NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok the rules are diferent this time. Now only people with the red words of Christ may participate. Post all of the contradiction that have been said by Christ himself. Please dont flood and then mock me for not awsering them all like last time.

bump

u gonna awnser or are u stumped?

I thought that the entire bible was the word of God.

EDIT: None of the Bible was written by Christ or within his lifetime.

I like the part where he teaches that you should turn the other cheek, but later tells people to sell their clothes to buy weapons.

u gonna awnser or are u stumped?

It's less than 15 minutes after you posted the thread. Chill.

Ffc2: already figured out the connection between evolution and the Big Bang? :D

I like the part where he teaches that you should turn the other cheek, but later tells people to sell their clothes to buy weapons.
Well, Ffc?

I like the part where he teaches that you should turn the other cheek, but later tells people to sell their clothes to buy weapons.
Where's that?

Where's that?
It's in the gospels. I can't quote chapters and verses, but it's in there.

Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

but then he says

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.



Luke 6:29
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

but then he says

Luke 22:36
[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


Never ask a Pentacostal Christian to point out the contradictions in the red words.

It's in the gospels. I can't quote chapters and verses, but it's in there.

You will have to find it, in order to put into any kind of context or just confirm its there.

You will have to find it, in order to put into any kind of context or just confirm its there.
WL just posted chapter and verse. I can't do it because I don't have the bible memorized, and I don't keep a copy here at work.

Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

but then he says

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.



Luke 6:29
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

but then he says

Luke 22:36
[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


Never ask a Pentacostal Christian to point out the contradictions in the red words.
For those too lazy to go back and read the thread.

For those too lazy to go back and read the thread.
It's the third post back! Who could be that lazy? No wait, don't tell me.

Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

but then he says

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

He's talking about the fact that after he has left there will be massive disagreements about him. Between his followers and other religions, within groups of followers, between people who refuse to believe in his teachings etc.

He's talking about the fact that after he has left there will be massive disagreements about him. Between his followers and other religions, within groups of followers, between people who refuse to believe in his teachings etc.
How do you know that's what he meant? Perhaps he was advocating holy war.

u gonna awnser or are u stumped?Ffc2, just like your previous thread, you bumped it after <15 minutes. No matter how it may seem, ten minutes is not an eternity on General.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

How do you know that's what he meant? Perhaps he was advocating holy war.

Is the idea of holy war, or indeed conflict at all synonomoys with anything else he says?

u gonna awnser or are u stumped?
You were a complete failure the last time, what do you expect now?

u gonna awnser or are u stumped?

In my opinion, it's not particularly courteous to post a question and answer thread, then log off after 20 minutes or so. You could at least have posted to tell people that you're logging off and that you'll answer questions when you get back online.

Is the idea of holy war, or indeed conflict at all synonomoys with anything else he says?
It fits with his actions in at least one situation. Didn't he beat the hell out of the moneychangers and merchants in the temple in one story? Please excuse me if I'm wrong. It's been a long while since I've read the bible.

I hate the Bible.

It fits with his actions in at least one situation. Didn't he beat the hell out of the moneychangers and merchants in the temple in one story? Please excuse me if I'm wrong. It's been a long while since I've read the bible.

He overturned some tables in the temple, but he didnt harm any people. The reason being that they were using the temple as a place of materialism.

He overturned some tables in the temple, but he didnt harm any people. The reason being that they were using the temple as a place of materialism.
Ok, don't mind me. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I agree that the historical Jesus wouldn't have advocated holy war.

Ok the rules are diferent this time. Now only people with the red words of Christ may participate. Post all of the contradiction that have been said by Christ himself. Please dont flood and then mock me for not awsering them all like last time.
You didn’t bother answering last time I honestly don’t feel like spending the effort when you will just ignore hard questions (I may not agree with posters such as neo-cannen but at least he spends the time to answer)

Ok, don't mind me. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I agree that the historical Jesus wouldn't have advocated holy war.

So do you also agree with my interpretaiton of Matthew 10:34?

So do you also agree with my interpretaiton of Matthew 10:34?
I find it to be plausible.

I hate the Bible.Wrong thread, go to the Things I hate (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420288) thread.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You didn?t bother answering last time I honestly don?t feel like spending the effort when you will just ignore hard questions (I may not agree with posters such as neo-cannen but at least he spends the time to answer)If you read the begining i did not figure id get hundreds of them so thats why i couldnt awnser them all.

I find it to be plausible.

Thank you. Thats about the most receptiveness I've ever got in terms of these types of conversations.

If you read the begining i did not figure id get hundreds of them so thats why i couldnt awnser them all.
You did not even try … you tried like 4 and just all clamed translation error
No thought went into it and no time spent researching it
Not worth the effort

You did not even try ? you tried like 4 and just all clamed translation error
No thought went into it and no time spent researching it
Not worth the efforti figured youd mock me you know and you did.

i figured youd mock me you know and you did.
I wouldn’t have if you bothered to put the effort that some of us did into our posts you asked for contradictions … we posted them

Not only did you not try to answer any of them you have yet to address any of them posted in this thread

You were real impatient to get questions at the beginning of this thread , some were posted, and you have not bothered to respond yet (fairly sure it wont be a in depth response other then your opinion when you do so)

I wouldn?t have if you bothered to put the effort that some of us did into our posts you asked for contradictions ? we posted them

Not only did you not try to answer any of them you have yet to address any of them posted in this thread

You were real impatient to get questions at the beginning of this thread , some were posted, and you have not bothered to respond yet (fairly sure it wont be a in depth response other then your opinion when you do so)Because other people awnsered them if you did not notice.

Because other people awnsered them if you did not notice.
No, actually the "Sell your garment and buy a sword" and "turn the other cheek" contradiction wasn't addressed.

Because other people awnsered them if you did not notice.
Maybe you did not notice … the Luke quotes were never addressed at all (sheesh tell me to pay attention) lol

They both cover the same thing and 1 was awnsered so both were deal

No, actually the "Sell your garment and buy a sword" and "turn the other cheek" contradiction wasn't addressed.did he say use the sword?

They both cover the same thing and 1 was awnsered so both were deal
Nope. They covered different things. One covered conflict vs. peace. That was addressed. The other covered pacifism vs. arming one's self at all costs in preparation to fight. That wasn't addressed.

They both cover the same thing and 1 was awnsered so both were deal
Maybe you should re read them

did he say use the sword?
It's implied. He beleives having a sword is so important that if you aren't armed you should sell your clothes so you can be ready to fight.

Nope. They covered different things. One covered conflict vs. peace. That was addressed. The other covered pacifism vs. arming one's self at all costs in preparation to fight. That wasn't addressed.isnt pacifism and peace the same thing?

It's implied. He beleives having a sword is so important that if you aren't armed you should sell your clothes so you can be ready to fight.LOL like french fries and ketchup is implied but not nececary

i figured youd mock me you know and you did.

If you're posting in order to be mocked, you're trolling. I believe that's the definition.

isnt pacifism and peace the same thing?
Nope pasifism sometimes leads to peace but it is not peace

If you're posting in order to be mocked, you're trolling. I believe that's the definition.im not posting to be mocked im posting the truth and you mock its a side effect

isnt pacifism and peace the same thing?
Not necessarily. Peace can be enforced through superior force of arms and the willingness to use them. Like in the Pax Romana. Nobody wanted to mess with the Roman empire back then so there was peace, but nobody would call the ancient Romans pacifists.

LOL like french fries and ketchup is implied but not nececary
:confused: You lost me there.

Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Luke 6:29
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

Both of these, understood within the context of the culture of the time, are forms of passive resistance.

It's not like they mean "lay down and take it."

Maybe you did not notice … the Luke quotes were never addressed at all (sheesh tell me to pay attention) lol

This one's more complex. Here is an extract from a web page that explains it

Luke 22:36

This brings us to Luke 22:26, and we use the same four exegetical steps, ending with a contrast between early Islam and early Christianity, the fifth and final step.

The first step is to use a reputable translation. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is a translation done by a team of international scholars, and it is respected throughout the English-speaking world.

22:36: [Jesus] said to them, “But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.”

The second step in the exegetical method is to examine the historical context of Luke 22:36. For three years Jesus avoided going up to Jerusalem because he knew that when he set foot in the holy city, he would fulfill his mission to die as a common criminal—as Isaiah the prophet predicted hundreds of years before (Isaiah 53:12). Now, however, Jesus finally enters Jerusalem a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him (Luke 20:20) and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him. One of the deadlier traps was designed to catch him insulting the authorities—Caesar himself. They asked him: “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” (20:22). He demanded that someone show him a denarius, and he asked in return whose image and inscription are on the coin. The religious spies said that both were Caesar’s. Then he pronounced the famous line: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s (v. 25). These questions happened with some frequency during these tense days in Jerusalem, and he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him, for fear of the people. Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6).

As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper, when he elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:7-20). During the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different.

At this point we pick up the literary context of Luke 22:36 (bold print), the third step in our exegetical method. The context needs to be quoted in full (Luke 22:35-38):

35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], “When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
They said, “No, not a thing.”
36 He said to them, “But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.”
38 They [the disciples] said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“It is enough,” he replied.

This literary context reveals four truths. First, at this time only eleven apostles were present since Judas slipped away to betray Jesus. Second, Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. But does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? This is answered, below. Third, he says that he would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12 predicted. Does this have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around? This too is explained, below. Finally, the words “it is enough” can either be a statement (as it is translated here), or it can be a command: “That’s enough!” That is, “Put away your swords! You’re taking my words too literally!” But regardless of the translation, Jesus clearly has a deeper meaning in mind than the physical swords. What is it?

This last question brings us to the fourth step in our exegetical method. The interpretation of the verse can either follow a literal direction (Jesus intended to fight with swords) or a nonliteral direction (Jesus is using the physical sword to convey a deeper meaning). The surest and clearest direction is the nonliteral one, but first we analyze why the literal one will not fit the context.

The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for three reasons, based on v. 38, which says that two swords are enough. First, the obvious question is: enough for what? A physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest (Malchus according to John 18:10). Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, “No more of this!” and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51). Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords. Second, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and impose the new Jesus movement (as sociologists of the New Testament call it)? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities were in the process of arresting him: “Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?” (New International Version). The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (22:54). Third, are the two swords enough after the death and Resurrection of Jesus for the disciples to go forth as a military army to force people to convert, die, or pay a special tax if they do not convert (Sura 9:29)? Early church history says no. Since a literal interpretation will not work, Jesus intended to teach a deeper meaning than a physical fight with only two physical swords.

In contrast to the literal interpretation, the three following nonliteral interpretations work smoothly in context so that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

First, Jesus reminds the disciples of his mission for them before he arrived in Jerusalem (Luke 9:3; 10:1-17). Did they need a purse, a bag, or extra sandals? No, because before Jerusalem those were days of relative peace. Now, however, he is in Jerusalem, and he has undergone the antagonism of religious leaders seeking to trap him with self-incriminating words. When the authorities are not present, they send their spies. The atmosphere is therefore tense, and the two swords—no more than that—symbolize the tension. Jesus’ mission has shifted to a clear danger, and the disciples must take note. However, he certainly did not intend for his disciples to use the swords, as we just saw in the literal interpretation, above. But the swords symbolizing tension fits perfectly with the context of Luke 22:36.

Second, by far the clearest purpose of the symbolism of two swords is found in 22:36-37, when Jesus refers to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12) about being numbered with the lawless in the context of swords. He was destined to be falsely arrested like a criminal, falsely put on trial like a criminal, and even falsely crucified like a criminal. After all, he was hung on the cross between two thieves, which is a further fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Luke 23:32; 39-43). What are criminals known for carrying with them? Weapons, and to be numbered with them Jesus must also have weapons. That is why he said that only two swords would be enough—to fulfill this prophecy in a symbolic way.

A little knowledge of first-century Greek, the original language of the New Testament, clarifies this interpretation. The Greek word gar (used as the first word in the translation of v. 37, above) means for, whose function and meaning is to explain the preceding clause. Here is an example in English: “I am bringing an umbrella, for it is raining.” So the word for explains why I am bringing an umbrella—it is raining. This often works in New Testament Greek, as well. So in v. 36 Jesus tells the disciples to buy a sword: “And the one who has no sword must go out and buy one,” but why must he buy one? Jesus explains why in the next clause: “For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me” (v. 37). Thus, Jesus wants to go all the way in his identity with common criminals as predicted by Isaiah, and two swords alone would suffice. The use of swords outside of official and legal authority represents criminal behavior. However, Jesus would not let them be used when the time came for his arrest, for he was really not a criminal, but to use them would mean that he was; plus, he was destined to die as he himself predicted (Luke 18:31-33). So he immediately stops Peter’s misuse of his sword: “No more of this!” (Luke 22:51).

A final nonliteral interpretation also explains why Peter or any follower of Jesus must not use swords to maim or kill sinners, unbelievers, or anyone else.

The third and final symbolic interpretation presents itself in addition to Isaiah’s prophecy and the tense atmosphere in Jerusalem. Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep and so on) to teach nonphysical, universal truths, and the same is true with the two swords in this passage. Though Luke 22:36 is not a parable, Jesus is about to instruct the disciples, using two physical swords, on how not to behave when they go out into the highways preaching the gospel after his Resurrection. They will not need swords when Jesus is arrested, and they will not need them even if they suffer persecution later on. Hence, the physical swords teach a nonphysical and universal truth based on Jesus telling Peter to put away his sword: no violence should be used to spread the word of the true God. Tradition says that all of the original apostles but John were martyred as a direct result of persecution (John died from natural causes of old age, but he was imprisoned for his faith on the Island of Patmos), but none of them fought their way out of their fiery trials with swords. Evidently, the example of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane made an impression on them. To repeat, that is the message of Jesus when he tells Peter in the Garden, “No more of this!” That is, “Never use a sword again!”

The early history of the church supports this symbolic meaning of swords in Luke 22:36 in its larger context. In the Book of Acts, which was written by Luke and records some of the history of the church after the Resurrection, the disciples never swing a sword. Bloody warfare is excluded as they spread the message of the kingdom of God, throughout the larger Mediterranean world by peaceful proclamation alone.

To sum up, the three symbolic interpretations fit together in both the historical and literary contexts of Luke 22:36. Jesus says that two swords are enough, but clearly they are not sufficient for a physical fight in the Garden of Gethsemane or anywhere else. They are enough, however, to do three symbolic things. First, they embody the tension of Jesus’ last days in Jerusalem. Second, they complement Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy that he would be numbered among criminals. A mere two swords would nicely fill out the picture of this prophecy, since criminals carried weapons with them. Third, they are enough for Jesus to rebuke Peter when he swings one of them and cuts off Malchus’ ear. Therefore, Jesus uses them as object lessons that the disciples should follow his example and not use swords—they must never swing them to bring about the kingdom of God by a holy war, even in the direst moment of Jesus’ life, his arrest in the Garden.

Peter interpreted Jesus’ words literally, but he was wrong, so Jesus rebuked him. Therefore, we should avoid the same mistaken literal interpretation of “sword” in Luke 22:36, so we do not receive the same rebuke.

Heres the rest of the web page if you want more infomation (Note: Yes I know its comparing Islam to Christianity, but thats not what I am doing here, just so you know)

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles_print.php?article_id=4432

When reading Scripture, I tend to think that we weren't intended to stretch the meaning of words and refer to obscure and intricate references.

I tend to think he meant what he said.

I believe that in the first instance, he wanted us to all be good to each other, and tolerant of the abuse of others.

In the second instance, he was a man - as you recall - and he was angry at the change in the situation.

It makes the whole thing more real for me to realize that he was acting as a man.

When reading Scripture, I tend to think that we weren't intended to stretch the meaning of words and refer to obscure and intricate references.

I tend to think he meant what he said.

I believe that in the first instance, he wanted us to all be good to each other, and tolerant of the abuse of others.

In the second instance, he was a man - as you recall - and he was angry at the change in the situation.

It makes the whole thing more real for me to realize that he was acting as a man.
Defiantly … it makes the story hard to swallow when everything is attempted to be justified by “pure” intentions

I believe that in the first instance, he wanted us to all be good to each other, and tolerant of the abuse of others.

Again, if you interpret these sayings as they would have been interpreted in the culture of the time, tolerance of abuse is not what he is talking about. By turning the other cheek, you are effectively making it impossible for someone to hit you without declaring that you are equal to them. By giving up your inner garment, you are shaming not only the person who sued you, but the entire courtroom.

Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

but then he says

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.



Luke 6:29
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

but then he says

Luke 22:36
[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


Never ask a Pentacostal Christian to point out the contradictions in the red words.

some have apparently never heard of the term "metaphor"

the "sword" is not meant literally... he's bringing a "sword" against evil and some conventions of the day which prevented people from seeing him as the Messiah.

as for the person who said that none of the Bible was written during Jesus' earthly life yet is known as the word of God:

a)"God" is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit... God has always been... there is no such thing as time without God. Therefore, it is impossible to write the Word at a time when God did not exist.

b)Paul wrote maybe half of the New Testament... he lived just after Christ. The four gospels were written by those who followed Christ while Christ lived.

The four gospels were written by those who followed Christ while Christ lived.

Not that it matters, but you can't really make this claim. In the culture of the time, it was normal and perfectly acceptable for someone's followers to write something but use their teacher's name. The evidence suggests that none of the Gospels were actually written down earlier than 50 years after Christ's death. It is highly unlikely that any of the original disciples were around then. It is much more likely, and would fit in more with the times, that the students of the disciples - or even a generation of students removed further - wrote down the gospels.

Ffc2, you're always on about scripture, and thats your right. But...

Should a meaningful and worthwhile axiom be able to stand on its own merits, without any kind of supernatural ratification?

That is to say, if you believe that we should try to forgive our enemies and live peaceably and with forgiveness with all around us, would you still believe it if there had never been a Jesus or a God?

And if what is good is good in and of itself, and what is true is true of its own nature, why do you need a supernatural figure to give it credence?

Ffc2, you're always on about scripture, and thats your right. But...

Should a meaningful and worthwhile axiom be able to stand on its own merits, without any kind of supernatural ratification?

That is to say, if you believe that we should try to forgive our enemies and live peaceably and with forgiveness with all around us, would you still believe it if there had never been a Jesus or a God?

And if what is good is good in and of itself, and what is true is true of its own nature, why do you need a supernatural figure to give it credence?if they did not i would go to my other side

if they did not i would go to my other side
? ok

My, my Ffc2, aren't we prolific today.