NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a difference between a temprary, voluntary suspension of disbelief... and the condition that enables someone to bomb abortion clinics.

Extreme example, I know.

Just trying to make a point, though. I have been told by Southern Baptists that, if they believed 'god' wished it, they would sacrifice their own child - just as the biblical example demands.

I lack the ability to make THAT kind of mental leap.
Fine, but what about normal religious people? Seems the only difference then is "temporary."

transcranial magnetic stimulation is one of the most interesting areas of modern psychological/physiological research (in my humble opinion). i think the studies you refer to are quite telling in many ways, since they prove that it is possible to artificially induce "spirituality" using mundane equipment, and therefore establish a physical foundation for the experience of "God."

so far, nobody has really tested the idea of long-term brain alteration using TMS, because (obviously) you don't get to monkey about with living human brains in that way. we do know that brain connectivity and structure change based on activity, though that effect decreases hugely as we age; if you exposed a child's brain to TMS stimulation of this sort, it would probably have a more lasting impact than it would on an adult's brain, because the child's brain is still working out how it's going to hook everything together.

this is one of the reasons i believe religiosity is so hereditary...children of religious parents tend to not only remain religious but also to belong to exactly the same sect as their parents reared them in, and i think that may be due at least in part to the way in which their brains learn to process information.

i think TMS would have a more transient impact on adults, though extreme changes in activity (like in TLE patients) can obviously have more lasting effects. however, increases in activity can also be seriously damaging and can bring a host of other problems along for the ride, so it's not something i think we should be testing out on human subjects.
I would agree.
Morally speaking, it isn't new territory - MK-Ultra (-Naomi, et cetera) and those little known and not really efficient drug research spectacles that were indulged in a while back certainly gave cases of permanent brain alteration in correlation to religious/spiritual influence. I personally view it as an issue of alienation of the individual at the same time as making them feel more incorporated, strangely enough. My concern is although the effectivity of such research doesn't allot judicious use of technology as of yet, there is already a group of people who have been working for some time for the US Govt/DOD to try and perfect (?) a device for use of such properties on groups of people as crowd controls. Not a conspiracy perse, since a lot of the more interesting military app pursuits came out in the last year (hear about the gay bomb or the hornet attractor?).
And then there's some mention of how a spinoff of HAARP and likewise ionospheric heaters may have the ability to perform such a function ... my concern as to this tech and current events is of course the idea that just maybe some more influential members of our government would be delighted with converting the Muslim world over in a slightly-less-bloody fashion than before.

there have been several such studies. several research teams have recorded brain activity from nuns, monks, and "ordinary" religious persons during prayer or meditation, focusing on the time spans when the participants report feeling "close to God" or at the height of the meditative experience. the researchers then attempt to recreate these brain patterns artificially in other randomly selected participants. there have been some notable successes, wherein the participants report feelings "as though they are not alone" or "spiritual." i will try to find citations that are available to the public, but right now all i have is access through a site that requires paid subscription.

but here's a fun tidbit from an article i was reading a few months back:

Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran, director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, has studied TLE patients and has found that their Galvanic Skin Responses are disproportionately aroused by presentation of religious words. The word Jesus will make their palms sweat as much as those of normal people do when presented by sexual terms. Once again it appears that brain processes (and possibly pathological ones?) are the cause of religious experience.

Tht fits with the anecdotal 'evidence' that gives organised religion (Catholicism, especially) a history tainted by stories of sexual interference... children being 'touched' in certain ways in order to make certain 'connections' later in life.... a form of Pavlovian Abuse.

Fine, but what about normal religious people? Seems the only difference then is "temporary."

And, I suspect, the DEGREE to which people are willing to suspend their disbelief.... I can 'believe' the Matrix, while I watch it - but there is no point at which I ever actually suspect I am IN the Matrix.

I'm an occultist.

I'm sorry.

Once again - you are falling into the text-book trap of assuming that the latter incarnations of the word, the latter understandings... have ANY relation to the origins.

Reading the Old Testament, it is pretty clear that Sheol was originally written into the text to be a nothingness - the end of all things. The kind of revisionist reading you are allowing yourself to do, is the same kind of revisionism that allows 'christians' to try to claim that the 'elohiym' of Genesis actually represents the 'trinity'.

But, I can see where you are getting it from... the same kind of revisionism that tries to claim an 'eternal soul', in the Hebrew...

You should really do a study on Sheol, saying that it is nothing but a state of nothingness shows you have not studied enough.

Individual passages in the Old Testament may be argued as being late developments, but taken as a whole, the translation narratives, the resuscitations, the witch at Endor, and the individual resurrection passages, all point to a certain Old Testament belief in a life beyond death.

To believe in all the promises of God, from Genesis 3:5 on, is to believe that God will return the dead to the land of the living. Old Testament belief acknowledged by almost all academics, from the most conservative to the most liberal, that communion with God will eventually overcome the bonds of death. Even Sheol cannot be beyond God’s purview. The translation narratives, the account of the witch at Endor, the passages directly referring to resurrection and a life beyond death: all point to the Old Testament belief that there will be a life beyond this one.

Also, for example, Genesis 35:18 states: “It came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died).” The author of the book of 1 Kings wrote that Elijah prayed, “let this child’s soul come into him again...and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived” (17:21-22). Psalm 86:13 says, “You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.”

i think there is a critical problem with our modern mental health system, in that there is no explanation for why religious beliefs are granted special status when compared to similar beliefs.

for instance: if you are utterly convinced that there is an all-pervasive conspiracy of magical beings seeking to harm you, you are considered mentally ill. but if you believe there is an all-powerful diety or dieties who loves you and helps you to win your basketball games, you are not considered mentally ill.
I think the critical problem with our modern mental health system is that it has no coherent theory behind it. We diagnose broad conditions based on ambiguous symptoms, and attempt to treat with semi-random application of chemicals, psychotherapy, counseling, electro-shock, brain surgery (in extremis), but I can't see it as better than hit-and-hope. The Western medical establishment does not understand mental illness, because it refuses to see the possibility of spiritual causes for psychological and emotional problems.

An interesting difference between religious faith and delusion is that those suffering from delusions never seem to doubt their beliefs, while a Christian can struggle with faith, wanting to believe, but finding it difficult.

And, I suspect, the DEGREE to which people are willing to suspend their disbelief.... I can 'believe' the Matrix, while I watch it - but there is no point at which I ever actually suspect I am IN the Matrix.
Still, the suspension of disbelief in a movie theatre and the suspension of disbelief that allows for a belief in a god are the same faculty at work (discrimination), and it is a faculty we all have. I would tend to be skeptical (and suspect) of any biological evidence that indicates that people who hold to a religious belief and faith are vastly different from those who hold to non-religious beliefs and faith.

Okay, read that passage CAREFULLY. 1:28 is in the 6th day. God didn't create Adam until when? The only specific mention of Adam is already after the 7th day, which is later than the passages you provide, which are actually pertinent to the beasts on the earth. Indeed it does mention man and image, but certainly whom it was referring to wasn't Adam since specifically Eve hadn't even been created yet. So who was he (pre-Adam?) going to propegate with? Lilith (look it up...)?
2:19 is the first time that Adam is named as such. Then the naming of the animals (can i get a witness? yeah!) Then when there was "no one" for Adam to share his dominion with, god technically date-raped him and Adam woke up with the ol' ball & chain.

There are different emphases in the two chapters, but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1. Chapter 2 takes us back to the creation of the man.

i don't know about that, but i know for a fact that there is a documented organic brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) that is directly related to religiosity. TLE is a dangerously elevated level of activity in the temporal lobe or lobes of the brain, usually the left temporal, but sometimes right lobe or both. people who suffer from TLE have symptoms beyond the seizures, and one of the most fascinating is hyper-religiosity. people who weren't particularly religious before the onset of TLE will suddenly become fervently religious, consumed with spirituality and superstition, and will often report "feeling God's presence" in a very intimate and immediate manner.

an interesting speculation has arisen from studies of TLE, that Saul/Paul from the Bible was actually experiencing TLE; his experience on the road, where he saw a bright flash and fell down, is a perfect description of a seizure experience, and other symptoms (such as his following lack of appetite) also match perfectly with the symptoms of TLE. obviously this is pure speculation, but it's still an intriguing notion.

This sounds very intersting. Is blindness commonly linked as well?

for instance: if you are utterly convinced that there is an all-pervasive conspiracy of magical beings seeking to harm you, you are considered mentally ill. but if you believe there is an all-powerful diety or dieties who loves you and helps you to win your basketball games, you are not considered mentally ill.


There is a diffrence between these two cases. People who are in a sound state of mind who subscribe to a religious belief believe that it is true but in no way claim to be able to prove it objectively. People not in sound mind claim it is true, and then proceded to attempt to prove it objectivel "He's STANDING IN FRONT OF US! Cant you see him!". The mental patient believes something is physcially there which can be proven. Someone of sound mind believes something is there and believes it to be true but never claims to be able to prove it in a manner that is objectively and scientificaly viable.

I find it interesting that people use verses from the bible to prove the bible is true. Seems a little circular to me.

There are different emphases in the two chapters, but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1. Chapter 2 takes us back to the creation of the man.
Try reading it again. If it's really obvious you would see what i was talking about. The end of chapter one very clearly states that that was day 6. The beginning of chapter 2 clearly states that all that followed was on the seventh day (or later). And if you want to argue that then explain how in following, on the seventh day, 2:3 to 2:7, and Adam wasn't even named til 2:19 and Eve didn't show til 2:23.
2:2 And on the seventh day god ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And god blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which god created and made.
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the lord god had not caused it to rain upon the earth, AND THERE WAS NOT A MAN TO TILL THE GROUND. (BIG NOTE HERE)
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the lord god FORMED MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL.

Look the rest up yourself if you want but you don't seem to have clarity in your interpretation of the events. Don't get me wrong, you have good arguments, just not this one. It is very clear when it happens and the discretion of time. I stand by what i said.

Try reading it again. If it's really obvious you would see what i was talking about. The end of chapter one very clearly states that that was day 6. The beginning of chapter 2 clearly states that all that followed was on the seventh day (or later). And if you want to argue that then explain how in following, on the seventh day, 2:3 to 2:7, and Adam wasn't even named til 2:19 and Eve didn't show til 2:23.
2:2 And on the seventh day god ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And god blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which god created and made.
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the lord god had not caused it to rain upon the earth, AND THERE WAS NOT A MAN TO TILL THE GROUND. (BIG NOTE HERE)
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the lord god FORMED MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL.

Look the rest up yourself if you want but you don't seem to have clarity in your interpretation of the events. Don't get me wrong, you have good arguments, just not this one. It is very clear when it happens and the discretion of time. I stand by what i said.
Doesn't quite work for me... You skipped Genesis 2:4.

Genesis: 2:4 This is the story of how it all started,
of Heaven and Earth when they were created.

Adam and Eve
5 At the time GOD made Earth and Heaven, before any grasses or shrubs had sprouted from the ground--GOD hadn't yet sent rain on Earth, nor was there anyone around to work the ground 6 (the whole Earth was watered by underground springs)-- 7 GOD formed Man out of dirt from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. The Man came alive--a living soul!

You see?.. the timing isn't sequential.

EDIT: Seriously, there are far more obvious discrepancies in the Bible to pick on ..you just chose a lame one.

Try reading it again. If it's really obvious you would see what i was talking about. The end of chapter one very clearly states that that was day 6. The beginning of chapter 2 clearly states that all that followed was on the seventh day (or later). And if you want to argue that then explain how in following, on the seventh day, 2:3 to 2:7, and Adam wasn't even named til 2:19 and Eve didn't show til 2:23.
2:2 And on the seventh day god ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And god blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which god created and made.
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the lord god had not caused it to rain upon the earth, AND THERE WAS NOT A MAN TO TILL THE GROUND. (BIG NOTE HERE)
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the lord god FORMED MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL.

Look the rest up yourself if you want but you don't seem to have clarity in your interpretation of the events. Don't get me wrong, you have good arguments, just not this one. It is very clear when it happens and the discretion of time. I stand by what i said.

Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special, detailed concern for man and his environment. Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.

EDIT: Seriously, there are far more obvious discrepancies in the Bible to pick on ..you just chose a lame one.

Lets talk about those then.

God is a dictator. For those of you who haven't noticed, the ALL FORGIVING GOD sends people to hell (a gulag, concentration camp, whatever you will) for not doing his will (sound psychotic yet?). Why would the most intelligent, divine being be so insecure that he needs us to worship him? He sounds more like a Psychotic dictator to me.....

P.S. Christians are creepy.... they scare the hell out of me with their crazy, cult-like beliefs

Doesn't quite work for me... You skipped Genesis 2:4.

Genesis: 2:4 This is the story of how it all started,
of Heaven and Earth when they were created.

Adam and Eve
5 At the time GOD made Earth and Heaven, before any grasses or shrubs had sprouted from the ground--GOD hadn't yet sent rain on Earth, nor was there anyone around to work the ground 6 (the whole Earth was watered by underground springs)-- 7 GOD formed Man out of dirt from the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. The Man came alive--a living soul!

You see?.. the timing isn't sequential.

EDIT: Seriously, there are far more obvious discrepancies in the Bible to pick on ..you just chose a lame one.
Not to bruise your ego or whatever, but it doesn't matter whether it works for you, it was a response to a communication between Justifidians and myself, but i'm happy to indulge you anyway. Looking at it, maybe it clarifies even further ...
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the lord god made the earth and the heavens,

And also, for further clarity ... the very first sentence in chapter 2 qualifies the timeline further, i'll show from the last of chapter 1.

1:31 And god saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
2 THUS the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Then of course, by numerical order, simply refer to prior posting regarding this passage from Genesis, and include the part i discluded, for your fancy, i guess.
Dunno what version you purport to express here but oh well you can be facetious all you want, i'm not interested in nitpicking the whole thing. This issue, as i said, has to do with something Justifidians and i were discussing.
N'joy

Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special, detailed concern for man and his environment. Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.
As Heikoku said, that doesn't hold water.
If the latter presupposes the former and is built upon it, then by the very wording and orientation of genesis itself, then god saw that the betrayal of his holy intent or whatever you want to call that transgression, and called it good. At the end of the sixth day. Here's cliffs notes on it:

1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Chronologically that still happened before Eve even occurred. Hence, your argument doesn't really hold water. Unless it was god's intent to have that whole apple thing happen in the first place. Otherwise you could and probably should concede that the issue with the apple indeed was after god had already called for all the beasts already to go forth and multiply, independent of Adam and especially Eve. That pretty much substantiates my point, as i had stood.
For further references to when all that occurred, see either your bible or the post just above this one.

To a certian level people can see what is and is not inherintly good. What is difficult is when they do/do not practice it. Also there is a problem with motive. Doing good for good's sake I have no problem with, and I suspect God has no problem with it. What is a problem is when you do good things and recieve/attempt to recieve glory for it. I am not saying it has to be in the Bible for it to be good. The bible is not a book saying "this is good, this is bad, this good is better than that good etc". It is far more simple than that. Justification into heaven is NOT based on works. If we could work our way into hevaven then there would have been no need for Jesus.

Ok... so what you are saying is you don't need to do anything good to get into heaven, you just need to believe in God. Then why in religions do they tell you what and what not to do if you don't actually need to do anything good? e.g you should stay a virgin until married etc etc. When you can do anything you want, still believe in him and still get into heaven, you don't need to go to church, you could sleep around, kill people you don't like etc and still get into heaven by believing in God? Now that doesn't make much sense.

EDIT: Seriously, there are far more obvious discrepancies in the Bible to pick on ..you just chose a lame one.
Just so ya know, i was quite impressed with a few succinct postings a little while back, and i dedicated a song on my radio show for you.
It's from Killing Joke, entitled "Mathematics of Chaos", and the lines that rang in both voices are as such, from the chorus:

I have my doubt
A state of eternal conflict is all i have found
We build a wall that is made of tears
Watch the house fall down
And at the end of my life, yes at the end of my life ...
All shall be well, ALL IS AS IT WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE.
-

Good tune. They even use Uhura from Star Trek in it, giving transporter coordinates.
Thought that might matter to you, i could be wrong.

There is a diffrence between these two cases. People who are in a sound state of mind who subscribe to a religious belief believe that it is true but in no way claim to be able to prove it objectively. People not in sound mind claim it is true, and then proceded to attempt to prove it objectivel "He's STANDING IN FRONT OF US! Cant you see him!". The mental patient believes something is physcially there which can be proven. Someone of sound mind believes something is there and believes it to be true but never claims to be able to prove it in a manner that is objectively and scientificaly viable.
Let me get this straight. Crazy people have imaginary friends that they believe to exist and try to prove it to others (that sounds like a LOT Of theists). Not crazy theists have imaginary friends that they believe to exist but do not try to prove to others. That sounds like the same thing to me, with only a difference in willingness to vocalize their dillusion.

Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special, detailed concern for man and his environment. Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.
That's not a good appologetic, because that is bad story telling. The sort of story telling that you propose makes it easy to confuse the reader/listener of the story. Any half way decent author or story teller would make things sequential or at least say that "while such and such was occuring, this other things was occuring as well." Yet the bible doesn't say that, so why presume that's what they mean unless you need to make excuses for a contradiction? If this were any other story, the christian/jew would pounce on it and point out the contradiction. But since it's the bible, we have to make excuses for god's inability to tell a story in a clear and concise manner, something an omnipotent being should be able to do.

Lets talk about those then.
Great, then how about the Easter paradox. I've posed this an innummerable amount of times and have never heard an explaination that makes any sense. Choose any one of these problems with Jesus' resurrection and then please explain how the conflicting gospels can all be true. This is what Dan Barker refers to as his "Leave No Stone Unturned" challenge.

What time did the women visit the tomb?
· Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
· Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
· Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
· John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?
· Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
· Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
· Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
· John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?
· Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
· Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
· Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
· John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
· Matthew: No (28:2)
· Mark: Yes (16:4)
· Luke: Yes (24:2)
· John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
· Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
· Mark: One young man (16:5)
· Luke: Two men (24:4)
· John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
· Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
· Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
· Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
· John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?
· Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
· Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
· Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
· John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?
· Matthew: Yes (28:8)
· Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
· Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
· John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
· Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
· Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
· Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
· John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?
· Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
· Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
· John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
· Matthew: Yes (28:9)
· John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
· Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
· Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
· Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
· John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
· Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
· Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
· Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
· Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
· John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?
· Mark: No (16:13)
· Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?
· Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
· Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
· Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
· John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
· Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
· Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
· John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
· Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?
· Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
· Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
· Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
· John: No ascension
· Paul: No ascension
· Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Ok... so what you are saying is you don't need to do anything good to get into heaven, you just need to believe in God. Then why in religions do they tell you what and what not to do if you don't actually need to do anything good? e.g you should stay a virgin until married etc etc. When you can do anything you want, still believe in him and still get into heaven, you don't need to go to church, you could sleep around, kill people you don't like etc and still get into heaven by believing in God? Now that doesn't make much sense.

No, I wasn't saying that. You are taking me out of context. The Bible does tell you all those things, but those things are not reletive to salvation directly. Christianity is not (contary to popular belief) all about obtaining salvation. Go see post 306 for a clearer understanding.

Let me get this straight. Crazy people have imaginary friends that they believe to exist and try to prove it to others (that sounds like a LOT Of theists). Not crazy theists have imaginary friends that they believe to exist but do not try to prove to others. That sounds like the same thing to me, with only a difference in willingness to vocalize their dillusion.

No you have it wrong. Let me get this clear to you.

Christians
- Believe there is a being beyond our understanding
- Believe this being is present all the time
- All have a univeral understanding of who/what said being is
- Do not believe that said being is objectively provable to exist
- Have faith in being's existance (not objective proof)
- Believes they may (on very rare occation) see/hear said being metaphysically
- Do not expect all other people to be able to understand it the way they do, but encourages them to try
- Choose to believe in this, not a matter of medical condition

Mad people
- Believe that there are beings that are within our understanding
- Believe this because they are seeing/hearing them literally, physically
- Are confused as to why other people cannot see/hear said being as its "right there"
- Have wildly conflicting beliefs/understandings as to what this being is, despite it being within their understanding.
- Believe it is objectively provable that said being is there "He's right in front of us"
- Does not "choose" to see/hear creatures, visions are forced upon them

There is a diffrence between these two cases. People who are in a sound state of mind who subscribe to a religious belief believe that it is true but in no way claim to be able to prove it objectively. People not in sound mind claim it is true, and then proceded to attempt to prove it objectivel "He's STANDING IN FRONT OF US! Cant you see him!".
not true at all; many mentally ill people who believe in invisible conspiracies of some sort will opennly admit that they can't prove them...they insist that evidence support their theory, and they often will call other people foolish or arrogant for failing to "see the signs," but they quite often don't believe the object of their fixation is physically manefest in plain view.

The mental patient believes something is physcially there which can be proven. Someone of sound mind believes something is there and believes it to be true but never claims to be able to prove it in a manner that is objectively and scientificaly viable.
as i said, many insane people believe something is there and believes it to be true but make no claim to be able to prove it in a manner that is objectively and scientifically valid.

also, religious people quite often believe something is physically there which can be proven, and that something is then disproven. for instance, the Shroud of Turin, the many "manefestations" of the Virgin Mary, the transubstantiation of material during communion, etc. many religious people profess belief in physical events or entities which can be proven to be physically non-existent...i guess you are saying those religious people are crazy?

No you have it wrong. Let me get this clear to you.

Christians
- Believe there is a being beyond our understanding
- Believe this being is present all the time
- All have a univeral understanding of who/what said being is
- Do not believe that said being is objectively provable to exist
- Have faith in being's existance (not objective proof)
- Believes they may (on very rare occation) see/hear said being metaphysically
- Do not expect all other people to be able to understand it the way they do, but encourages them to try
- Choose to believe in this, not a matter of medical condition

Mad people
- Believe that there are beings that are within our understanding
- Believe this because they are seeing/hearing them literally, physically
- Are confused as to why other people cannot see/hear said being as its "right there"
- Have wildly conflicting beliefs/understandings as to what this being is, despite it being within their understanding.
- Believe it is objectively provable that said being is there "He's right in front of us"
- Does not "choose" to see/hear creatures, visions are forced upon them
i would LOVE to see you try to support these wild generalizations with anything approaching fact. your criterion for "mad people" most certainly does not encompass a huge percentage of mentally ill individuals, and your definition would exclude a significant chunk of the people we KNOW FOR A FACT are suffering from organic mental diseases. simultaneous, you make claims about religious persons which simply are not true of a great number of religious persons. i don't have any idea why you would ever attempt such a ridiculous effort. please support it with something beyond your personal opinion.

i would LOVE to see you try to support these wild generalizations with anything approaching fact. your criterion for "mad people" most certainly does not encompass a huge percentage of mentally ill individuals, and your definition would exclude a significant chunk of the people we KNOW FOR A FACT are suffering from organic mental diseases. simultaneous, you make claims about religious persons which simply are not true of a great number of religious persons. i don't have any idea why you would ever attempt such a ridiculous effort. please support it with something beyond your personal opinion.

I was just producing an example. I never said it was in any way scientificly accurate, but on a basic level it shows a clear diffrence between mental patients and religious. But I think the whole notion of comparing religious people to mental patients is rather stupid. Unless you can come up with some kind of certian biological proof that 90%+ of religious people have one specific type of disorder which encourges them to believe in God then your comparison is moot and rather immature.

Also, for example, Genesis 35:18 states: “It came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died).” The author of the book of 1 Kings wrote that Elijah prayed, “let this child’s soul come into him again...and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived” (17:21-22). Psalm 86:13 says, “You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.”

Psalms is irrelevent... it isn't a 'true' Old Testament text... that's like using Revelation as an example of the New Testament.

The Old Testament CLEARLY uses 'soul' as a desription ONLY of the essence of life... the 'breath' that was 'breathed' in to the inanimate, to make it animate.

The 'soul' is, therefore, synonymous with the life, the passion, the spark, the blood.

Nothing to do with 'immortality' or an 'afterlife'.

You should really do a study on Sheol, saying that it is nothing but a state of nothingness shows you have not studied enough.

Individual passages in the Old Testament may be argued as being late developments, but taken as a whole, the translation narratives, the resuscitations, the witch at Endor, and the individual resurrection passages, all point to a certain Old Testament belief in a life beyond death.

To believe in all the promises of God, from Genesis 3:5 on, is to believe that God will return the dead to the land of the living. Old Testament belief acknowledged by almost all academics, from the most conservative to the most liberal, that communion with God will eventually overcome the bonds of death. Even Sheol cannot be beyond God’s purview. The translation narratives, the account of the witch at Endor, the passages directly referring to resurrection and a life beyond death: all point to the Old Testament belief that there will be a life beyond this one.

On the contrary - further study will reveal to you the error of your ways.

Where you are mistaken, here - is in the belief that reading a handful of 'experts' has given you the same benefit that actually studying the text would have.

The OLd Testament CLEARLY uses 'soul' as a desription ONLY of the essence of life... the 'breath' that was 'breathed' in to the inanimate, to make it animate.


I dont know how accurate you or whoever you are arguing with is in this matter Grave, but you are obviouly going to need some quotes, as they are what he provided. Also I am unsure as to your problem with the Pslams. They often provide accounts of things both physical and spiritual.

I dont know how accurate you or whoever you are arguing with is in this matter Grave, but you are obviouly going to need some quotes, as they are what he provided. Also I am unsure as to your problem with the Pslams. They often provide accounts of things both physical and spiritual.
If he puts the quotes in as he reads them you wont be able to understand :P and if he translates them in anything but word for word mannor (even if) you two will just bicker some more (though he is at the advantage of understanding the origional)

I dont know how accurate you or whoever you are arguing with is in this matter Grave, but you are obviouly going to need some quotes, as they are what he provided. Also I am unsure as to your problem with the Pslams. They often provide accounts of things both physical and spiritual.

Psalms is a book of poetry, Neo - it's a collection of songs.

Quoting Psalms as a serious source, is like quoting a "P.O.D." song, because they sing about 'god' too...

Psalms is a book of poetry, Neo - it's a collection of songs.


Yes but they are (often) by a man who saw the events first hand that he's singing/writing poetry about.

If he puts the quotes in as he reads them you wont be able to understand :P and if he translates them in anything but word for word mannor (even if) you two will just bicker some more (though he is at the advantage of understanding the origional)

Thank you, UT - and very true... it doesn't matter how I debate with Neo - he can't read the Hebrew, and won't accept any translation except for the 'biblical' version.

Yes but they are (often) by a man who saw the events first hand that he's singing/writing poetry about.

This from the man who admits he hasn't READ the bibe, yes?

Yes but they are (often) by a man who saw the events first hand that he's singing/writing poetry about.
More likly writen down after the song had passed through 20+ generations of being that just a song

Again like quoting a P.O.D song but only if you heard it (no recording medium) a hundred years ago

Or dont you admit to the oral tradition that was the bible before written form

Not to bruise your ego or whatever, but it doesn't matter whether it works for you, it was a response to a communication between Justifidians and myself, but i'm happy to indulge you anyway. Looking at it, maybe it clarifies even further ...
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the lord god made the earth and the heavens,

And also, for further clarity ... the very first sentence in chapter 2 qualifies the timeline further, i'll show from the last of chapter 1.

1:31 And god saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
2 THUS the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Then of course, by numerical order, simply refer to prior posting regarding this passage from Genesis, and include the part i discluded, for your fancy, i guess.
Dunno what version you purport to express here but oh well you can be facetious all you want, i'm not interested in nitpicking the whole thing. This issue, as i said, has to do with something Justifidians and i were discussing.
N'joy
Oh, no bruised ego here, not for a simple figure of speech. Sorry for butting in and referring to your selection as 'lame'.

My point was only that Genesis 2:5 does not sequentially follow Genesis 2:4 and what came prior to it; 2:4 ends a chapter. At least in my copy of the Bible (The Message).

Just so ya know, i was quite impressed with a few succinct postings a little while back, and i dedicated a song on my radio show for you.
It's from Killing Joke, entitled "Mathematics of Chaos", and the lines that rang in both voices are as such, from the chorus:

I have my doubt
A state of eternal conflict is all i have found
We build a wall that is made of tears
Watch the house fall down
And at the end of my life, yes at the end of my life ...
All shall be well, ALL IS AS IT WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE.
-

Good tune. They even use Uhura from Star Trek in it, giving transporter coordinates.
Thought that might matter to you, i could be wrong.
Thank you.

This from the man who admits he hasn't READ the bibe, yes?

I have read the Bible. Not the "entire" Bible, but very large chunks (I would say over 75%). And yes I have only read it in English.

Thank you, UT - and very true... it doesn't matter how I debate with Neo - he can't read the Hebrew, and won't accept any translation except for the 'biblical' version.

There is a good reason. Since I can't confirm what you are telling me, I cannot confirm it as true and you could say anything you liked about it and I would not be able to debate back. I refuse to be told what something says, I prefer to read it for myself.

There is a good reason. Since I can't confirm what you are telling me, I cannot confirm it as true and you could say anything you liked about it and I would not be able to debate back. I refuse to be told what something says, I prefer to read it for myself.
which baffles me why you get "told" about the bible in church but believe it without reading it yourself

which baffles me why you get "told" about the bible in church but believe it without reading it yourself

I have a copy of the Bible in my hand. I can read it for myself, and analysise it for myself.

There is a good reason. Since I can't confirm what you are telling me, I cannot confirm it as true and you could say anything you liked about it and I would not be able to debate back. I refuse to be told what something says, I prefer to read it for myself.

And yet, you choose NOT to!

You DON'T read the scripture (you STILL haven't read the bible).

You DON'T learn Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek - or even Latin - so, you WILLINGLY are accepting ONLY the <very> flawed English translations.

You DO accept OTHER translations - i.e. ONLY those that agree with your bias on what you think the text should mean.

What is the first verse of the Bible, Neo?

From the Hebrew - come on... it's an easy one.

All you have, is the fatally flawed English translations, which you accept blindly.

I have a copy of the Bible in my hand. I can read it for myself, and analysise it for myself.

Only in the English, Neo.

So - a flawed translation, based on flawed translations - and skewed by millenia of prejudices, political maneuvering, and personal choice.

And, even despite all that... you STILL haven't read the book... just 'cherry-picked' the verses you fancied.

And yet, you choose NOT to!

You DON'T read the scripture (you STILL haven't read the bible).

You DON'T learn Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek - or even Latin - so, you WILLINGLY are accepting ONLY the <very> flawed English translations.

You DO accept OTHER translations - i.e. ONLY those that agree with your bias on what you think the text should mean.

What is the first verse of the Bible, Neo?

From the Hebrew - come on... it's an easy one.

All you have, is the fatally flawed English translations, which you accept blindly.


and yet manages to base his whole philosophy/life around it

and yet manages to base his whole philosophy/life around it

And THAT is just madness to me...

To claim to base your life around a text you haven't even read....

Which would be bad enough if that text was the original.... but to not have even read what equates to the 'revision notes'....

Only in the English, Neo.

So - a flawed translation, based on flawed translations - and skewed by millenia of prejudices, political maneuvering, and personal choice.

And, even despite all that... you STILL haven't read the book... just 'cherry-picked' the verses you fancied.

I have not cherry picked anything. I dont have a particular ideology which I need them to support. I just look at what is there and do my best to make sense of it with the resorces I have. What I haven't read I would be quite happy to read when I get the chance.

I have not cherry picked anything. I dont have a particular ideology which I need them to support. I just look at what is there and do my best to make sense of it with the resorces I have. What I haven't read I would be quite happy to read when I get the chance.
you are basing your life philosophy on a text you freely admit you have not even read in its entirety. are you serious? and since it is possible to purchase a complete edition of the Bible, how can you claim you don't have access to the "resources" necessary to read the whole Bible? you can learn to read other languages, so how can you claim you don't have the "resources" to read the text in its original language? if you are going to base your LIFE PHILOSOPHY AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIVINE on this book, how could you possibly neglect to put these basic efforts forward?

if you are assigned a book report, you read the whole book before you complete the assignment, don't you? you don't just read a chapter or two and assume all your conclusions are valid, right? why are you showing less respect for your values, morals, and concept of the universe than you would show toward a book report?

I have not cherry picked anything. I dont have a particular ideology which I need them to support. I just look at what is there and do my best to make sense of it with the resorces I have. What I haven't read I would be quite happy to read when I get the chance.

"When I get the chance" sounds like an excuse, Neo.

Unless, of course, you are currently imprisoned by terrorists, or something... who are refusing you access to a bible...

But, then - you just said you had a bible in your hand... so, how exactly is it that you 'haven't had a chance'?

Further - You haven't read the bible, yet. Which means - you are a 'christian' (in name, at least) before you have even read the bible. Thus - you already cling to the 'christian' ideology. Thus, you DO have a particular ideology - and that is a bias to your objective reading of scripture.

By way of illumination....

Osiris was resurrected, in Egyptian religion.... do you believe Osiris was truly resurrected?

Jesus was resurrected, in 'christian' religion... do you believe that Jesus was truly resurrected?

If you don't give EXACTLY the same answer to both of those questions, with the same conditions, and allowances.... then you ARE reading scripture in a way that conforms the text to YOUR subjectivity.

you are basing your life philosophy on a text you freely admit you have not even read in its entirety. are you serious? and since it is possible to purchase a complete edition of the Bible, how can you claim you don't have access to the "resources" necessary to read the whole Bible? you can learn to read other languages, so how can you claim you don't have the "resources" to read the text in its original language? if you are going to base your LIFE PHILOSOPHY AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIVINE on this book, how could you possibly neglect to put these basic efforts forward?

if you are assigned a book report, you read the whole book before you complete the assignment, don't you? you don't just read a chapter or two and assume all your conclusions are valid, right? why are you showing less respect for your values, morals, and concept of the universe than you would show toward a book report?

I have read the Gospels in there entireity. They are (It can eaisly be argued) the most important part of the Bible. While the rest is indeed important, an understanding of Christ, who he is and what he said is the most important part, seeing as the Old Testement points towards it and the New Testement (after the Gospels) looks back to it.

You can learn to read other languages, so how can you claim you don't have the "resources" to read the text in its original language?


That's the one that drives me crazy....

The only way you can read the text in it's original language - is by LEARNING the original language....

So - if you WANT to truly grasp the text, you learn the language, surely?

Materials do exist from which a person can educate themselves, so the ONLY valid excuse for not learning a language (one that a person has STATED that they DESIRE to be able to read) is laziness.

Neo claims as a disadvantage (a "lack of resources") something that could be EASILY gained with just a little effort.

"When I get the chance" sounds like an excuse, Neo.

Unless, of course, you are currently imprisoned by terrorists, or something... who are refusing you access to a bible...

But, then - you just said you had a bible in your hand... so, how exactly is it that you 'haven't had a chance'?

Its quite simple. I am doing 4 A-Levels. I dont have the time to commit to an intensive study of the minor prohets which would give me anything of signifcent spiritual value.


Further - You haven't read the bible, yet. Which means - you are a 'christian' (in name, at least) before you have even read the bible. Thus - you already cling to the 'christian' ideology. Thus, you DO have a particular ideology - and that is a bias to your objective reading of scripture.


As I said to you, I have not read the Bible in original Hebrew, but I have read over 75% of it in English. And perhaps I should of rephrased to you. What I meant in regards to the ideology remark is this. I am not of one political ideology that goes around using fragments of the Bible to support its views.


Osiris was resurrected, in Egyptian religion.... do you believe Osiris was truly resurrected?

Jesus was resurrected, in 'christian' religion... do you believe that Jesus was truly resurrected?

If you don't give EXACTLY the same answer to both of those questions, with the same conditions, and allowances.... then you ARE reading scripture in a way that conforms the text to YOUR subjectivity.

There is a lot less historical proof that Osirs was resurected than there is that Jesus was.

I have read the Gospels in there entireity. They are (It can eaisly be argued) the most important part of the Bible. While the rest is indeed important, an understanding of Christ, who he is and what he said is the most important part, seeing as the Old Testement points towards it and the New Testement (after the Gospels) looks back to it.

Nonsense.

If you haven't read the Old Testament, then Jesus is just some guy who got banged on a cross.

Without the Old Testament prophecy, and all that accompanies it, there can be no 'messiah'... there can be no 'christ'.

If you haven't hit both covers, and every word in between (with the acceptable exceptions of Psalms and Revelation) - then you have no understanding of 'christ', and so - no understanding of 'christianity'.

I have read the Gospels in there entireity. They are (It can eaisly be argued) the most important part of the Bible. While the rest is indeed important, an understanding of Christ, who he is and what he said is the most important part, seeing as the Old Testement points towards it and the New Testement (after the Gospels) looks back to it.
again, you are basically saying, "Well, I read the really IMPORTANT bits, so why bother with the rest? I mean, sure, it has some useful information and symbolism and details and all that, but who really needs it? I got the gist."

that would get you a C- on a book report. do you really want to live a C- life?

Nonsense.

If you haven't read the Old Testament, then Jesus is just some guy who got banged on a cross.

Without the Old Testament prophecy, and all that accompanies it, there can be no 'messiah'... there can be no 'christ'.

If you haven't hit both covers, and every word in between (with the acceptable exceptions of Psalms and Revelation) - then you have no understanding of 'christ', and so - no understanding of 'christianity'.

If you read the Gospels, you will see they are littered with Old Testement refences, they explain "As it is written in the scriptures" and then show how Jesus was the man the Old Testement said he would be. Obviously I am not dismissing the Old Testement, but when it comes down to it, its functions and values are diffrent to those of the Gospels. They are both valuable, I just believe that the Gospel is "more" valuable.

Its quite simple. I am doing 4 A-Levels. I dont have the time to commit to an intensive study of the minor prohets which would give me anything of signifcent spiritual value.

so your personal life philosophy and concept of the divine are less important to you than your current occupations? i dunno, i tend to put a little more effort into things that shape my entire being and life.


There is a lot less historical proof that Osirs was resurected than there is that Jesus was.
no, there isn't.

again, you are basically saying, "Well, I read the really IMPORTANT bits, so why bother with the rest? I mean, sure, it has some useful information and symbolism and details and all that, but who really needs it? I got the gist."

that would get you a C- on a book report. do you really want to live a C- life?

God judges my life not on how much of the Bible I have read, but on how I responded to the most important part of the Bible. His son.

Its quite simple. I am doing 4 A-Levels. I dont have the time to commit to an intensive study of the minor prohets which would give me anything of signifcent spiritual value.


Excuse. I was in the middle of 4 A-Levels (and sciences, at that) when I first read the Bible in Latin - which involved teaching myself to read Latin as part of the process.... for which, I borrowed books from my sister, who was studying Latin at school.

You are excusing your laziness by saying you are 'too busy'. If it were ACTUALLY important to you, you would find the time.


As I said to you, I have not read the Bible in original Hebrew, but I have read over 75% of it in English. And perhaps I should of rephrased to you. What I meant in regards to the ideology remark is this. I am not of one political ideology that goes around using fragments of the Bible to support its views.


On the contrary, Neo. I have debated with you many times, and you have, indeed, supported arguments with direct scripture, or with reference to other commentary on scripture.

Since you have not read the bible - you ARE allowing your ideology to pick 'fragmentary' evidence. You have no comprehension of the text in it's entirety, so EVERY reference you make is, by nature, fragmentary.

My point still stands.... If you haven't read it in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek... all you have read is a flawed copy.


There is a lot less historical proof that Osirs was resurected than there is that Jesus was.

On the contrary. There is absolutely no independent evidence that Jesus was resurrected, and similarly no 'independent' evidence of the resurrection of Osiris.

However, the entire process of "Osirification" is evidence of the resurrection of Osiris, in a way.... so Osiris ACTUALLY provides more circumstantial evidence.

You should open your eyes BEFORE you open your mouth, Neo.

God judges my life not on how much of the Bible I have read, but on how I responded to the most important part of the Bible. His son.
how can you possibly know that? you haven't even bothered to read God's Book! you haven't even read the text you have already decided (sight unseen) is the Word of God, let alone reading the other holy texts that also claim to be the Word of God.

so your personal life philosophy and concept of the divine are less important to you than your current occupations? i dunno, i tend to put a little more effort into things that shape my entire being and life.


Lets put it this way. If I were to undertake a major study of all the minor prophets and the parts of the Old Testement that no one seriously examines but are none the less valuable, it would take a great deal of time and effort and would not significently change me spiritually. The rebuilding of Jerusleum and the tempting of the Isralites by the Midianites are all very valuable spiritual lessons but you dont have to understand them to lead a life that glorfifies God. I personaly think God would much rather me be out there, leading my life as he wants me to rather than sitting down and analysing the technicalities of how other people have lived a life that honoured him before.


no, there isn't.

Have you ever read a book called "who moved the stone". It was written by an ardent Athiest who set out to prove that Jesus could not posibly have died and been resurected. After seveal years of study he gave up, became a Christian and wrote a book about the proof that Jesus had indeed been raised from the dead and that it was historically provable.

Lets put it this way. If I were to undertake a major study of all the minor prophets and the parts of the Old Testement that no one seriously examines but are none the less valuable, it would take a great deal of time and effort and would not significently change me spiritually. The rebuilding of Jerusleum and the tempting of the Isralites by the Midianites are all very valuable spiritual lessons but you dont have to understand them to lead a life that glorfifies God. I personaly think God would much rather me be out there, leading my life as he wants me to rather than sitting down and analysing the technicalities of how other people have lived a life that honoured him before.

Neo, you keep saying the same thing: "I am just too busy. Ensuring that I have read the book I base my life upon is just not as important as getting good grades in school."

you can't honestly believe what you are saying, can you?

Have you ever read a book called "who moved the stone". It was written by an ardent Athiest who set out to prove that Jesus could not posibly have died and been resurected. After seveal years of study he gave up, became a Christian and wrote a book about the proof that Jesus had indeed been raised from the dead and that it was historically provable.
i've heard that anecdote several times, and it is worthless.

even IF the guy really existed, even IF he actually was an atheist, and even IF he "converted" for the reasons that are claimed, that wouldn't prove a damn thing. all that would show is that the fellow in that story did a piss poor job of researching. there is NO solid historical evidence for the divinity of Jesus...indeed, the only solid, verified, historical proof of Jesus' existence is his CRIMINAL RECORD!

If you read the Gospels, you will see they are littered with Old Testement refences, they explain "As it is written in the scriptures" and then show how Jesus was the man the Old Testement said he would be. Obviously I am not dismissing the Old Testement, but when it comes down to it, its functions and values are diffrent to those of the Gospels. They are both valuable, I just believe that the Gospel is "more" valuable.

Hey Neo... just because something quotes something else... doesn't mean that the quote is accurate, or that the original source was true.

Only you can make those judgements, based on your knowledge of the original text - which you have admitted, you haven't read... and consider 'less important'.

If you haven't read the Old Testament, the New Testament is a fabric with no support.

For does it not say in Matthew 16:18 "That which was written in the scriptures of old, beareth fruit in the words of the new"?

On the contrary, Neo. I have debated with you many times, and you have, indeed, supported arguments with direct scripture, or with reference to other commentary on scripture.

Since you have not read the bible - you ARE allowing your ideology to pick 'fragmentary' evidence. You have no comprehension of the text in it's entirety, so EVERY reference you make is, by nature, fragmentary.

As I said, I have not read the ENTIRE Bible. And yes I have chosen scripture to support my position on things. But unlike several people on this forum, I dont take it out of context.


My point still stands.... If you haven't read it in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek... all you have read is a flawed copy.


No, you just believe it stands because you like to think of yourself as supiror to all those who put several years of work into translating it. But on this point we will just have to agree to disagree.


On the contrary. There is absolutely no independent evidence that Jesus was resurrected, and similarly no 'independent' evidence of the resurrection of Osiris.

Its funny. You complain about a lack of independent evidence yet you often emphise the fact that the Bible was written by men and not God. Tell me then, what qualifies as "indepenednt" evidence, if not the accounts of people.

See this web site for an intersting analysis of the resurection

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html

God judges my life not on how much of the Bible I have read, but on how I responded to the most important part of the Bible. His son.

And yet, you have no idea of who 'his son' was.

How can you 'respond' to 'christos', if you do not know what the anointing is?

How can you know if Jesus was Messiah, without knowing WHAT Messiah means?

How can you know Jesus for the son of god, if you don't have the frame of reference to comprehend what that would mean?

Hey Neo... just because something quotes something else... doesn't mean that the quote is accurate, or that the original source was true.

Only you can make those judgements, based on your knowledge of the original text - which you have admitted, you haven't read... and consider 'less important'.

If you haven't read the Old Testament, the New Testament is a fabric with no support.

For does it not say in Matthew 16:18 "That which was written in the scriptures of old, beareth fruit in the words of the new"?

The New testement does not just quote the Old. It demonstrates how the Old Testement prophicies are fuffiled in Jesus's life. I have not read "All" of the Old Testement, but I have read enough to see that it supports the new entirely. There are over 300 prohicies in the Old Testement, every one of them fuffiled in Jesus's life.

And yet, you have no idea of who 'his son' was.

How can you 'respond' to 'christos', if you do not know what the anointing is?

How can you know if Jesus was Messiah, without knowing WHAT Messiah means?

How can you know Jesus for the son of god, if you don't have the frame of reference to comprehend what that would mean?

Again you over simplify. I never said I have not read the Old Testement. I just said I haven't read it all. And I never said to dismiss the Old Tesement, just that I believe it is not as spiritually valuable as the Gospels. The Gospels explain Jesus and who he is. They also explain who we are in relation to him. John 3:16 does that very well.

As I said, I have not read the ENTIRE Bible. And yes I have chosen scripture to support my position on things. But unlike several people on this forum, I dont take it out of context.

YOU DON'T KNOW THE CONTEXT! you haven't READ the context! how can you possibly assume you aren't taking it out of context, when you haven't read the whole context?!


No, you just believe it stands because you like to think of yourself as supiror to all those who put several years of work into translating it. But on this point we will just have to agree to disagree.

totally wrong. any honest translator will tell you that even the best possible job of translation will still cost you a lot of the original meaning. languages aren't identical, and much of the connotation, underlying tones, and significance will be lost in translation, even under the best of circumstances. this is particularly true when you are dealing with material as philosophically complex and rife with imagry as the Bible.

Grave is not being "superior" at all by recognizing this simple reality. he's being honest. any translator who is worth a nickel would tell you the same damn thing.



Its funny. You complain about a lack of independent evidence yet you often emphise the fact that the Bible was written by men and not God. Tell me then, what qualifies as "indepenednt" evidence, if not the accounts of people.

the Bible is only one account, and it is one that has been hugely impacted by politics and various agendas over the ages. if another source could be found to corroborate the Biblical accounts, it would at least lend some weight to the claims in the Bible. if just one other source mentioned the feats in the Bible then there might be some substance to them.

this is the concept of perspective. if i want to learn about William Shakespeare, i don't just read one person's take on Shakespeare and his life. i don't just read one person's biography and take it as gospel. i read the perspectives of several different people, and the places where they overlap are the places that probably are closer to the truth. they still are not perfect, and it is still possible that all of them were wrong, but at least it is better than basing my opinions on just one possible account of the events.

As I said, I have not read the ENTIRE Bible. And yes I have chosen scripture to support my position on things. But unlike several people on this forum, I dont take it out of context.


Neo. You haven't read the bible.

Therefore:

ANY quote you take from it, is OUT OF CONTEXT.


No, you just believe it stands because you like to think of yourself as supiror to all those who put several years of work into translating it. But on this point we will just have to agree to disagree.


No, Neo. I think many of the classic translators are wrong, that doesn't make me superior.

Other people have also put forward a number of the ideas I have... so I am not even unique.

You try to write me off as an intellectual snob, so that you can ignore my knowledge, under that aegis.

If you took the time to learn Hebrew, you would be able to make a value judgement for yourself.

Perhaps you also, would see inconsistency.


Its funny. You complain about a lack of independent evidence yet you often emphise the fact that the Bible was written by men and not God. Tell me then, what qualifies as "indepenednt" evidence, if not the accounts of people.



Neo - a collection of 'christian' influenced writers, documenting rumours of 'christian' events does not form an 'independent' body of work...

Now, if you could provide unrelated texts that also documented the resurrection, THEN you might have an independent corroboration.

How about a letter from Pilate... something along the lines of "Holy Crap, Caesar... some of these Hebrew fellows get back out of their tombs!"

After all, you would have thought something like THAT would be worthy of at least a passing mention somewhere, no?


See this web site for an intersting analysis of the resurection

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html


This isn't an analyisis of the resurrection, Neo.

This is christian apologists trying to reconcile errors in the recording of the events alleged.

YOU DON'T KNOW THE CONTEXT! you haven't READ the context! how can you possibly assume you aren't taking it out of context, when you haven't read the whole context?!


John's Gospel cannot be understood in the concept of something like Hosea. There is a continous thread throught the Bible which unlike some people, I do not use tiny fragments to attempt to attack with.


totally wrong. any honest translator will tell you that even the best possible job of translation will still cost you a lot of the original meaning. languages aren't identical, and much of the connotation, underlying tones, and significance will be lost in translation, even under the best of circumstances. this is particularly true when you are dealing with material as philosophically complex and rife with imagry as the Bible

Grave is not being "superior" at all by recognizing this simple reality. he's being honest. any translator who is worth a nickel would tell you the same damn thing.

What Grave is trying to do is prove he is right because he knows the original language. I believe that the English version is perfectly valid, he disagrees. Thats all.


the Bible is only one account, and it is one that has been hugely impacted by politics and various agendas over the ages. if another source could be found to corroborate the Biblical accounts, it would at least lend some weight to the claims in the Bible. if just one other source mentioned the feats in the Bible then there might be some substance to them.

this is the concept of perspective. if i want to learn about William Shakespeare, i don't just read one person's take on Shakespeare and his life. i don't just read one person's biography and take it as gospel. i read the perspectives of several different people, and the places where they overlap are the places that probably are closer to the truth. they still are not perfect, and it is still possible that all of them were wrong, but at least it is better than basing my opinions on just one possible account of the events.

Actually, in regards to the resurection there are 5 accounts, the Bible is just an amalgomation. Read this for further understanding

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html

The New testement does not just quote the Old. It demonstrates how the Old Testement prophicies are fuffiled in Jesus's life. I have not read "All" of the Old Testement, but I have read enough to see that it supports the new entirely. There are over 300 prohicies in the Old Testement, every one of them fuffiled in Jesus's life.

Not true.

Try asking "Goodthoughts"

Or looking on a Baha'i site.

John's Gospel cannot be understood in the concept of something like Hosea. There is a continous thread throught the Bible which unlike some people, I do not use tiny fragments to attempt to attack with.

how can you possibly know what the continuous thread through the Bible is, if you haven't read the whole Bible?

What Grave is trying to do is prove he is right because he knows the original language. I believe that the English version is perfectly valid, he disagrees. Thats all.

no, that's not all. if you believe the English translation is an accurate and complete representation of the original text, then the people who translated the Bible disagree with you. the people who study the Bible for a living disagree with you. theology scholars the world 'round disagree with you. professional translators of any repute will disagree with you.

"perfectly valid" is far too strong a term to apply. you can say you find the English translation useful, or that you are going to assume it contains all the really important material, but there is NO factual basis for your assumption. indeed, there is significant evidence that you would be seriously mistaken in assuming that English translations contain all the important material in the Bible.


Actually, in regards to the resurection there are 5 accounts, the Bible is just an amalgomation. Read this for further understanding

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.htmli don't see how any of this responds to my point.

Neo. You haven't read the bible.

Therefore:

ANY quote you take from it, is OUT OF CONTEXT.


I have read the Bible and I have done several studies of the entire context of the Bible. I can sumurise the entire historical account that the Bible gives in 29 points

- God creates
- Man rebels
- Sin spreads
- God judges
- God promises
- God rescues
- God's commands
- God's presence
- God's sacrifices
- People rebel and wander
- God gives the land
- People settle in the land
- The cycle of judges
- The United Kingdom
- The Divided Kingdom
- Israel - Exiled to Assyria and scattered
- Judah - Exiled to Babylon
- Persia - Judah returns to the land
- Zerubbabel rebuilds the temple
- Ezra rebuilds the peoples spiritual lives
- Nehemiah rebuilds the walls of Jerusluem

- 400 year silence, things prepared

- Jesus arrives
- Jesus ministers
- Jesus's death & resurction
- Jesus's asscention
- Holy spirit arrives
- The church grows and spreads
- Awaitng the second comming


No, Neo. I think many of the classic translators are wrong, that doesn't make me superior.

Other people have also put forward a number of the ideas I have... so I am not even unique.

You try to write me off as an intellectual snob, so that you can ignore my knowledge, under that aegis.

If you took the time to learn Hebrew, you would be able to make a value judgement for yourself.

Perhaps you also, would see inconsistency.

Well all you seem intent on doing is proving me wrong and then continually insist I have never read the Bible so yes, I will write you off as a snob. Ignoring those people below them who they think understand less.


This isn't an analyisis of the resurrection, Neo.

This is christian apologists trying to reconcile errors in the recording of the events alleged.

You dissmiss any source I present to you without even quoting from it or actually making an effort to explain why you think its wrong.

What Grave is trying to do is prove he is right because he knows the original language. I believe that the English version is perfectly valid, he disagrees. Thats all.


No, Neo - that isn't what I am doing.

You are following a lie.

The English translation is clearly, visibly, and obviously incorrect in many places.

I know some Hebrew, and have showed you some of these places.

You choose ignorance as a defense against having to question... you allow you 'ideology' to blind you.

You could easily learn just enough Hebrew to see I am right - but you choose not to, to preserve the insularity of ignorance.

I am not 'trying to prove I am right" - I am merely showing the flaws in the ACCEPTED translations.

You have no knowledge of the original material, and CHOOSE not to pursue the matter. That is all.

No, Neo - that isn't what I am doing.

You are following a lie.

The English translation is clearly, visibly, and obviously incorrect in many places.

I know some Hebrew, and have showed you some of these places.

You choose ignorance as a defense against having to question... you allow you 'ideology' to blind you.

You could easily learn just enough Hebrew to see I am right - but you choose not to, to preserve the insularity of ignorance.

I am not 'trying to prove I am right" - I am merely showing the flaws in the ACCEPTED translations.

You have no knowledge of the original material, and CHOOSE not to pursue the matter. That is all.

Right now all I see is you and the school of thought that agrees with you and me and the school of thought that agrees with me. Now I dont know if there are significent errors in the English translation or not, but even if they are, the ones that you have shown to me so far only seem to relate to very small and in the grand scheme of the Bible, insignifcent things. Things such as the homosexuality position debate. I believe homosexuality is a sin. You believe its not. However, wheter or not its a sin affects neither one of us as the Bible also makes it quite clear that only God is qualified to judge people on the grounds of sin. Tell me this, are their translation errors which significently alter the message of Chrisitanity as a whole (IE Jesus and who he is and what he did). Then I will perhaps listen a little more and do a little more reseacrch.

I have read the Bible and I have done several studies of the entire context of the Bible. I can sumurise the entire historical account that the Bible gives in 29 points

- God creates
....
- Awaitng the second comming


Well done... i can summarise it in two points.

1. The world started... we don't know how, but here's a story...

2. It's still going on, and we are still making up stories...

Note: my version there is just as relevent as your '29 points' copied from whichever site you found them at.


Well all you seem intent on doing is proving me wrong and then continually insist I have never read the Bible so yes, I will write you off as a snob. Ignoring those people below them who they think understand less.


Not you, Neo.

Delusions of grandeur, my friend.

The scripture is errant.

I show that.

It isn't about 'you', or whether 'you' think it is acceptable.


You dissmiss any source I present to you without even quoting from it or actually making an effort to explain why you think its wrong.

I didn't say it was wrong, Neo.

I said it ISN'T what you CLAIM it is... it is not an 'analyisis' of the resurrection.... it even says ON THE PAGE YOU LINKED that it is an attempt to reconcile disparate elements.

FOR GOD'S SAKE, NEO... YOU, at the very least, should READ any sources you post, BEFORE you post them... so you would at least know what you had posted.

For does it not say in Matthew 16:18 "That which was written in the scriptures of old, beareth fruit in the words of the new"?
No, it doesn't.

It says "I also say to you that you are Peter ("Petros", a stone, in the Greek), and upon this rock ("petra", large rock or bedrock) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." (New American Standard Bible, Updated).

I don't know what Bible passage you think you're quoting, but I'm pretty sure you're making fun of Neo Cannen, as the Bible only once (I think) refers to any part of the New Testament as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16, where Peter ranks Paul's letters along with "the rest of the Scriptures").

I know you disagree with Neo, and I'm disappointed that he didn't catch this joke himself and respond to it, but it's not good debating technique to mock your opponent, even if he doesn't realize it.

And no, I haven't read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. I have a study Bible which helps my understanding of specific words, and I'm working through the Bible in a reading program that will ensure that I have read every word of the Bible in at least one English translation (I like New American Standard at the moment, it tends towards word-for-word).

How do you know that the way you have studied Hebrew and Greek is not biased?

Well all you seem intent on doing is proving me wrong and then continually insist I have never read the Bible

YOU SAID YOU HAVE NEVER READ IT! you, personally, yourself, said that you have not read the whole Bible. Grave would be nuts if he suddenly started insisting that you had, contrary to your assertions, read the whole Bible.

so yes, I will write you off as a snob. Ignoring those people below them who they think understand less.

nobody is ignoring you, honey. we are pointing out that if you are going to base your life on a book then you should read that book first. if you believe that book was originally written as the Word of God then you should make every attempt to read the original text, to ensure that human mistakes or corruptions over the years have not hidden, eliminated, or altered some of the information in it.

also, you DO understand less, in this case. i have read the whole Bible; you have not. i understand more about the Bible than you do because i have read it and you have not. if i have read Demian, by Herman Hesse, and you have only skimmed a few passages from it, then i understand the book better than you do. until you read the whole Bible, you DO understand less about it than people who have read the whole Bible. you're not stupid, and you could have just as much understanding as they do, but you are CHOOSING not to have that understanding because you are CHOOSING not to read the Bible.

Well done... i can summarise it in two points.

1. The world started... we don't know how, but here's a story...

2. It's still going on, and we are still making up stories...

Note: my version there is just as relevent as your '29 points' copied from whichever site you found them at.


I did not copy them from a website. And your version is not as valid as mine since yours offers no explination of the Bible. I actually specified that mine was about the Bible and made an attmept to explain it to you. You call the Bible a story to dismiss it. Exactly why shouldn't I think of you as a snob for doing this?


Not you, Neo.

Delusions of grandeur, my friend.

The scripture is errant.

I show that.

It isn't about 'you', or whether 'you' think it is acceptable.


You believe the scripture is errant. I dont. You have a school of though which agrees with you. I have a school of thought that agrees with me. We seem on equal levels.


I didn't say it was wrong, Neo.

I said it ISN'T what you CLAIM it is... it is not an 'analyisis' of the resurrection.... it even says ON THE PAGE YOU LINKED that it is an attempt to reconcile disparate elements.

FOR GOD'S SAKE, NEO... YOU, at the very least, should READ any sources you post, BEFORE you post them... so you would at least know what you had posted.

It is an anlysis of the links and seeming discepencies between the accounts of the resurction, dispelling the ideas people have about the Biblical accounts being invalid becuase they "contradict" each other. I was trying to show you people about the usefulness of the Bible in explaining the resurection and why it works. This site supports that.

Right now all I see is you and the school of thought that agrees with you and me and the school of thought that agrees with me. Now I dont know if there are significent errors in the English translation or not, but even if they are, the ones that you have shown to me so far only seem to relate to very small and in the grand scheme of the Bible, insignifcent things. Things such as the homosexuality position debate. I believe homosexuality is a sin. You believe its not. However, wheter or not its a sin affects neither one of us as the Bible also makes it quite clear that only God is qualified to judge people on the grounds of sin. Tell me this, are their translation errors which significently alter the message of Chrisitanity as a whole (IE Jesus and who he is and what he did). Then I will perhaps listen a little more and do a little more reseacrch.

Ultimately, Neo... you know you won't... and you know you wouldn't.

You have made up your mind, that the bible is innerrant.

I can clearly show it is errant, both in translation, and in it's English context.

So - how can you justify your absolute belief in a book that you KNOW contains errors?

You ignore them... just as you would if I showed you what you ask for here.

Do the research first, Neo.

You are arguing as though from strength - from a postition of ignorance.

YOU SAID YOU HAVE NEVER READ IT! you, personally, yourself, said that you have not read the whole Bible. Grave would be nuts if he suddenly started insisting that you had, contrary to your assertions, read the whole Bible..

Grave insists I havent read it at all. Which is stupid. I would be happy if he said "you have not read the whole bible" or "You havent read all of it" but he keeps on saying "you havent read the bible" which is wrong.


nobody is ignoring you, honey. we are pointing out that if you are going to base your life on a book then you should read that book first. if you believe that book was originally written as the Word of God then you should make every attempt to read the original text, to ensure that human mistakes or corruptions over the years have not hidden, eliminated, or altered some of the information in it.

also, you DO understand less, in this case. i have read the whole Bible; you have not. i understand more about the Bible than you do because i have read it and you have not. if i have read Demian, by Herman Hesse, and you have only skimmed a few passages from it, then i understand the book better than you do. until you read the whole Bible, you DO understand less about it than people who have read the whole Bible. you're not stupid, and you could have just as much understanding as they do, but you are CHOOSING not to have that understanding because you are CHOOSING not to read the Bible.

Dont call me honey. Secondly the bits that I haven't read are not parts which are considered essential to leading a Christan life. You talk as if I haven't read the Gospels, Its not like I missed out on somethig seriously spiritually damaging. To actually do an indepth study into the entire Bible would take a year or possibly more solid. I haven't done that, I have been studying various parts of it for a long time, and looked at overviewing the entire thing sevearl times over. Its not like I am completely uneducated in the Bible.

Hey, Grave, check out the last page.

I have a post I want you to answer there!

The last question on it is very relevant to this discussion.

P.S. It was on page 72 last I looked.

P.P.S. Post #1079.

Ultimately, Neo... you know you won't... and you know you wouldn't.

You have made up your mind, that the bible is innerrant.

I can clearly show it is errant, both in translation, and in it's English context.

So - how can you justify your absolute belief in a book that you KNOW contains errors?

You ignore them... just as you would if I showed you what you ask for here.

Do the research first, Neo.

You are arguing as though from strength - from a postition of ignorance.

It depends where the errors are, and to what extent they compromise the meaning.

I did not copy them from a website. And your version is not as valid as mine since yours offers no explination of the Bible. I actually specified that mine was about the Bible and made an attmept to explain it to you. You call the Bible a story to dismiss it. Exactly why shouldn't I think of you as a snob for doing this?


No - Neo - I claim it is a story because it is.

Perhaps it is a false story... like the fables about how elephants got long noses.

Perhaps it is a true story... but there is no independent verification.

Tht isn't me being a snob - you CANNOT prove the historicity of even ONE SINGLE miraculous event, as given in the biblical scripture... and yet, you dismiss the non-believers as 'ignorant of an evident truth'... which would make you the snob, not I.


You believe the scripture is errant. I dont. You have a school of though which agrees with you. I have a school of thought that agrees with me. We seem on equal levels.


Where was Jesus three days after his Baptism, Neo?

You cannot answer that question - because scripture gives TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT answers... both of which CANNOT be true.

The bible IS errant, Neo.

You CHOOSE not to see it.


It is an anlysis of the links and seeming discepencies between the accounts of the resurction, dispelling the ideas people have about the Biblical accounts being invalid becuase they "contradict" each other. I was trying to show you people about the usefulness of the Bible in explaining the resurection and why it works. This site supports that.

Irrelevent.

You presented it as an analysis of the resurrection. It isn't.

Where was Jesus three days after his Baptism, Neo?

You cannot answer that question - because scripture gives TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT answers... both of which CANNOT be true.

The bible IS errant, Neo.

You CHOOSE not to see it.


How important is it to my salvation and my life as a whole as to where Jesus was 3 days after his baptism. I can tell you now. Not very.

Grave insists I havent read it at all. Which is stupid. I would be happy if he said "you have not read the whole bible" or "You havent read all of it" but he keeps on saying "you havent read the bible" which is wrong.


Calling me stupid, even in a post to someone else, is still flaming, Neo.

Apology, please.

And - for your information - the Bible is a 'whole'... it is a collection of integrated parts... so, if you haven't read it all, you haven't 'read' it.

Have you read the Complete Works of Shakespear? If you've missed one text, the answer is 'no'.

Have you read "The Bible"? If you have missed ONE TEXT, the answer is 'no'.

I am waiting for your apology.

No - Neo - I claim it is a story because it is.

Perhaps it is a false story... like the fables about how elephants got long noses.

Perhaps it is a true story... but there is no independent verification.

Tht isn't me being a snob - you CANNOT prove the historicity of even ONE SINGLE miraculous event, as given in the biblical scripture... and yet, you dismiss the non-believers as 'ignorant of an evident truth'... which would make you the snob, not I.


I never said non-believers were ignorent of an evident truth. I said you were arrogent for dismissing the entire Bible as a story which is made up. There ARE egyptian records which say that the Exodous happened and that there was a defeat of their persuing army. There ARE Roman historical accounts of Jesus and Jewish ones too. The Bible is grounded in History, not all of it can be certianly provable but parts of it can be. By claiming its a story, you seem to be dismissing that. I would ask you not to.

How important is it to my salvation and my life as a whole as to where Jesus was 3 days after his baptism. I can tell you now. Not very.

That depends, Neo.

If you base your life around the book, but the book isn't true... it could literally be your salvation on the line.

Shouldn't you KNOW?

Either he wasn't at Cana (in which case, Catholics have a lot of problems with the concept of Mary as an intercessor), or he was - in which case the story of the wilderness is a lie.

Pick one - either way - the bible is proved to be errant.

So, how can you place ANY faith in the text?

Calling me stupid, even in a post to someone else, is still flaming, Neo.

Apology, please.

And - for your information - the Bible is a 'whole'... it is a collection of integrated parts... so, if you haven't read it all, you haven't 'read' it.

Have you read the Complete Works of Shakespear? If you've missed one text, the answer is 'no'.

Have you read "The Bible"? If you have missed ONE TEXT, the answer is 'no'.

I am waiting for your apology.

I will not apologise for this reason. I have read the Bible. You repeadly insist that I have not. I would be happy if you said "you have not read the whole Bible" or "you have not read all the Bible" but your repeadly insist that I have not read "the Bible".

That depends, Neo.

If you base your life around the book, but the book isn't true... it could literally be your salvation on the line.

Shouldn't you KNOW?

Either he wasn't at Cana (in which case, Catholics have a lot of problems with the concept of Mary as an intercessor), or he was - in which case the story of the wilderness is a lie.

Pick one - either way - the bible is proved to be errant.

So, how can you place ANY faith in the text?

How about this. Both texts are correct but neither one has the entire story. And here is another thing. The Bible's line on salvation is clear through so no wories on that score.

Irrelevent.

You presented it as an analysis of the resurrection. It isn't.

What qualifies as an analysis of the resurection then?

I never said non-believers were ignorent of an evident truth. I said you were arrogent for dismissing the entire Bible as a story which is made up. There ARE egyptian records which say that the Exodous happened and that there was a defeat of their persuing army. There ARE Roman historical accounts of Jesus and Jewish ones too. The Bible is grounded in History, not all of it can be certianly provable but parts of it can be. By claiming its a story, you seem to be dismissing that. I would ask you not to.

There are no Egyptian records of Exodus, Neo.

Provide evidence for your baseless claim.

There are no Roman records of Jesus, Neo.

Provide evidence of your baseless claim.

(Note - if you try to pull 'Josephus' - he was NOT a witness, and wasn't born until 30 years after the alleged events took place).

The BIBLE IS grounded in history, yes.

That doesn't prove it IS history... any more than Peter Pan is real.

Where was Jesus three days after his Baptism, Neo?

You cannot answer that question - because scripture gives TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT answers... both of which CANNOT be true.

Is this referring to the seeming difference between the account of Jesus' baptism in the Gospel of John, and the account in the Synoptics?

If it is, there's a relatively simple explanation. The Synoptics describe the events of the baptism of Jesus and his subsequent temptation in the wilderness for 40 days. John's account (everything from John 1:19 - 2:11)refers to John's recollection of Jesus' baptism, and is set after the temptation in the wilderness. None of the Synoptics record the priests and Levites from Jerusalem asking John who he was before he baptized Jesus; they do in John's account, because they came after Jesus' baptism.

How's that?

I will not apologise for this reason. I have read the Bible. You repeadly insist that I have not. I would be happy if you said "you have not read the whole Bible" or "you have not read all the Bible" but your repeadly insist that I have not read "the Bible".

Neo.

You haven't read "The Bible".

You have read parts of it.

I have never claimed that you had read NONE of it.

I expect an apology now.

Be man enough to back down when you make a fool of yourself.

There are no Egyptian records of Exodus, Neo.

Provide evidence for your baseless claim.

There are no Roman records of Jesus, Neo.

Provide evidence of your baseless claim.


Ok, here are some explainations of extra biblical accounts of Biblical events

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html - The Darkness at the time of Jesus's death

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/sumerq.html - Longivity before the flood

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm - Several accounts of Jesus (Not just Josephus but others)

http://www.biblediscoveries.com/holyplaces1.html - An examination of the exodus and its historical value.

Neo.

You haven't read "The Bible".

You have read parts of it.

I have never claimed that you had read NONE of it.

I expect an apology now.

Be man enough to back down when you make a fool of yourself.

You said that I have not read the Bible. This implies that I have read none of it. I have read the Bible, albeit not the entire Bible but more than 75%. And I never said "you" personally were stupid. I said it was stupid to say that I have not read the Bible. You are not stupid as a person for saying that, its just something stupid to say.

what exactly is protestant then? Ive always been curious but could never find the answer.

what exactly is protestant then? Ive always been curious but could never find the answer.

A protestant is a member of a branch of Christianity known as protestantism.

See here for more infomation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism

why thank you! your so gosh darn kind! :)

Wow. That's maybe the first time I've seen a Neo link that didn't begin:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/yaddayaddayadda

Do you work for them or something? Cause I'd understand if you were doing this for a paycheck or something. It'd have to be a pretty decent check though.

Wow. That's maybe the first time I've seen a Neo link that didn't begin:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/yaddayaddayadda

Do you work for them or something? Cause I'd understand if you were doing this for a paycheck or something. It'd have to be a pretty decent check though.

Maybe I use them a lot because they are a good group of people who have worked hard to provide a valuable resorce of Biblical analysis and understanding and have done a very good job of it.

Maybe I use them a lot because they are a good group of people who have worked hard to provide a valuable resorce of Biblical analysis and understanding and have done a very good job of it.

So . . . what you're saying, regarding Grave above, is that they're kind of like a clearinghouse for Biblical Monarch Notes?

So . . . what you're saying, regarding Grave above, is that they're kind of like a clearinghouse for Biblical Monarch Notes?

What? What are "Biblical Monarch Notes"? Care to explain?

Is this referring to the seeming difference between the account of Jesus' baptism in the Gospel of John, and the account in the Synoptics?

If it is, there's a relatively simple explanation. The Synoptics describe the events of the baptism of Jesus and his subsequent temptation in the wilderness for 40 days. John's account (everything from John 1:19 - 2:11)refers to John's recollection of Jesus' baptism, and is set after the temptation in the wilderness. None of the Synoptics record the priests and Levites from Jerusalem asking John who he was before he baptized Jesus; they do in John's account, because they came after Jesus' baptism.

How's that?

First - I'd like to thank you.

You have actually read the scripture. You actually have a clue what is going on. You have also not degenerated into deny and defame.

So - thank you three times.

What I was referring to was the discrepency:

Mark 1:12-13 "And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him".

Which CLEARLY and EXPRESSLY states that Jesus departed for the wilderness IMMEDIATELY after his baptism. Compared to:

John 1:35, John 1:43 and John 2:11 "Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples..... The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.... This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him..."

Which CLEARLY describes activities listed on a chronological day-by-day basis, up to, and including the third day - at which Jesus is apparently recorded attending a wedding.


Thus: Either Mark is wrong - and Jesus did NOT depart 'immediately' for the wilderness; or John is wrong - and Jesus was not at Cana three days after his baptism.

Both chronologies start with the Baptism, one MUST be wrong.

First - I'd like to thank you.

You have actually read the scripture. You actually have a clue what is going on. You have also not degenerated into deny and defame.

So - thank you three times.

What I was referring to was the discrepency:

Mark 1:12-13 "And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him".

Which CLEARLY and EXPRESSLY states that Jesus departed for the wilderness IMMEDIATELY after his baptism. Compared to:

John 1:35, John 1:43 and John 2:11 "Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples..... The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.... This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him..."

Which CLEARLY describes activities listed on a chronological day-by-day basis, up to, and including the third day - at which Jesus is apparently recorded attending a wedding.


Thus: Either Mark is wrong - and Jesus did NOT depart 'immediately' for the wilderness; or John is wrong - and Jesus was not at Cana three days after his baptism.

Both chronologies start with the Baptism, one MUST be wrong.
O.K. we both agree that the Synoptic accounts say that Jesus went into the wilderness IMMEDIATELY after his baptism. We have Mark 1:12, Matthew 4:1, and Luke 4:1, all agreeing on that. Then he's there for 40 days, gets the three temptations by the Devil, then leaves the wilderness.

What I'm saying is that the account in John, beginning from John 1:19, FOLLOWS the above sequence of events. Jesus has already been in the wilderness for about 40 days when the priests and Levites come to John "from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" He tells them, then describes Jesus, whom he has ALREADY baptized about 40 days previously.
The next day, he sees Jesus and describes the baptism that he, John the Baptist, had given Jesus 40-ish days beforehand. The day after, Andrew hangs out with Jesus, as does Simon Peter. The next day, Jesus also hangs out with Philip and Nathanael. On the next day, they go to the wedding at Cana.

If someone shows me that this chronology is completely false, it won't destroy my faith in Christ, because I've got a personal, one-on-one relationship with Him, and He's changing my life. But I think my account works. It also explains why John-the-gospel-writer's account of the baptism seems to be in John-the-Baptist's words.

Psalms is irrelevent... it isn't a 'true' Old Testament text... that's like using Revelation as an example of the New Testament.

The Old Testament CLEARLY uses 'soul' as a desription ONLY of the essence of life... the 'breath' that was 'breathed' in to the inanimate, to make it animate.

The 'soul' is, therefore, synonymous with the life, the passion, the spark, the blood.

Nothing to do with 'immortality' or an 'afterlife'.

Sounds like Special Pleading to me. Your telling me that I cant use an Old testament book to proof what the Old testament says. The Hebrews beleived in an afterlife, which is support by the Old Testament. You want to excuse the use of Psalms because it clearly proves my point. Another quote from pslams since you obviously dont like me using it, reveals this further
Pslams 16:10

The four consistently recognized elements of a human for the Hebrews were the basar, the neshamach, the nephesh, and the ruach. These four are usually translated into English as the flesh, the breath, the soul, and the spirit.
Basar
The flesh, or the body, of the person is that which gives him or her material presentation to the created world.
Neshamach
The breath of the body is taken by some to be another aspect of the spirit (ruach), and by others to be another word for the principle of life or the soul (nephesh).
Nephesh
The nephesh is commonly translated as “soul,” but also as “life” as well as some other scattered interpretations throughout various English translations of the Scriptures.
The nephesh was often believed to leave the body with the spilling of a person’s blood, or with his or her last breath. It is something that, in Old testament thought, had an existence apart from the basar.
For example, in Elijah’s resuscitation narrative of 1 Kings 27:21, Elijah prays, “Let this child’s nephesh come into him again.” The nephesh, which
departed at death, continues to exist. It has departed the basar, but has not thereby been annihilated. Furthermore, the nephesh has a distinct location to which it passes at death – Sheol.
Ruach
The last constituent part of man to be considered is the ruach. The ruach is that component which activated man’s neshamach, gives the basar life, and calls into existence the nephesh. The ruach of a human is seen by many as
being intimately related and connected to the ruach YHWH.

What is found is a belief that a human was more than his or her body. His or her essence lived on beyond death, although in the shadowy existence of Sheol. Since it was believed that God was the one who gave and took away life through his ruach, any hope for life after death must be tied to God’s presence and promise. There was certainly no hope for a fulfilling “spiritual” life apart from this world. But there was certainly some form of life. Death was not, for the ancient Israelites, a complete end to all existence.

The Old Testament, despite some who believe the contrary, is replete with narratives and passages dealing with death and a life beyond. Three narrative forms which stand out include the translations of Enoch and Elijah, the resuscitation narratives of Elijah and Elisha, and the story of Saul and the witch at Endor. In addition to these narratives one finds in the Hebrew
Scriptures numerous passages discussing the hope of a life beyond the death of the body in this world.

Ok, here are some explainations of extra biblical accounts of Biblical events

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html - The Darkness at the time of Jesus's death

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/sumerq.html - Longivity before the flood

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm - Several accounts of Jesus (Not just Josephus but others)

http://www.biblediscoveries.com/holyplaces1.html - An examination of the exodus and its historical value.

The first link provides no 'evidence', but outlines a chrstian theologist (Julius Africanus) debating the merits of the writing of Thallus. Thallus wasn't an eyewitness to any of the events - living 50 years later, and was debating a topic of discussion, i.e. the scriptural darkness, as it applied to a possible recorded event.

The result being - Thallus clearly said the darkness WASN'T the recorded event of an 'eclipse'.

This link, in fact, DENIES the hisoricity of the "darkness".

The third link claims to provide independent evidence of the life of Jesus, but falls far short. NONE of the pieces are even close to being contemporary, and none of the authors were alive during the events, or even during the probable lifespans of witnesses.

Once again Thallus turns up, but fails to name Jesus. Tacitus fails to name Jesus - merely referring to Christus (a Greek term merely meaning "anointed").
Pliny didn't mention Jesus - and only referred passingly to 'christ' as a figure in 'christian' religion - no historicity is claimed or provided. Flavius discusses issues around the supposed Jesus story, but fails to CLEARLY link anything - except in one link - which is widely recognised as having been forged at a later date.... which is even referred to on the page you cite.


The fourth link sets out to prove the exodus wrong, and, I feel, manages quite well. They clearly prove that the commonly held crossing point and mountain are fakes, and provide in response a stone pillar, which they think MIGHT have been left there by Solomon (500 years later... that proves nothing) and some chariot wheels. I have heard of these 'chariot wheels' before, and heard them discredited.... since this site provides nothing new, I find no reason to reinvestigate chariot wheels.... although they are irrelevent ANYWAY.... since chariot wheels could be in a sea for a wealth of non-biblical reasons.

Even the 'pharaoh' story is flawed... the source openly admits that none of the accepted pharaohs could have been the character referred to in Exodus - and the character they DO offer, is several hundred years out of chronology. Furthermore, the source admits that there were NO Egyptian chariot during the reign of the pharaoh they suggest.

All in all, Neo... like I said...

You have no evidence.

Nothing that stands up to even the most rudimentary analysis.

Once again, your ideology blocks your ability to assess objectively.

The first link provides no 'evidence', but outlines a chrstian theologist (Julius Africanus) debating the merits of the writing of Thallus. Thallus wasn't an eyewitness to any of the events - living 50 years later, and was debating a topic of discussion, i.e. the scriptural darkness, as it applied to a possible recorded event.

The result being - Thallus clearly said the darkness WASN'T the recorded event of an 'eclipse'.

This link, in fact, DENIES the hisoricity of the "darkness".


Actually, had you read the link you would see that the fact that the darkness happened is not in question. What is in question is what caused said darkness. They are all in agreement that the darkness happened.

The fourth link sets out to prove the exodus wrong, and, I feel, manages quite well. They clearly prove that the commonly held crossing point and mountain are fakes, and provide in response a stone pillar, which they think MIGHT have been left there by Solomon (500 years later... that proves nothing) and some chariot wheels. I have heard of these 'chariot wheels' before, and heard them discredited.... since this site provides nothing new, I find no reason to reinvestigate chariot wheels.... although they are irrelevent ANYWAY.... since chariot wheels could be in a sea for a wealth of non-biblical reasons.

Even the 'pharaoh' story is flawed... the source openly admits that none of the accepted pharaohs could have been the character referred to in Exodus - and the character they DO offer, is several hundred years out of chronology. Furthermore, the source admits that there were NO Egyptian chariot during the reign of the pharaoh they suggest.


Again, had you read the fourth source you would see it supports the biblical account of the exodous but questions the ideas that some historians have about when it happened and who it happened under.

O.K. we both agree that the Synoptic accounts say that Jesus went into the wilderness IMMEDIATELY after his baptism. We have Mark 1:12, Matthew 4:1, and Luke 4:1, all agreeing on that. Then he's there for 40 days, gets the three temptations by the Devil, then leaves the wilderness.

What I'm saying is that the account in John, beginning from John 1:19, FOLLOWS the above sequence of events. Jesus has already been in the wilderness for about 40 days when the priests and Levites come to John "from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" He tells them, then describes Jesus, whom he has ALREADY baptized about 40 days previously.
The next day, he sees Jesus and describes the baptism that he, John the Baptist, had given Jesus 40-ish days beforehand. The day after, Andrew hangs out with Jesus, as does Simon Peter. The next day, Jesus also hangs out with Philip and Nathanael. On the next day, they go to the wedding at Cana.

If someone shows me that this chronology is completely false, it won't destroy my faith in Christ, because I've got a personal, one-on-one relationship with Him, and He's changing my life. But I think my account works. It also explains why John-the-gospel-writer's account of the baptism seems to be in John-the-Baptist's words.

Thank you.

Among all the 'christians' on Nation States, I have finally found one who has actually read the book he/she claims to follow.

I see where you are coming from, I understand the chronology you are fitting into the scenario... and I can even see how it can be made to fit. The problem I have with it is, it requires you to deliberately mis-read what is presented on the page... you cannot read it as a straight record, and still arrive at the skewed chronolgy - you MUST insert the forty days 'manually', if you will, into the record.

I think John actually precludes the possibility, though, by means of how the event is discussed:

John 1:26 "John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not..."

Which implies that the event is being described currently, or written after in the present tense.

John 1:28 "These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing"... which presents us a 'past-imperfect tense' recording of the event - which makes it seem that the 'new arrival', the 'baptism', and the 'telling of the tale' are all pretty much current.

I'm not denying the 'possibility' of an excision of forty days, but I see no reason to support it directly, and what I consider circumstance enough to consider it invalid.

But, seriously - thank you, for an actual, serious, researched debate.

Actually, had you read the link you would see that the fact that the darkness happened is not in question. What is in question is what caused said darkness. They are all in agreement that the darkness happened.

Wrong, Neo.

There is a biblical account - unverified - of a darkness. This is the subject of debate until:

There is the Thallus account of an eclipse.

The source you provide carefully discredits the eclipse theory.

Which leaves us, once again, with an unverified darkness.

Thus - the source you cite actually DENIES the historicity of the the 'darkness'.

Read your source, Neo.

There are none so blind...

Again, had you read the fourth source you would see it supports the biblical account of the exodous but questions the ideas that some historians have about when it happened and who it happened under.
No - Neo.

It doesn't DENY the events of the bible directly... but it DOES deny all the commonly held perceptions... it says that the common assumption of the location of Sinai, of the Crossing, and even of which Pharaoh reigned, are wrong.

So - it discredits the commonly held view.

In their place, it presents an irrelevent pillar, 'some' possible chariot wheels, and a Pharaoh who ALSO did not live during the right period.

It provides ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that supports Exodus, and merely specualtes some different details in place of other irrelevent details.

Show me a single shred of evidence anywhere, that supports VERIFIABLE HISTORICITY of Exodus... this source has none.

Maybe I use them a lot because they are a good group of people who have worked hard to provide a valuable resorce of Biblical analysis and understanding and have done a very good job of it.

Or maybe, because they do all the work... which means you can carry on never actually reading the text.

You think them a good group of people, purely because they agree with your preconception.

I can show you resources by people who have worked just as hard, and found error and contradiction in scripture - yet I don't see you posting those OTHER perspectives, now do I?

I still expect an apology, Neo.

You haven't read the Bible... and you would rather be blinded by Pride (you KNOW that's a sin, right?) than admit you are at fault.

Wrong, Neo.

There is a biblical account - unverified - of a darkness. This is the subject of debate until:

There is the Thallus account of an eclipse.

The source you provide carefully discredits the eclipse theory.

Which leaves us, once again, with an unverified darkness.

Thus - the source you cite actually DENIES the historicity of the the 'darkness'.

Read your source, Neo.

There are none so blind...

Shall I quote it just for you

The phrase "let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun..." indicates that what is under discussion is NOT the factuality of the event, but the EXPLANATION of it. In other words, Thallus is EXPLAINING the occurrence of the darkness--NOT 'documenting' it (contra G. A. Wells, DJE:13) as was Phlegon.

Thank you.

Among all the 'christians' on Nation States, I have finally found one who has actually read the book he/she claims to follow.

I see where you are coming from, I understand the chronology you are fitting into the scenario... and I can even see how it can be made to fit. The problem I have with it is, it requires you to deliberately mis-read what is presented on the page... you cannot read it as a straight record, and still arrive at the skewed chronolgy - you MUST insert the forty days 'manually', if you will, into the record.

I think John actually precludes the possibility, though, by means of how the event is discussed:

John 1:26 "John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not..."

Which implies that the event is being described currently, or written after in the present tense.

John 1:28 "These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing"... which presents us a 'past-imperfect tense' recording of the event - which makes it seem that the 'new arrival', the 'baptism', and the 'telling of the tale' are all pretty much current.

I'm not denying the 'possibility' of an excision of forty days, but I see no reason to support it directly, and what I consider circumstance enough to consider it invalid.

But, seriously - thank you, for an actual, serious, researched debate.
You're very kind, but I think there are other Christians with reasonable debating skills here as well (Robbopolis springs to mind).
But I don't let you off the hook that easily!

I don't demand that you agree with my chronology. I only want to suggest that John the Baptist saying "I baptize in water" in verse 26 is not, in my opinion, referring to Jesus. John baptized loads of people, and kept on doing after he baptized Jesus. Similarly, in verse 28, the continuous action of the baptizing is referring to multiple baptisms.

I'm not intending to "insert" the 40 days. Because verses 1-18 of John 1 are not narrative, my chronology starts the whole GOSPEL of John after the temptation in the wilderness.

Have another look at verses 29-34, please. John, in verse 32, is referring to the descending of the Holy Spirit like a dove on Jesus in the past tense ("I have seen the Spirit descending"). John is telling those around him, on the arrival of Jesus, that he knows Jesus is the Lamb of God, because he already saw the evidence of God's Spirit on Him at His baptism. He is testifying to a past event.

If you don't want to continue this discussion, that's O.K. I also have another as-yet-unanswered question.

How do you know that your study of the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) is not biased by your teachers or the texts you learned from?

Or maybe, because they do all the work... which means you can carry on never actually reading the text.

You think them a good group of people, purely because they agree with your preconception.

I can show you resources by people who have worked just as hard, and found error and contradiction in scripture - yet I don't see you posting those OTHER perspectives, now do I?


I think they are good because they explain thoughts that I have had for a long time in a way which makes sense to me and to all the people I know who I have shown them to. They also mean that I can show people sources which explain things when though I can explain them myself, it would take too long for me to do so.

Sounds like Special Pleading to me. Your telling me that I cant use an Old testament book to proof what the Old testament says. The Hebrews beleived in an afterlife, which is support by the Old Testament. You want to excuse the use of Psalms because it clearly proves my point. Another quote from pslams since you obviously dont like me using it, reveals this further
Pslams 16:10

The four consistently recognized elements of a human for the Hebrews were the basar, the neshamach, the nephesh, and the ruach. These four are usually translated into English as the flesh, the breath, the soul, and the spirit.
Basar
The flesh, or the body, of the person is that which gives him or her material presentation to the created world.
Neshamach
The breath of the body is taken by some to be another aspect of the spirit (ruach), and by others to be another word for the principle of life or the soul (nephesh).
Nephesh
The nephesh is commonly translated as “soul,” but also as “life” as well as some other scattered interpretations throughout various English translations of the Scriptures.
The nephesh was often believed to leave the body with the spilling of a person’s blood, or with his or her last breath. It is something that, in Old testament thought, had an existence apart from the basar.
For example, in Elijah’s resuscitation narrative of 1 Kings 27:21, Elijah prays, “Let this child’s nephesh come into him again.” The nephesh, which
departed at death, continues to exist. It has departed the basar, but has not thereby been annihilated. Furthermore, the nephesh has a distinct location to which it passes at death – Sheol.
Ruach
The last constituent part of man to be considered is the ruach. The ruach is that component which activated man’s neshamach, gives the basar life, and calls into existence the nephesh. The ruach of a human is seen by many as
being intimately related and connected to the ruach YHWH.

What is found is a belief that a human was more than his or her body. His or her essence lived on beyond death, although in the shadowy existence of Sheol. Since it was believed that God was the one who gave and took away life through his ruach, any hope for life after death must be tied to God’s presence and promise. There was certainly no hope for a fulfilling “spiritual” life apart from this world. But there was certainly some form of life. Death was not, for the ancient Israelites, a complete end to all existence.

The Old Testament, despite some who believe the contrary, is replete with narratives and passages dealing with death and a life beyond. Three narrative forms which stand out include the translations of Enoch and Elijah, the resuscitation narratives of Elijah and Elisha, and the story of Saul and the witch at Endor. In addition to these narratives one finds in the Hebrew
Scriptures numerous passages discussing the hope of a life beyond the death of the body in this world.

Preaching to the choir, friend.

Yes, Neshamah is the spirit or breath - specific tranlations being: the breath (of God) - as in the first motivator; the breath (of man) - as in the life-breath in the lungs; every breathing thing - as in, all breathing life on earth is 'neshamah'; spirit (of man) - as in the actual vivifying force within the flesh.

Neshamah is another of the examples of the 'spirit' manifested as feminine - like 'shekinah'...

Nephesh is the soul - that which 'breathes'; the breatghing substance or being; the inner being of man; the living being (with life in the blood); the seat of the appetites; the activity of the mind...

All those are worthy translations of the word we describe as 'soul'... and yet none of them imply or impute immortality. In fact, Strong goes so far as to allow that 5 of the biblical instances of 'nephesh' should actually be translated as "dead".

Especially in the light of the fall of Adam, I strongly disagree that there is implication of any manner of eternal life.

Perhaps LATER in the writing of scripture (Old Testament texts being written over no LESS than 400 years, and possibly as much as 900) other authors may have added additional layers of meaning to established meanings - but I see no justification for trying to retro-fit meaning onto Mosaic text.

Similarly - I chose to ignore Psalms because they are junk. They are commentary, and opinion. They are the poetry of the plebescite.... valuable in their own fashion - but of no scriptural significance, or any value for textual verification.

It would be the same as using Stephen King to 'verify' Shakespear.

The Spirit and the Soul of the flesh are clearly linked concepts, but both are clearly 'of the flesh' in Mosaic text... and, as far as I am concerned, Hebrew or Christian writing AFTER Mosaic text is corroboration at best.

Similarly - Sheol. To try to attribute to early Old Testament literature, the meanings implied in LATER literature, is ridiculous in the extreme.

It is like these folks who claim 'elohiym' represents the 'trinity'....

(Special Pleading indeed... where were you when we were discussing the similarity between the resurrections of Jesus and Osiris....)

Shall I quote it just for you

An attempt at beding patronising, Neo?

Are you sure that's wise?

Look again at what you just posted.

Look again at the source.

There is NO verification of a 'darkness'.

It is commonly accepted that the debate has long ranged about the 'nature of the darkness'... but that doesn't MEAN that there WAS a darkness - you and I could debate about the Troll King's Armpit.... that doesn't make the Troll King a historical figure.

Well - Thallis presented a possible explanation for the 'darkness'... one which WOULD have offered at least a FORM of verification.

And you cite a source that shoots it down.

Excellent, Neo - you play a two as though it were high.

You're very kind, but I think there are other Christians with reasonable debating skills here as well (Robbopolis springs to mind).
But I don't let you off the hook that easily!

I don't demand that you agree with my chronology. I only want to suggest that John the Baptist saying "I baptize in water" in verse 26 is not, in my opinion, referring to Jesus. John baptized loads of people, and kept on doing after he baptized Jesus. Similarly, in verse 28, the continuous action of the baptizing is referring to multiple baptisms.

I'm not intending to "insert" the 40 days. Because verses 1-18 of John 1 are not narrative, my chronology starts the whole GOSPEL of John after the temptation in the wilderness.

Have another look at verses 29-34, please. John, in verse 32, is referring to the descending of the Holy Spirit like a dove on Jesus in the past tense ("I have seen the Spirit descending"). John is telling those around him, on the arrival of Jesus, that he knows Jesus is the Lamb of God, because he already saw the evidence of God's Spirit on Him at His baptism. He is testifying to a past event.

If you don't want to continue this discussion, that's O.K. I also have another as-yet-unanswered question.

How do you know that your study of the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) is not biased by your teachers or the texts you learned from?

Regarding the chronology.... if the wilderness event occurs IMMEDIATELY AFTER the baptism - then it doesn't matter WHEN the John story takes place... it can't occur both AFTER and BEFORE the wilderness event.

John's chronology does suggest baptising Jesus - he mentions one being there, whoes shoes he is not worthy to buckle... or words to that effect.

Thus, Jesus is present at the baptism event.

So - after THAT event - Jesus must either depart immediately for the wilderness (as detailed in Mark), or wander off with his new buddies, as detailed in John.

Only one can be true... and John can only baptise Jesus once... either before the wilderness event (which fits with Mark) or after the wilderness event - which makes a mockery of Mark, but fits the rest of John.

Regarding the Hebrew language question - if I had followed just one route, one course of study, one set of materials, one program... I might be worried about bias in my learning... but I have based my learning AROUND scripture, and have followed multiple avenues (often irreconcilable). Even now, I admit, I am but scratching the surface of Hebrew.... the language is so deep, so complex, so 'levelled' and 'compounded', that it makes English look like the short-hand version of technical jargon.

And that is my big complaint with English translations of the Hebrew.... to take a verse like "Re'shiyth 'elohiym Bara' 'eth Shamayim 'eth 'erets", and render it as something so mundane and incomplete (and, well, just plain innaccurate) as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"... well, it is beyond belief.

Which is why I claim that you cannot TRULY read the bible in English.

Perhaps LATER in the writing of scripture (Old Testament texts being written over no LESS than 400 years, and possibly as much as 900) other authors may have added additional layers of meaning to established meanings - but I see no justification for trying to retro-fit meaning onto Mosaic text.

Similarly - I chose to ignore Psalms because they are junk. They are commentary, and opinion. They are the poetry of the plebescite.... valuable in their own fashion - but of no scriptural significance, or any value for textual verification.

It would be the same as using Stephen King to 'verify' Shakespear.

The Spirit and the Soul of the flesh are clearly linked concepts, but both are clearly 'of the flesh' in Mosaic text... and, as far as I am concerned, Hebrew or Christian writing AFTER Mosaic text is corroboration at best.

Similarly - Sheol. To try to attribute to early Old Testament literature, the meanings implied in LATER literature, is ridiculous in the extreme.

It is like these folks who claim 'elohiym' represents the 'trinity'....

Dude!

Grave, you sound like a Sadducee. Do you really only hold the Torah to be true Scripture?

Seriously, the Psalms are junk? Jesus quoted from the Psalms, and no-one seemed to say to him, "Hey, that's not really Scripture!".
Matthew 13:35 quotes from Psalm 78, a maskil of Asaph, who was a seer, according to 2 Chronicles 29:30, which is why Matthew describes him as a prophet.
Dismissing the primary book of the Writings (Keturim, but you can correct my transliteration!) seems quite extreme.

Regarding the chronology.... if the wilderness event occurs IMMEDIATELY AFTER the baptism - then it doesn't matter WHEN the John story takes place... it can't occur both AFTER and BEFORE the wilderness event.

John's chronology does suggest baptising Jesus - he mentions one being there, whoes shoes he is not worthy to buckle... or words to that effect.

Thus, Jesus is present at the baptism event.

So - after THAT event - Jesus must either depart immediately for the wilderness (as detailed in Mark), or wander off with his new buddies, as detailed in John.

Only one can be true... and John can only baptise Jesus once... either before the wilderness event (which fits with Mark) or after the wilderness event - which makes a mockery of Mark, but fits the rest of John.

Regarding the Hebrew language question - if I had followed just one route, one course of study, one set of materials, one program... I might be worried about bias in my learning... but I have based my learning AROUND scripture, and have followed multiple avenues (often irreconcilable). Even now, I admit, I am but scratching the surface of Hebrew.... the language is so deep, so complex, so 'levelled' and 'compounded', that it makes English look like the short-hand version of technical jargon.

And that is my big complaint with English translations of the Hebrew.... to take a verse like "Re'shiyth 'elohiym Bara' 'eth Shamayim 'eth 'erets", and render it as something so mundane and incomplete (and, well, just plain innaccurate) as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"... well, it is beyond belief.

Which is why I claim that you cannot TRULY read the bible in English.
WORDS TO THAT EFFECT!?

John the Baptist, when speaking to the crowd of priests and Levites in 1:19-27, says "I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." I will accept this is only one translation, imperfectly made.

There is no reference to Jesus' baptism here.

I have two possible explanations.
1. John is speaking figuratively. When he says "among you", he may be saying "in your nation" or "at this time".
2. Jesus is present in the crowd, having returned from the wilderness AFTER his baptism. John doesn't point him out, because it's not Jesus' time yet.

This event in John is not the baptism event. John the Baptist says similar things in this account to the Synoptic accounts of things he said before Jesus' baptism, but he's allowed to repeat himself on different occasions, as is Jesus Himself.



I'm glad your study of Hebrew is multi-faceted, and that you know you are just beginning. Have you studied Greek or Aramaic as well?

P.S. What's your attempt at an English translation of the first verse of Genesis?

Hey, Grave, I hope I haven't upset you, or anything. Looking over my last two posts, they come across a bit, well, not quite hostile, but certainly direct.

I've really liked debating with you this evening. I'm off to bed now, but I'll catch you around.

:D

And that is my big complaint with English translations of the Hebrew.... to take a verse like "Re'shiyth 'elohiym Bara' 'eth Shamayim 'eth 'erets", and render it as something so mundane and incomplete (and, well, just plain innaccurate) as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"... well, it is beyond belief.

Which is why I claim that you cannot TRULY read the bible in English.

I dont think its that much of a problem.
BeReyshiyth bara elohiym, eyth haShamayim veEyth haArets
BeReyshiyth = in the beginning
Bara = created
elohiym = God
haShamayim= the heavens (or skies)
haArets = the earth.

Mad people
- Believe that there are beings that are within our understanding
- Believe this because they are seeing/hearing them literally, physically
- Are confused as to why other people cannot see/hear said being as its "right there"
- Have wildly conflicting beliefs/understandings as to what this being is, despite it being within their understanding.
- Christians seem to believe that they understand god. Everytime I question something about god, christians come out of the wood work to explain god and all his workings to me.
- Christians are constantly claiming they hear god and see Jesus.
- Most christians seem to be confused on why I "ignore god when he speaks to me"
- Christians seem to have wildly conflicting beliefs/understandings as to what their god is, despite him being within their understanding. The bible describes god, yet christians cannot give me a cohesive understanding of god. Just in another thread, a christian tried to argue how all powerful still has limits, which conflicts with being all powerful.

It seems to me that christians (at least the intense sects like southern baptists, church of christ, etc) are just as dillusional as those who are mentally insane.

Psalms is irrelevent... it isn't a 'true' Old Testament text... that's like using Revelation as an example of the New Testament.

The Old Testament CLEARLY uses 'soul' as a desription ONLY of the essence of life... the 'breath' that was 'breathed' in to the inanimate, to make it animate.

The 'soul' is, therefore, synonymous with the life, the passion, the spark, the blood.

Nothing to do with 'immortality' or an 'afterlife'.
Did you just throw out parts of the bible that you don't like? That's pretty damn convenient.

And yet, you choose NOT to!

You DON'T read the scripture (you STILL haven't read the bible).

You DON'T learn Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek - or even Latin - so, you WILLINGLY are accepting ONLY the <very> flawed English translations.

You DO accept OTHER translations - i.e. ONLY those that agree with your bias on what you think the text should mean.

What is the first verse of the Bible, Neo?

From the Hebrew - come on... it's an easy one.

All you have, is the fatally flawed English translations, which you accept blindly.
What?! God's word is "fatally flawed"?

It seems to me that christians (at least the intense sects like southern baptists, church of christ, etc) are just as dillusional as those who are mentally insane.

But then again, we all seem to agree that this hallucination called the external world exists, which we have no proof for.

One translation says "Thou shalt not kill" Meaning no one should ever kill anyone for any reason
another says "Thou shalt not commit murder"
This is a rather fatal flaw, since at least one of these translations is absolutely wrong.

It seems to me much like the part of animal farm when they add "Without cause" to the ten commandments of animalism.

a philosophical debate that shows how ridiculous the notion of an all-powerful being is:

person1: is your god powerful?

p2: yes

p1:is your god powerful enough create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

if p2 says no, then the god is not all-powerful, because making such a rock is beyond his ability

if p2 says yes, then the god is not all-powerful because there may exist a rock that he cannot lift.




i love the contradictions inherent in religion.

a philosophical debate that shows how ridiculous the notion of an all-powerful being is:

person1: is your god powerful?

p2: yes

p1:is your god powerful enough create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

if p2 says no, then the god is not all-powerful, because making such a rock is beyond his ability

if p2 says yes, then the god is not all-powerful because there may exist a rock that he cannot lift.




i love the contradictions inherent in religion.

Its impossible, if its impossible it cant be done. Can God create a four sided triangle? No, because its impossible.

One translation says "Thou shalt not kill" Meaning no one should ever kill anyone for any reason
another says "Thou shalt not commit murder"
This is a rather fatal flaw, since at least one of these translations is absolutely wrong.

It seems to me much like the part of animal farm when they add "Without cause" to the ten commandments of animalism.

The sixth of the ten commandments reads, “Thou shall not kill.” The New International Version translates it, “Thou shall not murder.” This is more accurate because the Hebrew word translated does not refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
Ratshach = to murder, slay, kill.

So one of the versions is wrong, correct? Thus the translation is flawed.

So one of the versions is wrong, correct? Thus the translation is flawed.

Example, the King James Version tends to be a very literal translation of the original language, whereas the New Internation Version is less literal (trying rather to translate the thought of the original.) There are many different translations, and as Grave pointed out, sometimes translating the English from Hebrew will be difficult. This is part of the reason I decided to learn Hebrew, so that I would know what the original words are. Some translations add too much human interpretation in the process so that God's Word is not accurately conveyed, the Message Bible comes to mind, while other translations are so literal that they actually cause English speakers to misunderstand the meaning of God's Word.

Oh, no bruised ego here, not for a simple figure of speech. Sorry for butting in and referring to your selection as 'lame'.

My point was only that Genesis 2:5 does not sequentially follow Genesis 2:4 and what came prior to it; 2:4 ends a chapter. At least in my copy of the Bible (The Message).
Fair 'nough! There are many manners of expression here, so i wasn't sure how serious you interpreted me or yourself there. Don't really mean to offend anyone who puts serious thought into their posts. As i said i was very impressed with some of your earlier posts as well.
Shalom

But then again, we all seem to agree that this hallucination called the external world exists, which we have no proof for.
Touche'! A hopefully copacetic (sp) mass delusion. I still don't have enough evidence either way, i must be a tough nut to crack.
Btw, where at in AK you at, if you don't mind me askin'? I'm on the Kenai Peninsula.

But then again, we all seem to agree that this hallucination called the external world exists, which we have no proof for.
Aside from ALL of our imperical senses. NONE of our imperical senses can detect the "supernatural".

This argument is as absurd as the "evil demon" theory of life. It goes something like this:
How do we know that the universe wasn't created 15 minutes ago, complete with false memories and evidence for a longer existence?

Then there's the matric theory:
How do we know we're not in the matrix right now?

Answer to both: There is no evidence FOR either idea, therefore there is no reason to believe them to be true.

a philosophical debate that shows how ridiculous the notion of an all-powerful being is:

person1: is your god powerful?

p2: yes

p1:is your god powerful enough create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

if p2 says no, then the god is not all-powerful, because making such a rock is beyond his ability

if p2 says yes, then the god is not all-powerful because there may exist a rock that he cannot lift.




i love the contradictions inherent in religion.

That's why omnipotence is a self contradictory attribute. Other attributes that have an omni attached to them have the same problem.

Its impossible, if its impossible it cant be done. Can God create a four sided triangle? No, because its impossible.
Then god is not omnipotent. Otherwise, NOTHING is beyond is ability.

Then god is not omnipotent. Otherwise, NOTHING is beyond is ability.
Exactly ... so many people do not know what properties they attribute to their creator. If he is omni potent he can do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING (potentially he may choose not to do such but if he chooses not to do something that in a direct way causes harm then he is not all loving)

There are such big logical issues with having an omni everything god and comparing that to both how the world is and how the afterlife (i.e. hell) will be

Exactly ... so many people do not know what properties they attribute to their creator. If he is omni potent he can do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING (potentially he may choose not to do such but if he chooses not to do something that in a direct way causes harm then he is not all loving)

There are such big logical issues with having an omni everything god and comparing that to both how the world is and how the afterlife (i.e. hell) will be

Why? Why should God do everything he can to avoid us every comming to harm. That means humans no longer take responability for their own actions. Thats a little immature.

Why? Why should God do everything he can to avoid us every comming to harm. That means humans no longer take responability for their own actions. Thats a little immature.

It's a very odd view to equate love with "prevent from coming to physical harm". I love my kids but I let them get up in the morning, and I even let them play football. Where they could come to harm.

Why? Why should God do everything he can to avoid us every comming to harm. That means humans no longer take responability for their own actions. Thats a little immature.
Because according to most people he is suposed to be all loving (which you would assume would mean atempted prevention of harm ... and I mean true harm not the little stuff ... things like death and eternal suffering)

Because according to most people he is suposed to be all loving (which you would assume would mean atempted prevention of harm ... and I mean true harm not the little stuff ... things like death and eternal suffering)
according to the old testament, god didn't create death & suffering. i don't know if they are supposed to have just 'come to be' or be created by satan, but the point still stands

according to the old testament, god didn't create death & suffering. i don't know if they are supposed to have just 'come to be' or be created by satan, but the point still stands
Then we get to the point that god created Satan

Not to mention if it was not something god wished to exist in the first place why did he let it happen (being omni potent) so unless he was not all powerful he wished for their to be a hell (which begs the question why he did not just create it himself)

Because according to most people he is suposed to be all loving (which you would assume would mean atempted prevention of harm ... and I mean true harm not the little stuff ... things like death and eternal suffering)

All loving and all just. Because of who God is, who we are and what sin is what you describe is justice. Besides, God's Omnibenevlonce was displayed on the cross. He died for EVERYONE. Not just those who would be Christians, not just Jews or anyone else. But EVERYONE. Its just up to humans to choose if they want to be saved or not. Since all you have to do to be saved are the 5 points I made in 306, I would say this system seems very fair.

Then god is not omnipotent. Otherwise, NOTHING is beyond is ability.

There is logical imposibility and normal impossibity. You are just being immature with the definition of omnipotent.

Dude!

Grave, you sound like a Sadducee. Do you really only hold the Torah to be true Scripture?

Seriously, the Psalms are junk? Jesus quoted from the Psalms, and no-one seemed to say to him, "Hey, that's not really Scripture!".
Matthew 13:35 quotes from Psalm 78, a maskil of Asaph, who was a seer, according to 2 Chronicles 29:30, which is why Matthew describes him as a prophet.
Dismissing the primary book of the Writings (Keturim, but you can correct my transliteration!) seems quite extreme.

To be specific about it, I have a heirarchy of significance that I attach to Biblical scripture... which may only apply for me, I guess.

There are two 'junk' texts, one for each 'testament': These are Psalms (which is a collection of folk songs inspired by scripture), and Revelation, which is a disconnected text wedged into the canon of New Testament scripture.

The most 'important' part of scripture, to me - is the basis of it. This means the Old Testament is more 'important' than the new (since Jesus is just some hippy commie, without the prophecies). This also emans that the Pentatauch is the most 'important' part of the Old Testament.. since it sets up the 'theology' of the religion, rather than merely document history.

Within the Mosaic texts, the most 'important' would be Genesis, since it contains the heart of the religion. The 'seed' if you will.

But, yes - seriously... I do think of the Psalms as nothing more than a 'commentary'... a 'companion'. That doesn't make them utterly invalid - but it means I don't accord them the same scriptural value as the other texts - and I also don't hold them to the same rigorous standards.

WORDS TO THAT EFFECT!?

John the Baptist, when speaking to the crowd of priests and Levites in 1:19-27, says "I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." I will accept this is only one translation, imperfectly made.

There is no reference to Jesus' baptism here.

I have two possible explanations.
1. John is speaking figuratively. When he says "among you", he may be saying "in your nation" or "at this time".
2. Jesus is present in the crowd, having returned from the wilderness AFTER his baptism. John doesn't point him out, because it's not Jesus' time yet.

This event in John is not the baptism event. John the Baptist says similar things in this account to the Synoptic accounts of things he said before Jesus' baptism, but he's allowed to repeat himself on different occasions, as is Jesus Himself.



I'm glad your study of Hebrew is multi-faceted, and that you know you are just beginning. Have you studied Greek or Aramaic as well?

P.S. What's your attempt at an English translation of the first verse of Genesis?

I like the idea - I think you have the strongest case I have heard in response to this particular 'problem'... and I have been chewing it over on the forum for a while.

Personally, I'm not sure that I can justify seperating the John account into two events... a reference to baptism, and a reference to a later 're-telling' about other details. It seems to me that the story flows in such a way as to suggest that John is baptising Jesus, and then Jesus runs off with some buddies, because they've got a party to get to, and only 72 hours to get there. :)

It is a good argument, and I commend it, and can't deny it - but, I also don't find it sufficiently convincing that it comfortably explains the situation. It just doesn't read right, for me... It makes more sense to be detailing one event, than to assume that there are two different events, where one mimics the other.


And, yes - I have studied Aramaic and Greek, also... since I don't think you can have a real understanding of the text in English. I also have studied Latin... which was my first attempt at reading the Bible in a more 'original' language.

I admit - I have only scratched the surface of the Hebrew. English is such a 'mechanical' language in comparison.

Hey, Grave, I hope I haven't upset you, or anything. Looking over my last two posts, they come across a bit, well, not quite hostile, but certainly direct.

I've really liked debating with you this evening. I'm off to bed now, but I'll catch you around.

:D

Absolutely no problem, friend.

I haven't found you hostile... and I appreciate 'direct' far more than many people with their oblique attacks.

Has been fun.

It's nice to actually feel like you are debating with someone who pays attention. :)

All men are good in the eyes of Great Spirit.

-Sitting Bull, Oglaga, Lakota Sioux

I dont think its that much of a problem.
BeReyshiyth bara elohiym, eyth haShamayim veEyth haArets
BeReyshiyth = in the beginning
Bara = created
elohiym = God
haShamayim= the heavens (or skies)
haArets = the earth.

Well done.

Obviously it is POSSIBLE to pull those words from it.

I think it misses almost everything contained in the Hebrew text, though... and, in fact, I think it pretty much contradicts the original text.

Did you just throw out parts of the bible that you don't like? That's pretty damn convenient.

Not really - I don't attach much significance to "Psalms" or "Revelation", because they are more of 'flavour' text, than truly integrated parts of the scripture.

What?! God's word is "fatally flawed"?

The English translation certainly is.

Whether or not the bible is the "word of god", is a different matter.

The sixth of the ten commandments reads, “Thou shall not kill.” The New International Version translates it, “Thou shall not murder.” This is more accurate because the Hebrew word translated does not refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
Ratshach = to murder, slay, kill.

Actually, from "Ratsach", you could ALSO be getting: 'to kill' (premeditated); 'to kill' (accidental); and 'to kill' (as an act of vengeance).

So - the Hebrew can be referring to malicious, deliberate and unlawful killing; non-malicious accidental killing; and lawful (or justified) killing.

Actually, from "Ratsach", you could ALSO be getting: 'to kill' (premeditated); 'to kill' (accidental); and 'to kill' (as an act of vengeance).

So - the Hebrew can be referring to malicious, deliberate and unlawful killing; non-malicious accidental killing; and lawful (or justified) killing.

It also depends on the stem used that determines the meaning.

Then god is not omnipotent. Otherwise, NOTHING is beyond is ability.

Thats like asking, "Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?" or, "If God beat Himself up, who would win?" or, "Can God's power defeat His own power?" The problem is not with God nor with omnipotence, but inside the question. It includes a contradictory definition. The object under discussion, the rock, has been defined as an object that an all-powerful being cannot lift. And this creates a problem.

-An all-powerful being can lift anything.
-The posed question is about object A.
-Object A is a rock that an all-powerful being cannot lift.
-Therefore, object A is a rock that cannot be lifted by a being that can lift anything.

The definition of object A is nonsensical, it is self-contradicting. Such a rock does not exist. That's not enough, such a rock couldn't exist, even in theory.

A square that has no corners doesn't exist, either. But just as the rock in question, it is impossible that it even could exist, because squares, by definition, always have four corners. Talking about an image that simultaneously has four corners and no corners at all is pointless. The words don't mean anything.

according to the old testament, god didn't create death & suffering. i don't know if they are supposed to have just 'come to be' or be created by satan, but the point still stands
God HAD to have created death and suffering, otherwise it wouldn't exist. After all, god created EVERYTHING, right?

BTW, that IS in the OT. Re-read it.

There is logical imposibility and normal impossibity. You are just being immature with the definition of omnipotent.
No, you're simply stuck because you can't get around the logical impossibility of god's omnipotence, let alone when you couple that with the existence of evil.

The English translation certainly is.

Whether or not the bible is the "word of god", is a different matter.
If it's the word of god, then it CAN'T be flawed, let alone fatally flawed.

Thats like asking, "Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?" or, "If God beat Himself up, who would win?" or, "Can God's power defeat His own power?" The problem is not with God nor with omnipotence, but inside the question. It includes a contradictory definition. The object under discussion, the rock, has been defined as an object that an all-powerful being cannot lift. And this creates a problem.

-An all-powerful being can lift anything.
-The posed question is about object A.
-Object A is a rock that an all-powerful being cannot lift.
-Therefore, object A is a rock that cannot be lifted by a being that can lift anything.

The definition of object A is nonsensical, it is self-contradicting. Such a rock does not exist. That's not enough, such a rock couldn't exist, even in theory.

A square that has no corners doesn't exist, either. But just as the rock in question, it is impossible that it even could exist, because squares, by definition, always have four corners. Talking about an image that simultaneously has four corners and no corners at all is pointless. The words don't mean anything.
And that is precisely why omnipotence is a self-contradictory attribute. Therefore, god cannot be omnipotent and the bible is flawed in making that claim.

And that is precisely why omnipotence is a self-contradictory attribute. Therefore, god cannot be omnipotent and the bible is flawed in making that claim.
No it isn't. Can you Thursday? No? Clearly it's a failing in you, and the fact the question is inherently flawed. People like you are why the Democrats keep losing elections.

And that is precisely why omnipotence is a self-contradictory attribute. Therefore, god cannot be omnipotent and the bible is flawed in making that claim.

The statement "a Being cannot create that which cannot exist" is vacuous. It does not assert anything that is not evident by logical analysis, nor does it assert anything whatsoever about the nature of the Being. It is trivially true. But since it asserts nothing about the nature of God, then it fails to derive a contradiction from theistic premises and is itself reducible to an absurdity. A Being cannot be faulted for not creating that which cannot exist, because that which cannot exist cannot be created. God does not lack the ability to create that which cannot exist, because there is no such ability.

God is a maximally powerful being.
That which cannot exist, cannot be created.

No contradiction can be derived from these two assertions. The argument against omnipotence itself has been demonstrated to rest on a logical absurdity.

No it isn't. Can you Thursday? No? Clearly it's a failing in you, and the fact the question is inherently flawed. People like you are why the Democrats keep losing elections.
This post was all over the map, prejudiced and made no sense what so ever. Have a nice life. :rolleyes:

The statement "a Being cannot create that which cannot exist" is vacuous. It does not assert anything that is not evident by logical analysis, nor does it assert anything whatsoever about the nature of the Being. It is trivially true. But since it asserts nothing about the nature of God, then it fails to derive a contradiction from theistic premises and is itself reducible to an absurdity. A Being cannot be faulted for not creating that which cannot exist, because that which cannot exist cannot be created. God does not lack the ability to create that which cannot exist, because there is no such ability.

God is a maximally powerful being.
That which cannot exist, cannot be created.

No contradiction can be derived from these two assertions. The argument against omnipotence itself has been demonstrated to rest on a logical absurdity.

You're half way there. Now, just admit that omnipotence is a self-contradictory attribute and that it CANNOT be an attribute posessed by ANY being. Once you do that, you will see why the god of the bible CANNOT exist, as he is described in the bible.

You're half way there. Now, just admit that omnipotence is a self-contradictory attribute and that it CANNOT be an attribute posessed by ANY being. Once you do that, you will see why the god of the bible CANNOT exist, as he is described in the bible.

Skeptics and atheists have posed queries that they feel nullify the notion of omnipotence, thereby demonstrating the nonexistence of God. Like the one we've been using, “Can God create a rock so large that He, Himself, cannot lift it?” Separate and apart from the fact that God is not, Himself, physical, and that He created the entire physical Universe, though He is metaphysical and transcendent of the Universe, the question is a conceptual absurdity. It’s like asking, “Can God create a round square or a four-sided triangle?” No, He cannot, but not for the reasons implied by the atheist: that He does not exist or that He is not omnipotent. It is because the question is, itself, self-contradictory and incoherent. It is nonsensical terminology. Rather than saying God cannot do such things, it would be more in harmony with the truth to say simply that such things cannot be done at all. God is infinite in power, but power meaningfully relates only to what can be done, to what is possible of accomplishment. It is absurd to speak of any power (even infinite power) being able to do what simply cannot be done. Logical absurdities do not lend themselves to being accomplished, and so, are not subject to power, not even to infinite power.

While God can do whatever is possible to be done, in reality, He will do only what is in harmony with His nature. Further, to suggest that God is deficient or limited in power if He cannot create a rock so large that He cannot lift, is to imply that He could do so if He simply had more power. But this is false. Creating a rock that He, Himself, cannot lift, or creating a four-sided triangle, or making a ball that is at the same time both white all over and black all over; to propose such things is to affirm logical contradictions and absurdities.
Such propositions do not really say anything at all. Though one can imagine logical absurdities that cannot be accomplished, they do not constitute a telling blow against the view that God is infinite in power.

Skeptics and atheists have posed queries that they feel nullify the notion of omnipotence, thereby demonstrating the nonexistence of God. Like the one we've been using, “Can God create a rock so large that He, Himself, cannot lift it?” Separate and apart from the fact that God is not, Himself, physical, and that He created the entire physical Universe, though He is metaphysical and transcendent of the Universe, the question is a conceptual absurdity. It’s like asking, “Can God create a round square or a four-sided triangle?” No, He cannot, but not for the reasons implied by the atheist: that He does not exist or that He is not omnipotent. It is because the question is, itself, self-contradictory and incoherent. It is nonsensical terminology. Rather than saying God cannot do such things, it would be more in harmony with the truth to say simply that such things cannot be done at all.

God is infinite in power, but power meaningfully relates only to what can be done, to what is possible of accomplishment. It is absurd to speak of any power (even infinite power) being able to do what simply cannot be done. Logical absurdities do not lend themselves to being accomplished, and so, are not subject to power, not even to infinite power.

While God can do whatever is possible to be done, in reality, He will do only what is in harmony with His nature. Further, to suggest that God is deficient or limited in power if He cannot create a rock so large that He cannot lift, is to imply that He could do so if He simply had more power. But this is false. Creating a rock that He, Himself, cannot lift, or creating a four-sided triangle, or making a ball that is at the same time both white all over and black all over; to propose such things is to affirm logical contradictions and absurdities.
Such propositions do not really say anything at all. Though one can imagine logical absurdities that cannot be accomplished, they do not constitute a telling blow against the view that God is infinite in power.

Precisely, because omnipotence goes against the laws of logic, just as I have been saying throughout this entire thread. Nothing can be omnipotent, because it is an attribute that cannot be posessed due to it's self-contradicting nature. That is not to say that god does not exist, I can't prove that or disprove it. However, it does prove that god cannot be omnipotent, as the bible claims he is. Therefore, the bible is not a reliable source of information about god.

Precisely, because omnipotence goes against the laws of logic, just as I have been saying throughout this entire thread. Nothing can be omnipotent, because it is an attribute that cannot be posessed due to it's self-contradicting nature. That is not to say that god does not exist, I can't prove that or disprove it. However, it does prove that god cannot be omnipotent, as the bible claims he is. Therefore, the bible is not a reliable source of information about god.

There is a diffence between logical omnipotence and physical omnipontence. God can do things that are impossible for us to do. He can control all the physical elements, restructure the fabric of matter control everything in this universe. Your assertion that he cannot create a four sided triangle is flawed because thats not what a triangle is. That is cemantics of words. A triangle means a shape with three sides. You cant have a four sided triangle due to the nature of the word 'triangle'. Thats like asking someone to make wednesday a small lump of cheese. It changes the definition of the word, but nothing else. See here for further explination on the rock point.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hgodrock.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/notsobig.html

There is a diffence between logical omnipotence and physical omnipontence.

You're playing with words now. There is no such distinction as "physical omnipotence" and "logical omnipotence". Further, that does not hold up to scripture.

God can do things that are impossible for us to do. He can control all the physical elements, restructure the fabric of matter control everything in this universe. Your assertion that he cannot create a four sided triangle is flawed because thats not what a triangle is. That is cemantics of words. A triangle means a shape with three sides. You cant have a four sided triangle due to the nature of the word 'triangle'. Thats like asking someone to make wednesday a small lump of cheese. It changes the definition of the word, but nothing else. See here for further explination on the rock point.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hgodrock.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/notsobig.html

Omnipotent doesn't mean "more powerful then man", it means all powerful, just like the bible says. The bible says that there is nothing that god cannot do. According to that description, god should be able to make a four sided triangle. Yet, god cannot, because it is logically imposible, due to the self-contrictory nature of omnipotence.

omnipotent

adj : having unlimited power [syn: almighty, all-powerful]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotent

Even in the links you provided, the appologist is trying to redefine "omnipotence" in the very first sentence: "First, Omnipotence has historically been understood as the ability to perform any task consistent with His character and essence." Everything after this is a waste, because it is based on this thesis, which is fatally flawed. Why? Because that's not what omnipotence means. Refer to previously posted definition.

Further, the appologist's definition doesn't make any sense biblically, because the bible doesn't say "omnipotent", it says "all powerful", "almight" and "there is nothing god cannot do". These things all define omnipotence, so the writer did nothing to get away from these scriptural descriptions of god's power; all she did was play a semantical game with the word "omnipotent".

You're playing with words now. There is no such distinction as "physical omnipotence" and "logical omnipotence". Further, that does not hold up to scripture.

And your not playing with words with the "4 sided Triangle" arguement?


Omnipotent doesn't mean "more powerful then man", it means all powerful, just like the bible says. The bible says that there is nothing that god cannot do. According to that description, god should be able to make a four sided triangle. Yet, god cannot, because it is logically imposible, due to the self-contrictory nature of omnipotence.

You are taking biblical references out of context. All powerful does not mean breaking logical ideas. The reason 1+2=15 is wrong is not because that its some kind of universal fundamental, but its the way humans have built up language and maths. Now God could quite easily go back in time and rearrange with the human language and writing structure to make it so that 1+2 does equal 15. What you are arguing about here are logical fallacies. The Bibles reference to all powerful refers to the physical world. It refers to God's ability to control everything in the physical world, to the smallest quark or photon to the largest stellar nursery. You are using the nature of the idea of "all powerfulness" to twist to your own ideas. All powerfulness does not equate to breaking language and logic barriers. Can God make Wednesday a small lump of cheese. Yes, he could make it so that Wednesday means a small lump of cheese by going back in time and changing our language structure, or he could make the week 6 days long and on the midnight of the night between Tuesday and Thursday a small lump of cheese could appear in every house. Your asking God to break human logical laws. However thats not what all powerful means in this context.


omnipotent

adj : having unlimited power [syn: almighty, all-powerful]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotent

Yes, a dictionary definition of a 20th centurery term. Try to remember

A) When the Bible was written

B) What it was intended to mean


Even in the links you provided, the appologist is trying to redefine "omnipotence" in the very first sentence: "First, Omnipotence has historically been understood as the ability to perform any task consistent with His character and essence." Everything after this is a waste, because it is based on this thesis, which is fatally flawed. Why? Because that's not what omnipotence means. Refer to previously posted definition.

Again an English dictionary definiton. We are talking about God here. Not human linguistical understanding. God is all powerful in the physical meaning of the word.


Further, the appologist's definition doesn't make any sense biblically, because the bible doesn't say "omnipotent", it says "all powerful", "almight" and "there is nothing god cannot do". These things all define omnipotence, so the writer did nothing to get away from these scriptural descriptions of god's power; all she did was play a semantical game with the word "omnipotent".

And your not? You are asking God to break rules which humans put on logic in the first place. Of course you can't have a four sided triangle. Because thats not what the word triangle means. Of course you cant have a ball that is both black and white all over, because thats not what "all over" means. You are using human language flaws to suggest God is flawed. You are mistaken.

The idea that you can invalidate, or validate, a paradoxical statement about God is absurd.

If you're telling me that God cant create that wich cannot be created, I'd tell
you to find a better God.
If you hold a Deity to a humans concept of physics and logic, you obviously have no faith in the divinity, or "omnipotence" of said diety.

“Can God create a round square or a four-sided triangle?” No, He cannot, but not for the reasons implied by the atheist: that He does not exist or that He is not omnipotent. It is because the question is, itself, self-contradictory and incoherent. It is nonsensical terminology.

I would say that the very concept of God fits in that category, too.
Nonsensical, and condradictory.

If you're telling me that God cant create that wich cannot be created, I'd tell
you to find a better God.
If you hold a Deity to a humans concept of physics and logic, you obviously have no faith in the divinity, or "omnipotence" of said diety.


You cant create a four sided triangle, because thats not what the word "triangle" means

You cant create a ball that is both black and white all over because that is not what the phrase "all over" means.

People try to use language contridctions to prove God doesn't exist. They are sadly mistaken. Look at my post before this one for further info.

Omnipotent doesn't mean "more powerful then man", it means all powerful, just like the bible says. The bible says that there is nothing that god cannot do. According to that description, god should be able to make a four sided triangle. Yet, god cannot, because it is logically imposible, due to the self-contrictory nature of omnipotence.

Further, the appologist's definition doesn't make any sense biblically, because the bible doesn't say "omnipotent", it says "all powerful", "almight" and "there is nothing god cannot do". These things all define omnipotence, so the writer did nothing to get away from these scriptural descriptions of god's power; all she did was play a semantical game with the word "omnipotent".

When we speak of "no limitations" we are talking about rational categories or limitations within a rational category. Within the realm of power, we mean that God can do anything that it is logically possible for power to do. I.e., There is no limit on which powers in the category of "powers" that God can exercise. The category of powers, however, is itself restricted to the realm of things that are logically possible. Reread the posts that I have already given on this.

Such a contradiction is not subject to it, not from any impotence in God, but because it simply does not have the nature of being feasible or possible. Whatever, then, does not involve a contradiction is in the realm of the possible with respect to which God is omnipotent. Whatever involves a contradiction is not within the scope of omnipotence because it cannot qualify for possibility. It cannot be done, rather than God cannot do it.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess.

i don't see how the rock itself is a contradiction.

it's a rock

if he does have the power to create, then he will not be able to lift it by the definition of the rock (ie: that which he cannot lift)

if he does have the power to lift it, then by definition, the rock no longer falls into the category of "rock that cannot be lifted" and is therefore no longer the rock in question. hence: he has not, in fact, managed to lift said rock. since the rock in question did not meet the requirements for fulfilling the task ("creating a rock that he cannot lift") he has failed at the task, and cannot create such a rock.



your argument begins with the assumption that god is, by definition, omnipotent, and that the definition of the rock must be called into question.

my argument is that the roc is, by definition, unable to be lifted, and that the definition of god must be called into question.


your argument [ "your argument must be wrong, because it proves god's impotence, and since god's omnipotence cannot be called into question, there must be something wrong with the argument" ] fails.

When we speak of "no limitations" we are talking about rational categories or limitations within a rational category. Within the realm of power, we mean that God can do anything that it is logically possible for power to do. I.e., There is no limit on which powers in the category of "powers" that God can exercise. The category of powers, however, is itself restricted to the realm of things that are logically possible. Reread the posts that I have already given on this.


You make a very good point, and you've convinced me that the "rock too heavy" argument is bunk.

However, what if it is outside the category of logically possible powers for God, external from the physical universe, to alter the universe in any way at all?

I would propose that it is a logical impossibility for a being outside of reality to manipulate that which is inside reality, which would render God's logical power very thin indeed. By this argument, God would theoretically exist, but he would be unable to perform any tasks within the physical world, and thus to all intents and purposes would not 'exist' conventionally.

i don't see how the rock itself is a contradiction.

it's a rock

if he does have the power to create, then he will not be able to lift it by the definition of the rock (ie: that which he cannot lift)

if he does have the power to lift it, then by definition, the rock no longer falls into the category of "rock that cannot be lifted" and is therefore no longer the rock in question. hence: he has not, in fact, managed to lift said rock. since the rock in question did not meet the requirements for fulfilling the task ("creating a rock that he cannot lift") he has failed at the task, and cannot create such a rock.



your argument begins with the assumption that god is, by definition, omnipotent, and that the definition of the rock must be called into question.

my argument is that the roc is, by definition, unable to be lifted, and that the definition of god must be called into question.


your argument [ "your argument must be wrong, because it proves god's impotence, and since god's omnipotence cannot be called into question, there must be something wrong with the argument" ] fails.

Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The above atheistic argument is arguing that since God is all-powerful He can do anything, even fail. This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.

One distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible.

Notice that these are also things that nobody can do: they are all perfect nonsense. There can never be such a thing as a square circle, or a colorless blue ball, simply because these things are impossible to achieve. Being square by definition involves not being a circle; being colorless by definition involves not being blue.

So the mere fact that God cannot actualize such things should not be seen as a limitation of God’s power, rather, one should recognize that nonsense is nonsense, and that the impossible is simply what it is: not possible.

Can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it? The question is designed to pit God’s omnipotence against itself in a contradictory framework of creation and manipulation. It is specifically designed to try and invalidate omnipotence altogether by forcing God to work at least two contradictory and competing actions at the same time.

You say “that means that God is not omnipotent, because God cannot make a rock so massive that God can't move it.” But no it doesn’t. All this means is that the nature of the universe, and the nature of mass itself, is insufficient to test God’s manipulative or creative omnipotence.

Neither of these observations mean that God isn’t omnipotent; quite the contrary, they simply mean that God’s ability to create or manipulate objects is limited only by the nature of the universe itself, a limit set by God in creation, and not by God’s power. Round triangles are incapable of being created because such would contradict the very meaning of “triangularity.” God can still move infinitely massive rocks, and hence mass is insufficient to test the limits of God’s manipulative power. In both cases, these limits are imposed not by any inherent inability in God’s being but, rather, due to the self-limitation that God accepted in the creation of the universe.

And your not playing with words with the "4 sided Triangle" arguement?

I'm not the one making up definitions.

You are taking biblical references out of context. All powerful does not mean breaking logical ideas. The reason 1+2=15 is wrong is not because that its some kind of universal fundamental, but its the way humans have built up language and maths. Now God could quite easily go back in time and rearrange with the human language and writing structure to make it so that 1+2 does equal 15. What you are arguing about here are logical fallacies. The Bibles reference to all powerful refers to the physical world. It refers to God's ability to control everything in the physical world, to the smallest quark or photon to the largest stellar nursery.

Where in the bible does it say that? I've got biblical scriptures that say that NOTHING is beyond god's ability. What have you got?

You are using the nature of the idea of "all powerfulness" to twist to your own ideas. All powerfulness does not equate to breaking language and logic barriers. Can God make Wednesday a small lump of cheese. Yes, he could make it so that Wednesday means a small lump of cheese by going back in time and changing our language structure, or he could make the week 6 days long and on the midnight of the night between Tuesday and Thursday a small lump of cheese could appear in every house. Your asking God to break human logical laws. However thats not what all powerful means in this context.

You're trying to change the meaning of words so that your god isn't logically impossible.

Yes, a dictionary definition of a 20th centurery term.

See? If you don't like the definition of something, you're OK with changing it so that it fits your god.

Again an English dictionary definiton. We are talking about God here. Not human linguistical understanding. God is all powerful in the physical meaning of the word.

Where in the bible does it say that? The bible says that NOTHING is beyond god's ability to do.

And your not? You are asking God to break rules which humans put on logic in the first place. Of course you can't have a four sided triangle. Because thats not what the word triangle means. Of course you cant have a ball that is both black and white all over, because thats not what "all over" means. You are using human language flaws to suggest God is flawed. You are mistaken.

I'm not redefining a triangle, I'm pointing out that the law of non-contradiction cannot be broken, therefore omnipontence is a self-contradicting attribute and cannot be posessed by ANYONE, EVER.

Further, I'm not saying that god is flawed, I'm saying that the bible is flawed. The bible clearly says that god is omnipotent, but omnipotence is a logical impossibilitiy. Therefore, the bible is flawed.

Interestingly enough, the bible contradicts itself on god's omnipotence, by having several places where god's power is limited. Again, the bible is flawed. I can't say whether god is flawed, because god can neither be proved or disproved, but he cannot exist as he is described in the bible. He cannot be omnipotent, let alone both omnipotent and not omnipotent. That's breaking the law of non-contradiction TWICE.

One distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible.

I agree that the "rock too heavy" argument is absurd.

But isn't it logically impossible for a deity which is external from existence to modify or alter anything within existence? Thus, God is omnipotent in the sense that he can perform anything which is logically possible, but that which is logically possible for God amounts to nothing since it is impossible that he could be independant from reality and still have any kind of power within reality.

You cant create a four sided triangle, because thats not what the word "triangle" means

You cant create a ball that is both black and white all over because that is not what the phrase "all over" means.

People try to use language contridctions to prove God doesn't exist. They are sadly mistaken. Look at my post before this one for further info.
That is not a play on language, that is a description of the logical law of non-contradiction. Since omnipotence contradicts itself, then it is not a possible attribute to posess.

When we speak of "no limitations" we are talking about rational categories or limitations within a rational category. Within the realm of power, we mean that God can do anything that it is logically possible for power to do. I.e., There is no limit on which powers in the category of "powers" that God can exercise. The category of powers, however, is itself restricted to the realm of things that are logically possible. Reread the posts that I have already given on this.

Such a contradiction is not subject to it, not from any impotence in God, but because it simply does not have the nature of being feasible or possible. Whatever, then, does not involve a contradiction is in the realm of the possible with respect to which God is omnipotent. Whatever involves a contradiction is not within the scope of omnipotence because it cannot qualify for possibility. It cannot be done, rather than God cannot do it.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess.
Your entire post contradicts biblical scripture that describes god's power as "NOTHING is beyond his ability to do."

your argument begins with the assumption that god is, by definition, omnipotent, and that the definition of the rock must be called into question.
You're right, I am claiming that god is omnipotent, because the bible claims it.

You make a very good point, and you've convinced me that the "rock too heavy" argument is bunk.

However, what if it is outside the category of logically possible powers for God, external from the physical universe, to alter the universe in any way at all?

I would propose that it is a logical impossibility for a being outside of reality to manipulate that which is inside reality, which would render God's logical power very thin indeed. By this argument, God would theoretically exist, but he would be unable to perform any tasks within the physical world, and thus to all intents and purposes would not 'exist' conventionally.

Here is a link for that:

God and reality (http://www.carm.org/atheism/reality_argument.htm)

Your entire post contradicts biblical scripture that describes god's power as "NOTHING is beyond his ability to do."

There is no ability to create the impossible.

the problem with your argument is that you begin it all by assumint that which is to be proved.


prove: god is imnipotent

well, since god is omnipotent, by definition, he is all powerful, and can lift any rock ever created and create a rock that nothing can lift (though those statements are contradictory), therefore he is omnipotent.

is no different than

prove: 3=5


well, based on the assumption that 3=5, we can conclude that 6=10, therefore allowing 3 to equal 5

If it's the word of god, then it CAN'T be flawed, let alone fatally flawed.

IF the Old Testament is the word of god, it was only pure in the language in which it was given.

IF god really confused the tongues at Babel, then it can be assumed he ONLY gave his text in Hebrew for a good reason.

THUS: IF god gave his text in Hebrew, it doesn't matter how 'good' the English translation might be, it ISN'T the same as the Word, as handed down to Israel. Thus - the English translation could very easily be fatally flawed.

the problem with your argument is that you begin it all by assumint that which is to be proved.


prove: god is imnipotent

well, since god is omnipotent, by definition, he is all powerful, and can lift any rock ever created and create a rock that nothing can lift (though those statements are contradictory), therefore he is omnipotent.

is no different than

prove: 3=5


well, based on the assumption that 3=5, we can conclude that 6=10, therefore allowing 3 to equal 5

What he means is that in order to be omnipotent, God needs to be able to do everything which is possible. To do something which is logically impossible is not a necessary prerequisite for being able to do everything which is possible.

(However, I'm still disputing God's existence, just on different grounds)

the problem with your argument is that you begin it all by assumint that which is to be proved.


prove: god is imnipotent

well, since god is omnipotent, by definition, he is all powerful, and can lift any rock ever created and create a rock that nothing can lift (though those statements are contradictory), therefore he is omnipotent.

is no different than

prove: 3=5


well, based on the assumption that 3=5, we can conclude that 6=10, therefore allowing 3 to equal 5

That was hard to follow honestly. The bible says God is all-powerful, or omnipotent. In order for one to prove that God is not onmipotent you have to start with the belief that he is. You cant try to prove that God is not omnipotent without first having the thought that God is onmipotent.

IF the Old Testament is the word of god, it was only pure in the language in which it was given.

IF god really confused the tongues at Babel, then it can be assumed he ONLY gave his text in Hebrew for a good reason.

THUS: IF god gave his text in Hebrew, it doesn't matter how 'good' the English translation might be, it ISN'T the same as the Word, as handed down to Israel. Thus - the English translation could very easily be fatally flawed.

I agree with you Grave that the translations from Hebrew will not be 100% accurate, but I dont think I would say it is fatally flawed.

There is a diffence between logical omnipotence and physical omnipontence. God can do things that are impossible for us to do. He can control all the physical elements, restructure the fabric of matter control everything in this universe. Your assertion that he cannot create a four sided triangle is flawed because thats not what a triangle is. That is cemantics of words. A triangle means a shape with three sides. You cant have a four sided triangle due to the nature of the word 'triangle'. Thats like asking someone to make wednesday a small lump of cheese. It changes the definition of the word, but nothing else. See here for further explination on the rock point.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hgodrock.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/notsobig.html

You are missing the point, Neo.

God is not 'omnipotent', because it is impossible to BE omnipotent, even within the laxer confines of theology.

What scripture INTENDS could be argued as: God has no equal, and is the creator of all.

What scripture SAYS is: God is ALL-Powerful. Which means NOTHING is beyond his/her reach.

Thus, God should be able to make a square circle, or four-sided-triangle... it would merely be beyond human comprehension (which is the answer you SHOULD have given... honestly, do I have to do your 'apologist' work for you?)

Similarly, god should be able to make a rock that he/she cannot lift... and lift any object he/she could make. 'Omnipotence' would allow that, and THAT is why it is a flawed concept.

Here is a link for that:

God and reality (http://www.carm.org/atheism/reality_argument.htm)

Ok, I read that link. So the actual theist stance is that God exists within the bounds of reality?

If God exists within reality, he must be subject to the laws which govern reality. These make power over the entire universe impossible. The laws of physics in their widely accepted form do not allow for something within reality to have magical control over everything. If God was governed by the laws of reality, he would be capable of some things yes, but there would be some physically possible feats which he would not be able to perform.

Also, how could God possible generate the universe if it contains him? He has to have been present outside of reality if he initially created it, but independance from reality results in logical inability to do anything, as we already discussed.

I agree with you Grave that the translations from Hebrew will not be 100% accurate, but I dont think I would say it is fatally flawed.

On the contrary... numbers don't lie, so let's look at the math...

Inaccurate = flawed.

Flawed (in an inerrant text) = flaw that proves errancy.

Therefore; Flaw = fatal flaw.

Thus, inaccurate translation = fatal flaw.

What scripture SAYS is: God is ALL-Powerful. Which means NOTHING is beyond his/her reach.

Thus, God should be able to make a square circle, or four-sided-triangle... it would merely be beyond human comprehension (which is the answer you SHOULD have given... honestly, do I have to do your 'apologist' work for you?)

Similarly, god should be able to make a rock that he/she cannot lift... and lift any object he/she could make. 'Omnipotence' would allow that, and THAT is why it is a flawed concept.

But I agree with the other guy that to be All-powerful is to have all powers - and I define a power to be the ability to do something which is logically possible. It is logically impossible for God to create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, so it isn't a prerequisite for omnipotence, since it isn't a power.

Again, I'm not defending the existence of God, merely suggesting that this reason for non-belief is flawed.

Since an all-powerful being will always be able to accomplish whatever He sets out to do, it is impossible for an all-powerful being to fail. The above atheistic argument is arguing that since God is all-powerful He can do anything, even fail. This is like saying that since God is all-powerful He can be not all-powerful. Obviously, this is absurd. An all-powerful being cannot fail. Therefore, God can create a rock of tremendous size, but, since He is all-powerful, He will always be able to lift it. The ability to fail is not a part of omnipotence.

One distorts the biblical definition of omnipotence in order to "prove" that God cannot exist. Contrary to their claims, omnipotence does not include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible. Neither does omnipotence include the ability to fail. By defining omnipotence as requiring one to have the ability to fail, atheists have defined omnipotence as being impossible.

Notice that these are also things that nobody can do: they are all perfect nonsense. There can never be such a thing as a square circle, or a colorless blue ball, simply because these things are impossible to achieve. Being square by definition involves not being a circle; being colorless by definition involves not being blue.

So the mere fact that God cannot actualize such things should not be seen as a limitation of God’s power, rather, one should recognize that nonsense is nonsense, and that the impossible is simply what it is: not possible.

Can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it? The question is designed to pit God’s omnipotence against itself in a contradictory framework of creation and manipulation. It is specifically designed to try and invalidate omnipotence altogether by forcing God to work at least two contradictory and competing actions at the same time.

You say “that means that God is not omnipotent, because God cannot make a rock so massive that God can't move it.” But no it doesn’t. All this means is that the nature of the universe, and the nature of mass itself, is insufficient to test God’s manipulative or creative omnipotence.

Neither of these observations mean that God isn’t omnipotent; quite the contrary, they simply mean that God’s ability to create or manipulate objects is limited only by the nature of the universe itself, a limit set by God in creation, and not by God’s power. Round triangles are incapable of being created because such would contradict the very meaning of “triangularity.” God can still move infinitely massive rocks, and hence mass is insufficient to test the limits of God’s manipulative power. In both cases, these limits are imposed not by any inherent inability in God’s being but, rather, due to the self-limitation that God accepted in the creation of the universe.

In other words, 'god' created a set of limits for his/her self - thereby limiting his/her 'potency' in measurable reality.

That is EXACTLY why 'omnipotence' is ridiculous.

Either you are 'omnipotent', and thus not bound by the laws of possibility, OR, you are BOUND by those laws, and thus, NOT omnipotent.

But I agree with the other guy that to be All-powerful is to have all powers - and I define a power to be the ability to do something which is logically possible. It is logically impossible for God to create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, so it isn't a prerequisite for omnipotence, since it isn't a power.

Again, I'm not defending the existence of God, merely suggesting that this reason for non-belief is flawed.

This shouldn't be viewed as a "reason for non-belief", it should be seen as a proof that 'omnipotence' is a ridiculous concept.

I can create something so heavy that I cannot life it. My ability to create, outstretches my ability to control.

My 'power' of creation, outstretches my 'power' of control.

'God' is assumed to be All-Powerful - therefore, he/she has the 'power' to create that which cannot be lifted, and to control that which is beyond the means of creation.

Omnipotence is a flawed concept.

God cannot have Power 'A' which is greater than the capacity of power 'B', AND vice versa.

On the contrary... numbers don't lie, so let's look at the math...

Inaccurate = flawed.

Flawed (in an inerrant text) = flaw that proves errancy.

Therefore; Flaw = fatal flaw.

Thus, inaccurate translation = fatal flaw.

The translations have 'fatal' flaws? Can you post an example please? There are problems getting some parts of the Hebrew into english, but I dont think that it should be thought of as 'fatal.'

This shouldn't be viewed as a "reason for non-belief", it should be seen as a proof that 'omnipotence' is a ridiculous concept.

I can create something so heavy that I cannot life it. My ability to create, outstretches my ability to control.

My 'power' of creation, outstretches my 'power' of control.

'God' is assumed to be All-Powerful - therefore, he/she has the 'power' to create that which cannot be lifted, and to control that which is beyond the means of creation.

Omnipotence is a flawed concept.

God cannot have Power 'A' which is greater than the capacity of power 'B', AND vice versa.

I guess you're right in a way. I find firmer logical proof in the "that which is outside of reality is not real, that which is inside reality is subject to the limitations of reality" argument. Actually, now I come to think of it, "rock too heavy" might be considered a limitation of reality, so I suppose I do agree with it in fact.

You have not lived, until you have witnessed the pain on the face of a person crying blood from their eyes in pain, wailing because you have ripped their soul from their pathetic god and eaten it in their face.






































Yum, this religion stuff makes me hungry! Got any pie?

The translations have 'fatal' flaws? Can you post an example please? There are problems getting some parts of the Hebrew into english, but I dont think that it should be thought of as 'fatal.'

Re-examine my post.

You, yourself, must admit that the English translation of the bible, is NOT the same as the original Hebrew.

There are 'errors' in the translation... the horrible butcher-job of Leviticus 18:22 being a classic example.

The bible is also considered to be 'the word of god' and 'inerrant'.

If the bible is NOT innerrant (i.e. if it contains errors) then it cannot be assumed to be true, as a complete text.

That is the problem with the claim of innerrancy... it only takes ONE error, for that claim to be voided.

I guess you're right in a way. I find firmer logical proof in the "that which is outside of reality is not real, that which is inside reality is subject to the limitations of reality" argument. Actually, now I come to think of it, "rock too heavy" might be considered a limitation of reality, so I suppose I do agree with it in fact.

The FATAL flaw, is that 'god' is assumed to be unaffected by reality, and yet ALSO capable of affecting reality.

And, THAT is the flaw - you cannot be both bound by AND 'not-bound by' the laws of reality.

Its the hebrew that contains no errors in the OT, just like the greek in the NT. There are now many languages in the world, therefore there needs to be translations for all of them to read. These translations are not perfect, because they are translations. You cant say that the translation of the Hebrew makes the Hebrew flawed. Its the translation itself that is not perfect.

The FATAL flaw, is that 'god' is assumed to be unaffected by reality, and yet ALSO capable of affecting reality.

And, THAT is the flaw - you cannot be both bound by AND 'not-bound by' the laws of reality.

Yeah, that was my initial justification for non-belief.

Hey, I've been wondering. If the bible is the word of God, why does he always refer to himself in third person? Why doesn't he say "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was me"?

prove: god is imnipotent

well, since god is omnipotent, by definition, he is all powerful, and can lift any rock ever created and create a rock that nothing can lift (though those statements are contradictory), therefore he is omnipotent.

is no different than

prove: 3=5


well, based on the assumption that 3=5, we can conclude that 6=10, therefore allowing 3 to equal 5
I am using the biblical definition of god. The bible describes god as being omnipotent. If you don't like it, then your problem lies with the bible, not me.

But I agree with the other guy that to be All-powerful is to have all powers - and I define a power to be the ability to do something which is logically possible. It is logically impossible for God to create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, so it isn't a prerequisite for omnipotence, since it isn't a power.

Again, I'm not defending the existence of God, merely suggesting that this reason for non-belief is flawed.
The bible also says that there is nothing that god cannot do. That is the definition of omnipotence. Therefore, god, as the bible describes him, cannot exist due to his proposed posession of a self-contradictory attribute.

The translations have 'fatal' flaws? Can you post an example please? There are problems getting some parts of the Hebrew into english, but I dont think that it should be thought of as 'fatal.'
I thought you'd never ask. Please feel free answer any single part of Dan Barkers "Leave No Stone Unturned" challenge. Dan challenges the theist to put the resurrection story in order in a way that all four gospels do not contradict each other. Of course, that is a huge chore that cannot be accomplished. So I'll just ask you to pick any single topic and rectify the four gospels different relation of the same event.

What time did the women visit the tomb?
· Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
· Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
· Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
· John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?
· Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
· Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
· Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
· John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?
· Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
· Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
· Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
· John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
· Matthew: No (28:2)
· Mark: Yes (16:4)
· Luke: Yes (24:2)
· John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
· Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
· Mark: One young man (16:5)
· Luke: Two men (24:4)
· John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?
· Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
· Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
· Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
· John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?
· Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
· Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
· Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
· John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?
· Matthew: Yes (28:8)
· Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
· Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
· John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
· Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
· Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
· Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
· John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?
· Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
· Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
· John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
· Matthew: Yes (28:9)
· John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
· Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
· Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
· Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
· John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
· Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
· Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
· Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
· Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
· John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?
· Mark: No (16:13)
· Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?
· Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
· Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
· Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
· John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
· Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
· Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
· John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
· Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?
· Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
· Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
· Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
· John: No ascension
· Paul: No ascension
· Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

The bible also says that there is nothing that god cannot do.

The Bible says God cant sin.

There are 'errors' in the translation... the horrible butcher-job of Leviticus 18:22 being a classic example.
You don't think the bible despises homosexuality? If so, then why is the statement in Leviticus 18:22 repeated with an added death sentence in Leviticus 20:13? How about 1 Samuel 20:30, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:43, 46, just to mention a few? I've got a lot more if you'd like more.

Its the hebrew that contains no errors in the OT, just like the greek in the NT. There are now many languages in the world, therefore there needs to be translations for all of them to read. These translations are not perfect, because they are translations. You cant say that the translation of the Hebrew makes the Hebrew flawed. Its the translation itself that is not perfect.
As if one guy did all the translating and no one has looked over his work or tried to correct it? Further, translation errors don't have anything to do with contradictions, which there are plenty of. Finally, if the bible has errors (translational or otherwise), then it cannot be the inerrant word of god.

Who were the women?
· Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
· Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
· Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
· John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)



The Gospel of Matthew names “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women” (Luke 24:10). Yet John mentions Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way. They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew stated, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs on this one.

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?[/U]
· Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
· Mark: One young man (16:5)
· Luke: Two men (24:4)
· John: Two angels (20:12)



The account in Matthew cites “an angel of the Lord who descended from heaven” and whose “appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (28:2-5). Mark’s account presents a slightly different picture of “a young man sitting on the ride side, arrayed in a white robe” (16:5). But Luke mentions that “two men stood by them in dazzling apparel” (24:4). And, finally, John writes about “two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain” (20:12). Do any of these accounts contradict any of the others as to the number of men or angels at the tomb? No. Although the accounts are quite different, they are not contradictory as to the number of messengers. Mark does not mention “only a young man,” nor does Luke say there were “exactly two angels, no less or no more.” Was there one messenger at the tomb? Yes. Were two there as well, Yes. No contradiction here.

The second question concerning the messengers is their identity: Were they angels or were they men? Most people who are familiar with the Old Testament have no problem answering this question. Genesis chapters 18 and 19 mention three men who came to visit Abraham and Sarah. These men stay for a short time, and then two of them continued on to visit the city of Sodom. Yet the Bible tells us in the first verse of Genesis 19 that these men were actually angels. But when the men of Sodom come to do violence to these angels, the city dwellers asked: “Where are the men that came in to thee this night” (Genesis 19:5). Throughout the two chapters, the messengers are referred to as men and as angels with equal accuracy. They looked like, talked like, walked like, and sounded like men. Were they men? Yes. Were they angels? Yes.

Was the tomb open when they arrived?
· Matthew: No (28:2)
· Mark: Yes (16:4)
· Luke: Yes (24:2)
· John: Yes (20:1)



The explanation to this so called problem is that the events recorded in Matthew 28:1-6 were not written chronologically. Matthew did not intend for his readers to conclude from this section of Scripture that the women actually saw the stone roll away from the door of Jesus’ sepulcher. On the contrary, verse 6 implies “Christ was already risen; and therefore the earthquake and its accompaniments must have taken place at an earlier point of time, to which the sacred writer returns back in his narration” (From Robinson, 1993, p. 17). Verses 2-4 serve more as a footnote to the reader (explaining events that took place prior to the women’s arrival), and are in no way an indication that Matthew believed the women arrived at the tomb while it still was closed.

The simple fact is, Bible writers did not always record information in a strictly chronological sequence. The first book of the Bible contains several examples where events are recorded more topically than chronologically. Genesis 2:5-25 does not pick up where Genesis 1 left off, rather it provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Some of the things recorded in Genesis 10 occurred after the incident involving the tower of Babel (recorded in chapter 11).

What time did the women visit the tomb?
· Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
· Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
· Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
· John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)



Matthew 28:1: Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Luke 24:1: But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.

Mark 16:2: And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

John 20:1: Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb.

If these four accounts were in any ancient book other than the Bible, they hardly would be questioned as contradictory. In fact, they most likely would be considered to be in perfect agreement. Yet the Bible often is scrutinized much more strictly than any other book that records ancient history. Consider this: if the above accounts were read to a group of school kids, could they understand what time of day was under discussion? To ask is to answer. Everyone who reads the accounts can see quite plainly that the women visited the tomb sometime very early on the first day of the week.

It is not difficult to understand how Mary Magdalene could have arrived at the tomb while it was yet dark, and as it began to dawn, and at early dawn. The fact is, it was so early that the Sun had not fully come up, and thus a hint of darkness lingered over the scene.

What was their purpose?
· Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
· Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
· Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
· John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)


Answer: Actually in Matthew they had already seen the tomb (27:61). So the purpose was to look at the tomb and bring spices. They may not have been aware of the spicing done by Joseph of Arimathea, or they may simply have wished to do a further "anointing" (Mark 16:1).



Where were these messengers situated?
· Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
· Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
· Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
· John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

John is describing the second visit to the tomb (see John 20:2), while Matthew descibes what happened before the women arrive. So only Mark and Luke describe the women's first sight of the angels.


What did the messenger(s) say?
· Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
· Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
· Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
· John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)


All of what is reported in Matthew, Mark and Luke was said. (John 20:13 is describing the women's second visit to the tomb)


Did the women tell what happened?
· Matthew: Yes (28:8)
· Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
· Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
· John: Yes (20:18)


Yes they did. Mark 16:8 only tells what happened initially.


When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
· Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
· Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
· Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
· John: No (20:2)


Unclear. Ignore Mark 16:10-11 because Mark 16:9-20 is not part of the original gospel by Mark. But Matthew and Luke still have the women reporting the angels' message (that Jesus had risen). But, as Mark 16:8 says, the women were bewildered and did not initially tell anyone. And as Luke 24:11 says, their sounded like nonsense. So what probably happened was that the women were both bewildered and excited, and perhaps all talking at once.

two possibilities:
Mary did know, but in the confusion John only heard part of the report, so that is all he mentions;
John only mentions Mary's report, while Matthew and Luke include the reports of the other women. Mary did not understand that Jesus had risen, while the others did. Since John only mentions Mary's report, he does not mention the resurrection. Matthew and Luke include the reports of all women, and so include the report of the resurrection.


When did Mary first see Jesus?
· Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
· Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
· John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)


After. Mark 16:9-10 is not in the original gospel by Mark, and there is a gap between verses 8 and 9 of Matthew 28. During that gap, Mary returned to the disciples (as reported in John 20:2). Matthew 28:9 occured after the women gave the report then returned to the tomb, and so describes the same appearance as John 20:11-17.


Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
· Matthew: Yes (28:9)
· John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)


Yes. John 20:17 is literally "stop touching me", so obviously he could be touched.


After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
· Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
· Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
· Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
· John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
· Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)


Peter, as stated by Paul and Luke. (Luke 24:34 indicates that this was before the two disciples walking to Emmaus). Matthew and John (and Mark) omit this appearance.
(Oh and Paul does mean twelve: Judas was dead but his replacement Matthias was a witness to the resurrection, as stated in Acts 1:22).


Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
· Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
· Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
· Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
· John: In a room, at evening (20:19)


In a room at Jerusalem, as reported by Luke and John (and Mark). Matthew 28:16-20 is a later appearance.


Did the disciples believe the two men?
· Mark: No (16:13)
· Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)


Yes. Mark 16:13 is not in the original gospel by Mark


What happened at the appearance?
· Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
· Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
· Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
· John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)


Both of what happened in Luke and John. Matthew describes a later appearance. Mark 16:14-19 is not in the original gospel by Mark


Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
· Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
· Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
· John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
· Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)


Yes. Acts 1:3 (which was also written by Luke) makes clear there was a time gap between the resurrection and the ascension. Nowhere in Luke 24 does it say it all happened on one day. Mark 16:19 is not in the original gospel by Mark


Where did the ascension take place?
· Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
· Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
· Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
· John: No ascension
· Paul: No ascension
· Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

The Mount of Olives, which is near Bethany. Bethany was on the east side of the Mount of Olives, and both Mark 11:1 and Luke 19:29 indicate that the two were close together. Luke 24:50 can reasonably be translated "in the vicinity of Bethany" (as in the NIV) so that's no contradiction with Acts 1:12.
Mark 16:19 does not mention a location but in any case it is not in the original gospel by Mark. Matthew and John do not mention the ascension but surely some sort of disappearance by Jesus is implied. Paul in fact does mention the ascension in Eph 4:8-10 and implies it in 1 Thess 1:10.

I just came across this and thought it was funny and at the same time helpful:
}
} Oracle: Hey, God, you can do anything, right?
} God: This is true.
} Oracle: Well, I bet you can't create an immovable stone.
} God: Oh yeah? How much?
} Oracle: Ten pints and a packet of peanuts.
} God: You're on. <Creates an immovable stone>
} Oracle: That's pretty impressive.
} God: You bet it is.
} Oracle: How about a double-or-nothing bet?
} God: Sure, why not?
} Oracle: I bet you can't move it over there.
} God: That's not fair! You're playing with semantics and petty logic.
} Oracle: So? If you can move it, you owe me the ten pints and a packet
} of peanuts. If you can't, then I still don't owe you anything.
} God: Let me think about this one... Got it. <Disincorporates
} universe, and reconstructs it with the stone in a different
} place> You see, I can play games with logic and semantics too.
}
} Twenty pints and two packets of peanuts please.

The Gospel of Matthew names “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women” (Luke 24:10). Yet John mentions Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way. They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew stated, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs on this one.
That doesn't make sense, why does there have to be a supplement to enhance? You're assuming more is meant, when more is not stated or even implied.

The account in Matthew cites “an angel of the Lord who descended from heaven” and whose “appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (28:2-5). Mark’s account presents a slightly different picture of “a young man sitting on the ride side, arrayed in a white robe” (16:5). But Luke mentions that “two men stood by them in dazzling apparel” (24:4). And, finally, John writes about “two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain” (20:12). Do any of these accounts contradict any of the others as to the number of men or angels at the tomb? No. Although the accounts are quite different, they are not contradictory as to the number of messengers. Mark does not mention “only a young man,” nor does Luke say there were “exactly two angels, no less or no more.” Was there one messenger at the tomb? Yes. Were two there as well, Yes. No contradiction here.
Two gospels say one boy/angel was in the tomb, two gospels say two boys/angels were in the tomb. By mentioning there was one, that means there could have been more? That's bad reporting. If there was more then one boy or angel in the empty tomb, why would the writer of the gospel neglect that? That's highly suspicious in the least. If CNN had made such an error, I doubt you would give them the kind of leeway you are affording the writers of the gospels.

The explanation to this so called problem is that the events recorded in Matthew 28:1-6 were not written chronologically. Matthew did not intend for his readers to conclude from this section of Scripture that the women actually saw the stone roll away from the door of Jesus’ sepulcher. On the contrary, verse 6 implies “Christ was already risen; and therefore the earthquake and its accompaniments must have taken place at an earlier point of time, to which the sacred writer returns back in his narration” (From Robinson, 1993, p. 17). Verses 2-4 serve more as a footnote to the reader (explaining events that took place prior to the women’s arrival), and are in no way an indication that Matthew believed the women arrived at the tomb while it still was closed.
Matthew is out of chronological order? That's bad story telling and reporting of what is supposed to be the most important event in christian theology.

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.

Mark 16:4
And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

Luke 24:2
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

John 20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

All of these are written in the past tence except for Matthew. In Matthew they watched the stone roll away, in the others the stone was rolled away before they arrived.

John is describing the second visit to the tomb (see John 20:2), while Matthew descibes what happened before the women arrive. So only Mark and Luke describe the women's first sight of the angels.

Scripture does not say that, you're assuming it.

All of what is reported in Matthew, Mark and Luke was said. (John 20:13 is describing the women's second visit to the tomb)

Again, scripture does not say that, you're assuming it.

Yes they did. Mark 16:8 only tells what happened initially.

You are again revising scripture. Scripture does not say that, you're assuming it.

Unclear. Ignore Mark 16:10-11 because Mark 16:9-20 is not part of the original gospel by Mark. But Matthew and Luke still have the women reporting the angels' message (that Jesus had risen). But, as Mark 16:8 says, the women were bewildered and did not initially tell anyone. And as Luke 24:11 says, their sounded like nonsense. So what probably happened was that the women were both bewildered and excited, and perhaps all talking at once.

Then you're admitting that AT LEAST part of Mark was not written by Mark. Mark was the first of the cannon gospels, and it was written about 30 years after Jesus' death, the rest were written within the next hundred years. Now, you're admitting that at least part of the gospels are unclear and should be ignored. Now take that to it's logical conclusion.

two possibilities:
Mary did know, but in the confusion John only heard part of the report, so that is all he mentions;
John only mentions Mary's report, while Matthew and Luke include the reports of the other women. Mary did not understand that Jesus had risen, while the others did. Since John only mentions Mary's report, he does not mention the resurrection. Matthew and Luke include the reports of all women, and so include the report of the resurrection.

A scriptural mistake? Then the scriptures cannot be the inerrant word of god, can they?

After. Mark 16:9-10 is not in the original gospel by Mark, and there is a gap between verses 8 and 9 of Matthew 28. During that gap, Mary returned to the disciples (as reported in John 20:2). Matthew 28:9 occured after the women gave the report then returned to the tomb, and so describes the same appearance as John 20:11-17.

More gospel revising.

Yes. John 20:17 is literally "stop touching me", so obviously he could be touched.

That's precisely the point, two gospels Jesus invites everyone to touch him, but in John he tells his disciples not to touch him. So what's up, could they touch him or not?

Peter, as stated by Paul and Luke. (Luke 24:34 indicates that this was before the two disciples walking to Emmaus). Matthew and John (and Mark) omit this appearance.
(Oh and Paul does mean twelve: Judas was dead but his replacemen Matthias was a witness to the resurrection, as stated in Acts 1:22).

In a room at Jerusalem, as reported by Luke and John (and Mark). Matthew 28:16-20 is a later appearance.

That is not a later appearance, the mountains of Galilee is the first place Jesus reappears in the gospel of Matthew. In 28:10 he tells Mary to instruct his disciples to go to the mountains of Galilee. There is NO mention of him having appeared anywhere before that. To presume otherwise is to try to revise the gospels.

Also, why would ANY appearance of Jesus be omitted, particularly the first appearance of him after his supposed resurrection? That makes NO sense at all. It's TERRIBLE story telling and even worse journalism. I doubt you would accept such an explaination from CNN if they made such a mistake.

Yes. Mark 16:13 is not in the original gospel by Mark

And it should not be paid attention, because that part of the inerrant word of god doesn't count.

Both of what happened in Luke and John. Matthew describes a later appearance. Mark 16:14-19 is not in the original gospel by Mark

So, Jesus both reprimanded and didn't reprimand them? That's a direct contradiction. He couldn't have done both at the same place and same time. Which is it?

And again, a certain part of the inerrant word of god just doesn't count. :rolleyes:

Yes. Acts 1:3 (which was also written by Luke) makes clear there was a time gap between the resurrection and the ascension. Nowhere in Luke 24 does it say it all happened on one day. Mark 16:19 is not in the original gospel by Mark[QUOTE=Justifidians]

Well, was it one day, eight days or fourty days that Jesus remained on Earth? Luke shows no passage of time (show where there was a time gap please), so it can be assumed that it was only one day. Even if it was more (an unspecified period), you still have a conflict with Mark (the part of the inerrant word of god you disregard due to its inconvenience), Matthew and John.

[QUOTE=Justifidians]The Mount of Olives, which is near Bethany. Bethany was on the east side of the Mount of Olives, and both Mark 11:1 and Luke 19:29 indicate that the two were close together. Luke 24:50 can reasonably be translated "in the vicinity of Bethany" (as in the NIV) so that's no contradiction with Acts 1:12.
Mark 16:19 does not mention a location but in any case it is not in the original gospel by Mark. Matthew and John do not mention the ascension but surely some sort of disappearance by Jesus is implied. Paul in fact does mention the ascension in Eph 4:8-10 and implies it in 1 Thess 1:10.

They all MEAN the same place, but they don't SAY the same place. Some inerrant word of god, especially the bits in Mark you keep throwing out as unreliable. :rolleyes:

I keep saying that partly in jest, but also in partial amazement. If you don't like part of the "inerrant word of god", you throw it out. That is some of the most "in your face" biblical picking and choosing I have ever come across. I am honestly taken aback at how you can do that, and so forwardly. This is not meant as a personal attack, but I suggest you really rethink how you look at your holy book. If you can discount parts of it, then a case can be made for any part of it for the same treatment. It's not the inerrant word of god if you can throw out parts of it for whatever reason.

I'm not redefining a triangle, I'm pointing out that the law of non-contradiction cannot be broken, therefore omnipontence is a self-contradicting attribute and cannot be posessed by ANYONE, EVER.


You cant have a 4-sided triangle because that is not what the word Triangle means. Its as simple as that.

You cant have a 4-sided triangle because that is not what the word Triangle means. Its as simple as that.
I know, I've already said that. We've gone around in this circle 4 times now. Are you actually reading my posts and giving them any consideration before you hit the "quote" button, or are you being difficult on purpose?

This is the last time I'm posting this, read and think about it before you click the "quote" button or the "reply" button.

I agree that you can't have a 4 sided triangle, that is a logical contradiction. You can't have something that is both black all over and white all over. Both these things go directly against the logical law of non-contradiction. We are in agreement here, so stop aruging this point and move on.

Now, extend the previous bit to omnipotence. Omnipotence is a self-contradicting attribute (because things like a square triangle cannot be made) and CANNOT exist. Therefore god cannot be omnipotent and the bible is in error to claim that he is.

Its the hebrew that contains no errors in the OT, just like the greek in the NT. There are now many languages in the world, therefore there needs to be translations for all of them to read. These translations are not perfect, because they are translations. You cant say that the translation of the Hebrew makes the Hebrew flawed. Its the translation itself that is not perfect.

First - we are talking about English translation... which is obviously errant, since it introduces error into the Hebrew text. Thus, the supposedly innerrant text becomes errant with translation - and thus, is fatally flawed.

However, you are missing the fact that the text was ALREADY flawed, as the Hebrew DOES contain errors, though... some of which are actually covered-up in the English translation.

The one that comes immediately to mind, is the unfortunate case of Goliath.

Now, as everyone knows, Goliath of Gath, was the Philistine warrior of prodigious size.

First Samuel 17:23 "And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them".

First Samuel 17:50 "So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David".

So - we have categoric evidence that David slew Goliath.

Of course, Goliath must have been incredibly tough, because one verse later:

First Samuel 17:51 "Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled".

So - David had to slay him twice... which just goes to show how tough Goliath was.

Then, we fast-forward one book, to Second Samuel... and what do we find?

Second Samuel 21:19 "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam".

Note that even the English translators saw the error, and added in "the brother of" to try to explain how two different people had killed the same character, Goliath of Gath (or Goliath the Gittite - same thing).

Looking at the Hebrew, both passages refer to 'Golyath' (which means "Splendour") the 'Gittiy' (or "Gittite", "one from Gath").

The Hebrew has no mention of the one being the "brother of" the other - in fact, both state quite clearly that each person slew "Golyath".

Pretty tough guy, really. Elhanan had to kill him once, and David had to kill him twice.

You don't think the bible despises homosexuality? If so, then why is the statement in Leviticus 18:22 repeated with an added death sentence in Leviticus 20:13? How about 1 Samuel 20:30, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:43, 46, just to mention a few? I've got a lot more if you'd like more.

I think you are confused. I think you are confusing what the Hebrew says with what thousands of years of later translation have made of the scripture.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are TRANSLATED as being against homosexuals, but the Hebrew seems to imply something more along the lines of having sexual relations with a menstruating woman (probably because of the significance the Hebrews gave to 'blood').

Reading Leviticus 18:22 in Hebrew, it is actually almost IMPOSSIBLE to make a translation that has ANYTHING to do with homosexuality.

First Samuel 20:30 doesn't condemn homosexuality, although Saul does seem to be implying that Johnathan has made a bad choice.

First Kings 14:24 talks about 'Qadesh', being male temple prostitutes. The translation as 'sodomites' is misleading (since homosexuality wasn't the 'crime' of Sodom) and wrong - since the sexuality of the 'Qadesh' isn't the issue, more the lustful activity in the service of gods.

First Kings 15:12 also discusses the 'Qadesh', and makes it even more apparent what the 'issue' is - since it also describes the removal of idols.

First Kings 22:46 also discusses 'Qadesh', as opposed to any mention of homosexuals.

Perhaps you are confusing the prejudiced and erroneous translation into English, with the text in it's original form?

The Gospel of Matthew names “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women” (Luke 24:10). Yet John mentions Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way. They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew stated, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs on this one.

A desperate attempt to find 'wiggle' room, but one that is ultimately doomed. The bible convention stands that women are not even referenced unless they are 'important' to the text. Which implies that, if a woman is important enough to be mentioned, she WILL be.

The other problem, of course, is in claiming that the books were written to be 'complementary' to each other... and yet they duplicate SOME names. Also - since the texts were written at such different times, it seems unlikely that the authors sat down and discussed what they were each going to 'cover' in each book.

A more likely explanation is that, many years after the fact, a group of disparate individuals were trying to recall an event, and couldn't decide on the details.

ENOUGH WITH THIS THREAD AND ENOUGH WITH THE CHRISTIAN BASHING!
You non-Christians seems so intolerant, you don't see a million threads popping up each day saying "Hinduism is nonsense!" do you?
ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH!
Can't you non Christians just shut the heck up and learn to live with the fact that Christianity exists? and stop posting threads and relies to endless meaningless threads like these?

I just came across this and thought it was funny and at the same time helpful:
}
} Oracle: Hey, God, you can do anything, right?
} God: This is true.
} Oracle: Well, I bet you can't create an immovable stone.
} God: Oh yeah? How much?
} Oracle: Ten pints and a packet of peanuts.
} God: You're on. <Creates an immovable stone>
} Oracle: That's pretty impressive.
} God: You bet it is.
} Oracle: How about a double-or-nothing bet?
} God: Sure, why not?
} Oracle: I bet you can't move it over there.
} God: That's not fair! You're playing with semantics and petty logic.
} Oracle: So? If you can move it, you owe me the ten pints and a packet
} of peanuts. If you can't, then I still don't owe you anything.
} God: Let me think about this one... Got it. <Disincorporates
} universe, and reconstructs it with the stone in a different
} place> You see, I can play games with logic and semantics too.
}
} Twenty pints and two packets of peanuts please.

Not really all THAT helpful, since 'god' still failed to move the rock... instead, he had to move the entire rest of the universe... but the rock ACTUALLY remained where it was before....

Thus, the oracle still wins.

ENOUGH WITH THIS THREAD AND ENOUGH WITH THE CHRISTIAN BASHING!
You non-Christians seems so intolerant, you don't see a million threads popping up each day saying "Hinduism is nonsense!" do you?
ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH!
Can't you non Christians just shut the heck up and learn to live with the fact that Christianity exists? and stop posting threads and relies to endless meaningless threads like these?

Did you REALLY just post a reply that tells people not to post replies?

Try looking at it from another point of view, though... on a daily basis there ARE threads that debate why homosexuality is 'wrong' (for example) - and the justification for that stance is the bible.

Thus, on a daily basis, the 'christian' element of the forum (mirroring the 'christian' element of society) attempts to force the remainder to accept their religious justification for any prejudice they may care to express.

I, personally, am not a 'christian', and I object to 'christians' attempting to force me to serve THEIR will - especially when I think they are missing the point of the faith they claim as their own.

If Jesus taught us anything... he taught us NOT to judge.

He taught us to love one another, regardless... even when it hurts.

He taught us that the 'religious' minds of the day often have NOTHING to do with the will of god, and are usually shaping the 'church' to their own ends.

He taught us to separate ourselves from what we dislike, not destroy or outlaw it.

He taught us that 'god' is a personal relationship.

It isn't 'christianity' that cause the division, it is the attempts of 'christians' to control everyone else... if they didn't... there'd be far less conflict.

When was the last time you saw a thread attacking the Baha'i faith?

ENOUGH WITH THIS THREAD AND ENOUGH WITH THE CHRISTIAN BASHING!
You non-Christians seems so intolerant, you don't see a million threads popping up each day saying "Hinduism is nonsense!" do you?
ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH!
Can't you non Christians just shut the heck up and learn to live with the fact that Christianity exists? and stop posting threads and relies to endless meaningless threads like these?

Personally I'm not bashing Christianity specifically. The idea of God is just as implausible as the idea of Allah, Satan, whatever other deity or supernatural entity is under discussion. By the same argument used to assert that God does not exist, Allah, Krishna and whatever else doesn't exist either.

That doesn't make sense, why does there have to be a supplement to enhance? You're assuming more is meant, when more is not stated or even implied.

Notice that John, the only one to mention a departure before dawn, is also the only one who mentions no women apart from Mary Magdalene. So Mary Magdalene left her home before dawn, as stated by John. She met up with the other women, (which is where the other three gospels take up the narrative), and the group went to the tomb just after dawn.

I read down your objections and noticed how you keep saying Im assuming. Your assuming a contradiction because one says this and one says that, and its impossible to think that these accounts can mesh. Im telling you what is in the accounts and they can clearly be seen to be complementary.

Two gospels say one boy/angel was in the tomb, two gospels say two boys/angels were in the tomb. By mentioning there was one, that means there could have been more? That's bad reporting. If there was more then one boy or angel in the empty tomb, why would the writer of the gospel neglect that? That's highly suspicious in the least. If CNN had made such an error, I doubt you would give them the kind of leeway you are affording the writers of the gospels.

Two angels. Two were present, but Matthew and Mark only mention the speaker. It is clear that the "men" in Mark and Luke were intended to be understood as angels, because they were dressed in a brilliant white and (more significantly) they had a message from God for the women.

Do you deem it necessary to write every detail? Jesus preached for 3 years how are they supposed to write every detail into a book. Some things are dropped because they are not needed to get the message across.

Matthew is out of chronological order? That's bad story telling and reporting of what is supposed to be the most important event in christian theology.

All of these are written in the past tence except for Matthew. In Matthew they watched the stone roll away, in the others the stone was rolled away before they arrived.

While Matthew describes the opening of the tomb, he does not say that the women witnessed it.

Then you're admitting that AT LEAST part of Mark was not written by Mark. Mark was the first of the cannon gospels, and it was written about 30 years after Jesus' death, the rest were written within the next hundred years. Now, you're admitting that at least part of the gospels are unclear and should be ignored. Now take that to it's logical conclusion.


The only verses i didnt use were Mark 16:9-20, and i didnt admitt that it wasnt written by Mark, i said it wasnt in the original manuscripts. They were not supposedly in the originals, that is why i did not use them, but i should have i guess, its my mistake. I didnt mean that they should be tossed out as a fact, there is a debate on that issue.
Link 1 (http://www.new-life.net/faq011.htm)
2 link (http://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html)

The dates of the gospels well that can be argued:
None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1).

Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)." Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."

The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter." Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
[/quote]


A scriptural mistake? Then the scriptures cannot be the inerrant word of god, can they?


Didnt sat there was a mistake.


That's precisely the point, two gospels Jesus invites everyone to touch him, but in John he tells his disciples not to touch him. So what's up, could they touch him or not?


John 20:17 actually is just Jesus saying to Mary "stop clinging to me" which does not mean Jesus could not be touched because she was touching Jesus.
Jesus also said "stop clinging to me for i have not yet returned to the Father."
The appearance to the disciples was later.


Well, was it one day, eight days or fourty days that Jesus remained on Earth? Luke shows no passage of time (show where there was a time gap please), so it can be assumed that it was only one day. Even if it was more (an unspecified period), you still have a conflict with Mark (the part of the inerrant word of god you disregard due to its inconvenience), Matthew and John.


Luke’s "And" at the beginning of 24:49 & 24:50 and Mark’s "And" in 16:19 means they are about to list another event that occurred, it does not mean that these authors intended to state no other events occurred in between.
The Acts forty days is the time to the ascension. This includes John’s eight days, which is the time between the two first appearances to the group of disciples.



They all MEAN the same place, but they don't SAY the same place. Some inerrant word of god, especially the bits in Mark you keep throwing out as unreliable. :rolleyes:


The author of Matthew just left the ascension out of his account, which does not mean the author intended to state it did not happen. Also, v.18-20 could be placed at the appearance at the mountain top in Galilee with Jesus repeating similar comments at the Ascension. The "And" in Mark 16:15 is the common term used throughout his gospel for starting the description of another event. It can be seen throughout his Gospel, it does not mean that it occurred immediately afterward. Thus, Mark does not actually specifically state where the accession occurred.
Luke’s passage can just as well be translated "out as far as the path to Bethany" (5). The Mount of Olivet is on the path to Bethany and right next to it so Luke’s mention in Acts of the ascension site at The Mount of Olivet is consistent with his other statement in his Gospel.


I keep saying that partly in jest, but also in partial amazement. If you don't like part of the "inerrant word of god", you throw it out. That is some of the most "in your face" biblical picking and choosing I have ever come across. I am honestly taken aback at how you can do that, and so forwardly. This is not meant as a personal attack, but I suggest you really rethink how you look at your holy book. If you can discount parts of it, then a case can be made for any part of it for the same treatment. It's not the inerrant word of god if you can throw out parts of it for whatever reason.

I only stated that Mark 16:9-20 was not in the original. I didnt use it at first because of that fact. I dont pick and choose anything, i use the gospels to answer your alleged contradictions. I said to ignore it because there is a debate to its authenticity. Dont assume i did not use it at first because i felt like "picking and choosing."

So, Jesus both reprimanded and didn't reprimand them? That's a direct contradiction. He couldn't have done both at the same place and same time. Which is it?



The materialized Jesus in Luke’s account is the first appearance to the group of disciple as is John’s. Matthew’s ";Go preach."; and Mark’s "Go preach" could be both at the ascension site. Jesus could have said go preach at the first appearance and repeated himself later. Matthew’s "some doubted" in v.17 is at the mountain, which is a different event from the rest. Just because the author of John doesn’t mention the reprimand, does not mean the author intended to state it did not happen.

Now, extend the previous bit to omnipotence. Omnipotence is a self-contradicting attribute (because things like a square triangle cannot be made) and CANNOT exist. Therefore god cannot be omnipotent and the bible is in error to claim that he is.

The Bible says nothing is impossible BEYOND GODS ABILITY. God has the power of ALL ABILITY. There is no such ability to create a square triangle, therefore God doesnt have it. There is NO ability to do such an act. God is still omnipotent.

The one that comes immediately to mind, is the unfortunate case of Goliath.

Now, as everyone knows, Goliath of Gath, was the Philistine warrior of prodigious size.

First Samuel 17:23 "And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them".

First Samuel 17:50 "So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David".

So - we have categoric evidence that David slew Goliath.

Of course, Goliath must have been incredibly tough, because one verse later:

First Samuel 17:51 "Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled".

So - David had to slay him twice... which just goes to show how tough Goliath was.

Then, we fast-forward one book, to Second Samuel... and what do we find?

Second Samuel 21:19 "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam".

Note that even the English translators saw the error, and added in "the brother of" to try to explain how two different people had killed the same character, Goliath of Gath (or Goliath the Gittite - same thing).

Looking at the Hebrew, both passages refer to 'Golyath' (which means "Splendour") the 'Gittiy' (or "Gittite", "one from Gath").

The Hebrew has no mention of the one being the "brother of" the other - in fact, both state quite clearly that each person slew "Golyath".

Pretty tough guy, really. Elhanan had to kill him once, and David had to kill him twice.

There are a couple of points here. First, "killed" (muwth) often means "killed" but also means "destroyed". Some have also suggested that 17:50 is a scribal gloss intended to correct the impression that David was reliant on his armament, not God, for his victory. I would suggest rather that a chiastic structure is at work to enable memorization of the key portion of the story:

So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand (Hebrew: yad) of David. Therefore David ran, and stood (Hebrew: 'amad) upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

The phrase “Lahmi the brother of ” is absent in 2 Samuel 21:19. [The King James Version inserts the phrase “the brother of ” between “Bethlehemite” and “Goliath.”] In the Hebrew, eth Lachmi (a combination of “Lahmi” and the term “brother”) appears to have been changed into beith hallachmi (Beth-lehemite) in 2 Samuel 21:19. With this simple correction, the two texts would be in clear agreement (Clarke, 1996). In other words, “the brother of ” and the name “Lahmi” likely were mistakenly combined by a copyist to form what is translated in English as “Beth-lehemite” in 2 Samuel 21:19. “the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5” (Archer)
A fair, in-depth examination of the alleged difficulty shows that there actually is no contradiction at all, but simply a copyist’s mistake.

Two angels. Two were present, but Matthew and Mark only mention the speaker. It is clear that the "men" in Mark and Luke were intended to be understood as angels, because they were dressed in a brilliant white and (more significantly) they had a message from God for the women.

Do you deem it necessary to write every detail? Jesus preached for 3 years how are they supposed to write every detail into a book. Some things are dropped because they are not needed to get the message across.

This is called revisionism.

You are taking part of the text - a part which argues against another - and conforming it to your wishes, regardless of what is actually given in the scripture.

I find myself wondering why, if an angel was meant - the text does not say 'angel'. In other places, angels are referred to by title, so why not here?

The young man sitting CERTAINLY doesn't match the descriptions of angels given in, for example, revelation.

So - let's look at the native text, and see what is being said?

Mark 16:5 describes "...a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment...".

You COULD stretch that to be an angel, and you could assume that the 'white garment' was some kind of angelic garb, but:

The Greek word used is "neaniskos" - meaning a young man, or youth, BUT SPECIFICALLY being used to describe an attendant or servant. What we have, therefore, is some kind of grave attendant, or a servant sent to relay a message, perhaps by the now-incarnated Jesus.

Clearly a man. Clearly of servant caste. At very best, a servant told to stay and hold a message... but, more likely just an attendant that Jesus (or whoever was in the cave when the attendant arrived) may have talked to.

I find myself wondering why, if an angel was meant - the text does not say 'angel'. In other places, angels are referred to by title, so why not here?

The young man sitting CERTAINLY doesn't match the descriptions of angels given in, for example, revelation.

So - let's look at the native text, and see what is being said?

Mark 16:5 describes "...a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment...".

You COULD stretch that to be an angel, and you could assume that the 'white garment' was some kind of angelic garb, but:

The Greek word used is "neaniskos" - meaning a young man, or youth, BUT SPECIFICALLY being used to describe an attendant or servant. What we have, therefore, is some kind of grave attendant, or a servant sent to relay a message, perhaps by the now-incarnated Jesus.

Clearly a man. Clearly of servant caste. At very best, a servant told to stay and hold a message... but, more likely just an attendant that Jesus (or whoever was in the cave when the attendant arrived) may have talked to.

You must not have also read one of my examples from the OT, which you supposedly know so well. Genesis chapters 18 and 19 mention three men who came to visit Abraham and Sarah. These men stay for a short time, and then two of them continued on to visit the city of Sodom. Yet the Bible tells us in the first verse of Genesis 19 that these men were actually angels. But when the men of Sodom come to do violence to these angels, the city dwellers asked: “Where are the men that came in to thee this night” (Genesis 19:5). Throughout the two chapters, the messengers are referred to as men and as angels with equal accuracy.

There are a couple of points here. First, "killed" (muwth) often means "killed" but also means "destroyed". Some have also suggested that 17:50 is a scribal gloss intended to correct the impression that David was reliant on his armament, not God, for his victory. I would suggest rather that a chiastic structure is at work to enable memorization of the key portion of the story:

So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand (Hebrew: yad) of David. Therefore David ran, and stood (Hebrew: 'amad) upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

The phrase “Lahmi the brother of ” is absent in 2 Samuel 21:19. [The King James Version inserts the phrase “the brother of ” between “Bethlehemite” and “Goliath.”] In the Hebrew, eth Lachmi (a combination of “Lahmi” and the term “brother”) appears to have been changed into beith hallachmi (Beth-lehemite) in 2 Samuel 21:19. With this simple correction, the two texts would be in clear agreement (Clarke, 1996). In other words, “the brother of ” and the name “Lahmi” likely were mistakenly combined by a copyist to form what is translated in English as “Beth-lehemite” in 2 Samuel 21:19. “the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5” (Archer)
A fair, in-depth examination of the alleged difficulty shows that there actually is no contradiction at all, but simply a copyist’s mistake.

First, the interpretation of 'muwth' (commonly translated as slew - but carrying the implication of an execution) is relevent in the case of First Samuel. David clearly kills Goliath with a slingshot, and then clearly kills him AGAIN with a sword.

You can argue that it is an aid to memory... you can argue that they are using 'kill' to mean something other than kill.

No matter what you argue, however, you are left with the fact that scripture says David killed Goliath twice - which is obviously impossible, and so MUST be considered untrue, a lie, or an error.

Moving on to Second Samuel 21:19, you are attempting to imply that a copyist mistake somehow cures the problem, but I still beg to differ.

Perhaps you read a particularly convincing book that suggested the "copy error" excuse, but they obviously missed one important fact.

If, as you assert, "eth Lachmi" is intended, but mis-transcribed as "Beyth hal-Lachmiy" (which I don't believe is a LIKELY mis-transcription), then it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the passage.

What we have in Second Samuel 21:19, as is (excising the unsupportable "the brother of" from the classic text: "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam".

Which comes from the Hebrew "vthy-jvd hmlxmh bgvb jm-plstym vyk `lxnn bn-yjry `rgym byt hlxmy `t glyt hgty vj& xnytv kmnvr `rgym". (That's how my transcription 'looks')

Giving us: (battle) (Gob) (Philistines) (Elhanan) (son) (Jaareoregim) (Bethlehemite) (slew) (Goliath) (Gittite) (staff) (spear) (weavers) (beam)

Re-translating gives us: A battle in Gob, with the Philistines. Elhanan, son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weavers beam.

If we allow for your version of the mis-copied text, retranslation gives us: A battle in Gob, with the Philistines. Elhanan, son of Jaareoregim (brother of Lachmi), slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weavers beam.

No matter how you try to wriggle out of it... ultimately it doesn't matter if Elhanan was the son of a Bethlehemite, or the son of Lachmi's brother... he still killed Goliath - as did David.

So - copyist error or not (which is STILL an error, by the way) - Goliath was still unlucky enough to get killed by two different people, and three times overall.

Fatal flaw in the 'inerrant' text.

I'm an occultist. I study the very foundations of reality itself. I know there are christians and there are idiotic people that actually believe that God is vain enough to love a child-molester who believes in him but not an atheist that does social work. These second idiots call themselves christians as well, so I'll add quotation marks to their names for the sake of identification. So... Come get me, "christians". I DARE your petty, vain, idiotic evil excuse for a god to come and get me. I do not believe a god vain enough to allow a child molester into heaven just because said molester believes him, and I will not ever. The truly Christian God would be terribly disappointed to know what you "christians" have been saying in his name, so, again, I dare you to send your "God-that-hates-everyone-that's-not-Christian" after me. Come get me, punks.

I think the problem we have here is that said child-molester is almost certainly not a Christian, but instead they just say they are one. If the child-molestor truly repents and turns his life around then yes he will get into heaven. Like they don't keep people in prison forever (generally).

On the other hand, I believe that the suffering in hell will be lessened for those who have lead a good life.

But this is just my opinion.

First, the interpretation of 'muwth' (commonly translated as slew - but carrying the implication of an execution) is relevent in the case of First Samuel. David clearly kills Goliath with a slingshot, and then clearly kills him AGAIN with a sword.

You can argue that it is an aid to memory... you can argue that they are using 'kill' to mean something other than kill.

No matter what you argue, however, you are left with the fact that scripture says David killed Goliath twice - which is obviously impossible, and so MUST be considered untrue, a lie, or an error.

Moving on to Second Samuel 21:19, you are attempting to imply that a copyist mistake somehow cures the problem, but I still beg to differ.

Perhaps you read a particularly convincing book that suggested the "copy error" excuse, but they obviously missed one important fact.

If, as you assert, "eth Lachmi" is intended, but mis-transcribed as "Beyth hal-Lachmiy" (which I don't believe is a LIKELY mis-transcription), then it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the passage.

What we have in Second Samuel 21:19, as is (excising the unsupportable "the brother of" from the classic text: "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam".

Which comes from the Hebrew "vthy-jvd hmlxmh bgvb jm-plstym vyk `lxnn bn-yjry `rgym byt hlxmy `t glyt hgty vj& xnytv kmnvr `rgym". (That's how my transcription 'looks')

Giving us: (battle) (Gob) (Philistines) (Elhanan) (son) (Jaareoregim) (Bethlehemite) (slew) (Goliath) (Gittite) (staff) (spear) (weavers) (beam)

Re-translating gives us: A battle in Gob, with the Philistines. Elhanan, son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weavers beam.

If we allow for your version of the mis-copied text, retranslation gives us: A battle in Gob, with the Philistines. Elhanan, son of Jaareoregim (brother of Lachmi), slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weavers beam.

No matter how you try to wriggle out of it... ultimately it doesn't matter if Elhanan was the son of a Bethlehemite, or the son of Lachmi's brother... he still killed Goliath - as did David.

So - copyist error or not (which is STILL an error, by the way) - Goliath was still unlucky enough to get killed by two different people, and three times overall.

Fatal flaw in the 'inerrant' text.

The answer lies in two areas. 1 Chronicles 20:5 says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." This is the correct answer; namely, that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother.
Second, it appears there was a copyist error in 2 Samuel 21:19. According to Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties on page 179, it says,

The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it.
He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chronicles passage does).

David and Elhanan killed two different men. David slew Goliath, the mighty champion of the Philistines. Elhanan slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath (see also 1 Chronicles 20:5).

There is no contradiction.

You must not have also read one of my examples from the OT, which you supposedly know so well. Genesis chapters 18 and 19 mention three men who came to visit Abraham and Sarah. These men stay for a short time, and then two of them continued on to visit the city of Sodom. Yet the Bible tells us in the first verse of Genesis 19 that these men were actually angels. But when the men of Sodom come to do violence to these angels, the city dwellers asked: “Where are the men that came in to thee this night” (Genesis 19:5). Throughout the two chapters, the messengers are referred to as men and as angels with equal accuracy.

Interesting. So, now I haven't read the Old Testament?

First point: the Old and New testaments are not the same text. They are not even close chronologically, and there is no link between them, other than those ascribed by the assumption that Jesus is the 'christ'.

Thus, there is no reason to assume that an Old Testament reference sets a precedent for how a New Testament passage should be read.

Second: going back to the passage you referenced. You DID pick an interesting passage to quote, since Genesis 18:2 tells of the arrival of 'three men'. Two of these men can be assumed to be the same two that leave at the end of Genesis 18, who are given as 'angels' ("Mal'ak" - so maybe they are just messengers?) in Genesis 19.

The other 'man' is listed by name, and 'his' is given as 'jehovah'. So, despite the fact that 'men' is our transcription for 'enowsh (quite clearly a reference to mortal man), two of them MAY be angels, and one IS 'god')

Obviously, you cannot claim the same linguistic rules apply in both the Old and New Testaments.

Interesting. So, now I haven't read the Old Testament?
Its interesting to see what you thought I said, since I didnt say that. I said you may have missed my quote. I also said since you know the OT, you would know that the OT also gives some appearences of angels as men. Angels appear as men many times throughout the Bible (Joshua 5:13-14; Mark 16:5). The angelic creatures described in Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 10, and Revelation 4-5 appear quite unusual. So, angels have some form of “spiritual body” but likely we are currently incapable of truly understanding their form. Angels also have the ability to take on other forms, such as human, in order to appear to us in a manner we can understand.

The answer lies in two areas. 1 Chronicles 20:5 says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." This is the correct answer; namely, that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother.
Second, it appears there was a copyist error in 2 Samuel 21:19. According to Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties on page 179, it says,

The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it.
He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chronicles passage does).

David and Elhanan killed two different men. David slew Goliath, the mighty champion of the Philistines. Elhanan slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath (see also 1 Chronicles 20:5).

There is no contradiction.

As I suspected - your answer comes out of a book, "Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", apparently.

I disagree with you, or rather, with Gleason Archer and his Encyclopedia.

I think it very unlikely that the proposed "transcription error" occured. What seems more likely is that, by the time First Chronicles was written, one of the Hebrew scholars had noticed the same error I have noticed, and made an attempt at reparation. Obviously - the later scholar could not amend the earlier text (and be SURE that HIS amended version would be the only version in circulation), so, instead, the scholar re-told the earlier story with an amendment built in.

Thus, some nameless Hebrew scribe attempted to rationalise away the errancy of scripture through revisionism, and now you are attempting the same.

I am not convinced by your attempt (or rather, Gleason Archer's attempt) to explain away the error.

I am actually becoming confused as to when you think the error took place? In the copying of the Hebrew? Or in the translation FROM Hebrew?

However, it is unimportant. The fact is that the Hebrew text as given clearly states that Elhanan AND David both killed Goliath.

Copy errors, or translation errors... it doesn't matter.

If the "word of god" is flawed, it is flawed... it doesn't matter where that flaw comes in... and one flaw makes the book no longer 'inerrant'.

I have also been told, by my Southern Baptist workmates, that 'god protects his word', and it is thus impossible for an error to creep in during translation... thus it is safe to assume that even translational errors are 'fatal' flaws to the inerrancy of the scripture.

Its interesting to see what you thought I said, since I didnt say that. I said you may have missed my quote. I also said since you know the OT, you would know that the OT also gives some appearences of angels as men. Angels appear as men many times throughout the Bible (Joshua 5:13-14; Mark 16:5). The angelic creatures described in Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 10, and Revelation 4-5 appear quite unusual. So, angels have some form of “spiritual body” but likely we are currently incapable of truly understanding their form. Angels also have the ability to take on other forms, such as human, in order to appear to us in a manner we can understand.

Perhaps I misinterpreted how you meant "from the OT, which you supposedly know so well".

If you have another way of explaining your words, I'd be intrigued to see it.

Even if what you were saying about angels masquerading as men WERE true.... that doesn't excuse reading 'man' as 'angel' whenever it best suits YOUR purpose.

I see no reason to suspect for an instant, that the young man in Mark 16:5 is an angel - and yet, you appear to be using that as your evidence to support that fact that the young man in Mark 16:5 is an angel.

Do you not see circular logic at work, there?

To be honest, I am hard pressed to think of a New Testament occassion, aside for the example you are trying to push, where an angel is referred to as a man.

"Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by doing so some people have entertained angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2)

Similarly, when Daniel’s friends were thrown into the fiery furnace and were saved by an angel, Nebuchadnezzar said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire." (Daniel 3:25). Nebuchadnezzar goes on to say that the fourth "looks like a son of the gods", but his appearance was otherwise as a man.

LUKE 24:4 = 4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.
LUKE 24:23but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive.

However, it is unimportant. The fact is that the Hebrew text as given clearly states that Elhanan AND David both killed Goliath.


The giant of II Samuel 21:19 is a different person since the timeframes are totally different and since the second is called "the Gittite."

The giant of II Samuel 21:19 is a different person since the timeframes are totally different and since the second is called "the Gittite."

I can't believe this... I thought you were supposed to be some kind of biblical 'scholar'?

David killed Goilath of Gath, Elhanan killed Goliath the Gittite.

A person from Gath IS a Gittite....

I can't believe this... I thought you were supposed to be some kind of biblical 'scholar'?

David killed Goilath of Gath, Elhanan killed Goliath the Gittite.

A person from Gath IS a Gittite....

I know this. :rolleyes:
When did I become a biblical scholar? I missed that part...

In 1 Samuel 17 the giant was called "Goliath the Philistine".
In 2 Samuel 21 a list of four giants from Gath are mentioned, one of whom was named "Goliath of Gath". Not only is this second Goliath given a different handle, but the battle in which he is killed is different, in time, place, and circumstance.

I know this. :rolleyes:
When did I become a biblical scholar? I missed that part...

In 1 Samuel 17 the giant was called "Goliath the Philistine".
In 2 Samuel 21 a list of four giants from Gath are mentioned, one of whom was named "Goliath of Gath". Not only is this second Goliath given a different handle, but the battle in which he is killed is different, in time, place, and circumstance.

1 Samuel 17:4 "And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span".

Not THAT difficult to find Goliath of Gath in First Samuel...

The bible often describes similar or identical things by different names, and the latter revisionist scholar my use that technique, or may just create a scenario. I see no real reason to suspect that the battle between David and Goliath is INTENDED to be different to the battle between Elhanan and Goliath.

I see no real reason to suspect that the battle between David and Goliath is INTENDED to be different to the battle between Elhanan and Goliath.

What about all that happened from 1 Sam 17:52 to 2 Sam 21:19??
Saul is present when David killed Goliath. Saul dies in 1 Sam 31. David is annointed King in 2 Sam 2, and also there is war between the house of Saul and David.