously cast into doubt by secular anthropologists, historians and literary pathologists, seems far less confused.

I have no problem with the point you are trying to make here, but I would like to point out that the book of John was actually the last book written according to historians, etc. In fact, unless John lived a long, long time by ancient standards, there is absolutely no way that John the apostle could have written it. All of my theology books actually doubted John more than the other three, simply because it disagrees in so many ways (not that they don't have disagreements between them.

Of course, this is a moot point, since most writings back then were not actually written by the person they were attributed to, but were actually written by students or followers of that person. It was standard practice to attribute your work to your master, rather than to yourself.

I have no problem with the point you are trying to make here, but I would like to point out that the book of John was actually the last book written according to historians, etc. In fact, unless John lived a long, long time by ancient standards, there is absolutely no way that John the apostle could have written it. All of my theology books actually doubted John more than the other three, simply because it disagrees in so many ways (not that they don't have disagreements between them.

Of course, this is a moot point, since most writings back then were not actually written by the person they were attributed to, but were actually written by students or followers of that person. It was standard practice to attribute your work to your master, rather than to yourself.Exactly why I think such arguements as these are pointless and I have little patience for those who spout biblical tracts. God did not write the Bible, men did. Most of these men actually spoke there tales and they were transcribed by others, as stated years later and often translated several times. The probability of inacuracies and misinterpretation is staggering. I also doubt that most of these men had any idea accounts attributed to them would some day be looked upon as holy works. And thats just the New Testament, the history and evolution of the old is so checkered it's really not worthy of the sanctity that many place on it. Finally consider that the Bible didn't come as the complete book we see today, it was assembled by a committee of men who decide on their own personal bias what was and wasn't to be included. There is merit in the ideas and ideals expressed by many of the writings, but many are simply crap handed down to explain or express unknowns to a less developed mankind and have no buisiness being taught as truths. The 'word of god' arguement is the refuge of those who can't or won't think for themselves. Any of the truths that God imprinted on the souls of men should be apparent and defendable without resorting to some antiquated and questionable document. If they are not, then rethink your position.

Well, I picked "Dru failed to anticipate my belief sufficiently, so I will tell you below."

I personally am an athiest, but not to the point of excluding the *possibility* of God, or gods, or the agnostic 'higher entity'. I just choose not to limit myself to one god without any evidence*

I don't believe the bible is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, simply because I've seen what happens to things when you translate them. There's no such thing as a 'word for word' translation, simply due to the differences in languages.

Erm... hopefully this is on topic. I'm trying to say that I don't believe the bible is the whole truth, but that's not *only* because I'm currently athiest. Even if I believed in God, I doubt my opinion vis a vis the Bible would change at all.



*the evidence here includes faith. Personally I don't have faith, so I don't believe in God. That's not to say no one *else* has faith, or that their faith isn't evidence enough for them. I'm not trying to discredit anyone's beliefs (in this thread anyway :p)

My view, as a non-Christian, is that the Bible is not divine but is a) a highly useful historical source and b) a good collection of metaphorical stories. I'm a great believer in the power of stories. To take another example, while the ancient Egyptians may not have caused the sun to rise every morning through their rituals, but the important thing to me is that they acted as if they did.

As an aside, it's now generally accepted by the vast majority of Biblical scholars that Mark wrote his Gospel first. Luke and Matthew wrote theirs with access to Mark and to a now lost source (generally codenamed Q) but not each other. Paul is harder to place, as his Gospel tends towards the spiritual rather the historical.

It is merely a book written by very mortal men, who intended to add some sotires about how to be a good person, and some lessons on morality.

Nothing more.

It was never inteded to be taken so literally.

You can pretty much blame Rome for all of that.

Well...In any case, I agree with the boyscout.

I have no problem with the point you are trying to make here, but I would like to point out that the book of John was actually the last book written according to historians, etc. In fact, unless John lived a long, long time by ancient standards, there is absolutely no way that John the apostle could have written it. All of my theology books actually doubted John more than the other three, simply because it disagrees in so many ways (not that they don't have disagreements between them.

Of course, this is a moot point, since most writings back then were not actually written by the person they were attributed to, but were actually written by students or followers of that person. It was standard practice to attribute your work to your master, rather than to yourself.


Although John was, by the accounts of those who believe all four gospels to be eponymous (written by those they are named for), the youngest of the four books, the more secular/less literal of biblical scholars believe that it is in fact the oldest. By their accounts, in fact, it is the only one that possibly COULD have been written by a contemporary of Y'shua.

Although John was, by the accounts of those who believe all four gospels to be eponymous (written by those they are named for), the youngest of the four books, the more secular/less literal of biblical scholars believe that it is in fact the oldest. By their accounts, in fact, it is the only one that possibly COULD have been written by a contemporary of Y'shua.

I may be wrong about that :D feel free to correct me.

Well anyway I'd hoped to hear more from believers... does anyone who is willing to post believe that the Bible is infallible?

The thing about the Gospel of John is that it was written to be very symbolistic. John is all about the showing you the spiritual aspect of Jesus. While all the other Gospels start with a geneology of Jesus, John instead starts by tellling the reader that Jesus is God.

John 1: 1-3
In the beginning was the Word;
the Word was in God's presence,
and the Word was God.
He was present to God in the beginning.
Through him all things came into being,
and apart from him nothing came to be.

Also, John has Jesus die on a different day than the other Gospels have him die. John had used the sacraficial Lamb of God symbol throughout his Gospel, and when it came for Jesus to be Crucified, he had Jesus killed right before the Passover so that his death would coincide with the sacrafice of the Passover lambs.

Basically John is different from the other Gospels because the others wanted to teach some history with the theology. John cared only for the theology, so he changed some things to teach the theology of Jesus Christ.

The thing about the Gospel of John is that it was written to be very symbolistic. John is all about the showing you the spiritual aspect of Jesus. While all the other Gospels start with a geneology of Jesus, John instead starts by tellling the reader that Jesus is God.


This is a big part of the reason that many historians believe John was written last. It is most likely that the earliest followers believed Christ to be the Messiah, but did not think he was God. Over time, followers began to believe this, as it was the only way things made sense. This idea had had time to develop by the time John was written, so it was included in that Gospel.

This is a big part of the reason that many historians believe John was written last. It is most likely that the earliest followers believed Christ to be the Messiah, but did not think he was God. Over time, followers began to believe this, as it was the only way things made sense. This idea had had time to develop by the time John was written, so it was included in that Gospel.In Mark's case even that's arguable. He generally, in the original translation, refers to Jesus as "teacher" as opposed to Messiah.

To clarify, Torah = Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in the infallibility of Torah. Then again, Torah doesn't speak of six 24 hour periods of creation and, as a matter of fact, doesn't even say who the creator actually is ...

First verse of Torah, properly translated, says, "With beginning, God was created in the formless void ..." and so on ... God is merely a "scuba suit" for the "great spirit" and is what allows us sekhinah (realization of the divine).

Unlike the English translations, there was never a time when there were only two people on the planet.

Also unlike English translations, Torah never says that there is only one single God responsible for everything and everyone on the planet. The saying goes, "Hear, Oh Israel, your God is one!" Your (Israel's) God is one ... think about that ... it's not saying "one God", it's only telling Israel(Jews) that they should know not to split their god into parts. There are numerous referrences to other gods in Torah.

It goes on like that for a while, but when the Romans were translating the ancient Hebrew texts into Latin, much was changed or removed because, frankly, it wasn't the height of education and they needed a way to tell these stories to the most simple of farmers and have them understand it. Creation was way too complex because it involved deep spiritual knowledge only granted in the Abrahamic birthright and you couldn't make money for your church if you were going around telling people that the rules really only applied to Jews. So, you had to first kick out all the Jews so they wouldn't squeal and, secondly, make subtle changes to the Jewish text.

Do I believe the message of Torah? In a way, I suppose I do. Do I believe in the immutability (infallibility) of Torah? Yes, I do. Do I worship the god of Torah? No, I do not.

My beliefs, since I did say that the pollster failed to mention them properly...

Firstly, I am pagan, not Christian and have a unique perspective on the Bible.

I believe that:
The Bible is not without some misconceptions and inaccuracies. I hesitate to say lies since I dont think it was ever intended to be a lie, at least not by Jehovah or Yeshua. I do think the numerous revisions and rewrites that it has been subject to, including the sometimes decades between events occuring and the point they were scripted, both lead to these misconceptions and inaccuracies.

Miracles did happen, and that Yeshua performed them in the New Testament. He was a good man, seeking to inspire a good faith, and give hope to the people about bridging the separation from Jehovah. Still, Yeshua is not my personal saviour. We have a good understanding on that one.

The creation story has a grain of truth to it, and can be applied to many different types of religions. The concept of day is the most skeptical, but remember this... the human concept of Day has changed over the years to what it is now... a cycle of 24 hours. Perhaps the natural clock of god (shortcased here to infer all deities) has a much longer cycle than ours. Who knows how long a day is to a deity.

The true point to ANY religion (of spirituality, not organization) is not to believe in one exclusively, but to believe in something beyond ourselves.

Behold! two enitrely different linea!

This is why I say: to call the Bible the infallible Word of God is to call God a liar. I resent it when you call my God a liar.

in·fal·li·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fl-bl)
adj.
1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
3. Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

in·er·rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-rnt)
adj.
1. Incapable of erring; infallible.
2. Containing no errors.

The Bible in no way can be infallible. It is a book. It can contain errors, but it cannot err. It cannot fail. Those are human actions, and the Bible is an inanimate object. It can be inerrant according to definition 2.

The geneology given in Matthew is not meant to be a complete geneology. It is introduced by the Matthew 1:1 "The book of the geneology of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." David is listed first here because the author wished to place an emphasis on David, from who's house the Messiah was prophesied to come. The geneology itself is divided into three sections, each containing fourteen steps in the geneology. Fourteen is the numerical value of the Hebrew letters forming the name of David, thus reinforcing the emphasis that Jesus came from the house of David. There are probably three sections of the geneology to emphasize the divineness of Jesus. The culture at that time was big into numerical symbolism, and this geneology reflects that.

In Luke, Jesus's geneology is traced all the way back to God as the father of Adam. It's intent is different than in Matthew.

Many people read the Bible without understanding the literary genre employed by the human writers. This leads to errors in interpretation, but does not neccessarily make the Bible itself wrong.

So... do any of the four who voted for total infallibility have anything to say?


Isbe? Kafelnikov? Nadejda 2? Temme?

Though I'm an agnostic, I believe that the Bible is more or less a metaphor for teaching morals. I dont believe it is *the* word of God tho.

And since we're discussing the Bible I thought I'd bring back my old 'Challenge to the Concept of Original Sin'

Here it goes:


The concept of 'Original Sin' is of when Adam and Eve partook of the Apple, thus disobeying God's orders and getting kicked out of Eden for this (though gaining knowledge). Everybody regards this as a Sin but I regard it as more of a life lesson.

IMO, Eden is just a metaphor for innocence, and the snake who persuaded Eve to take a bite from the apple is really a metaphor for curiosity. The tree and the apple are also metaphors, for knowledge. Besides, if God didnt want them to partake of knowledge (IE eat the apple) he wouldn't have put the tree there.

The life lesson from this is that with the gaining of knowledge comes the loss of innocence.