Originally posted by orfeo
Sheer personal preference. There isn't any 'basis' for it. You want to start with the assumption of falsity, I want to start with the assumption of truth. Fine.
Do you do this with the Koran or the Book of Mormon? If not, why do you start with
the assumption of truth with only the Bible?
Do you feel that starting with this assumption is wise to do with any book?
You've misrepresented my opinion, in any event. I don't start with the assumption of
falsity (or truth). When I pick up any text, I start with no assumptions. I let the book
inform me whether or not I should be suspicious. With the Bible, as with every other
book, I ask: 'Does this make sense?' and not 'Can I force it to make sense?' If it doesn't
(as with the rock at the tomb or with the day that Jesus was crucified), I reject it as
historically erroneous and do so with no qualms. Contradictions never lead to wisdom
(except by counterexample, of course).
Taking this further, I have no qualms recognizing that the Gospels went through a
creative and editorial periods. So, when I see that St Matthew has a different and
irreconcilable set of Beatitudes from St Luke's text, I have no problem saying, St
Matthew edited these so that they made sense to him.
Taking things even further, I have no problem recognizing that Sts Matthew and Luke
probably cobbled together their stories from two main sources (St Mark and 'Q'😉 and
likely created all sorts of (theologically insignificant) transition passages, like 'Jesus got
up and walked away' or 'As the sun set, Jesus said...,' in order to make a smooth and
coherent narrative.
And, if you think I do this because I hate Christianity or Christians or the Bible, you are
so very wrong: I do this because I find it so deeply moving and fascinating.
My opinion is, if you love something, you will seek to understand it to the most intricate
level, even if that means exposing its faults and weaknesses.
It's for the same reason that when I meet people in everyday life, I assume they're truthful until they give me reason to think otherwise. I find it makes life a lot more pleasant than eyeing everyone with immediate suspicion.
Like with books, I don't begin with any assumptions. I trust them if they demonstrate that
they are trustful, I suspect them if they act suspicious. If they say something, I store it as
a 'possible truth,' and compare it against all the other things that they say. If I find a lot of
explicit contradictions, I become suspicious or at least question their ability to communicate
(often people don't say precisely what they mean).
As for the rest of your post, it seems that I am listening to you but you are not listening to me at all. I've moved on, you're repeating the same things over and over like a brick wall. What do you want me to do, get down on my knees and confess that the Bible is historically inaccurate?
I'm sorry if you feel I am belaboring a point or not listening to you. I didn't quite feel that
you moved on since you brought up the 'day of preparation' and I wanted to clear up that
point. And, no, I don't particularly want you to confess anything.
However, I think that admitting imperfection in the writings of humankind (inspired by God
or not) is a first step in truly appreciating the spirituality of the Bible.
You also have a nasty habit of saying things are clear or obvious. I have NEVER said these things are clear or obvious, all I have been doing is discussing whether there is room for doubt or interpretation. YOU are the one being dogmatic, which is rather ironic!
Certain things are clear. Certain things are not. When things are clear and people claim that they
are not, I make a stand. When things are not clear and people claim that they are, I make a
stand. When people make claims that can be undermined by defensible counterclaims, I have
difficulty sitting still. I haven't been trying to harangue you, but to walk through what perhaps
might be a different approach to Biblical study and a different perspective on spirituality.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWe are currently talking about 'historical' truth, rather than 'theological', yes?
Do you do this with the Koran or the Book of Mormon? If not, why do you start with
the assumption of truth with only the Bible?
[/b]
I don't know the Koran terribly well, so I'm not sure to what extent it claims to be recording historical matters, but in so far as it does so then YES, I would start with the assumption of truth. I don't see any overriding reason to not start reading it on the basis that recorded events happened. If there seemed to be a contradiction or oddity then I would examine it more carefully to see if that's substantiated or something is open to interpretation - much as I do with the Bible.
The Book of Mormon is an entirely different matter. On my understanding, the gap between when it was 'discovered'/written and the events it purports to describe is about 1800 years, which makes the debate over dating the New Testament books seem trivial in comparison.
Originally posted by MaustrauserWhere is the problem? Are the Words of JESUS CHRIST, to hard to believe? Are the miricles that are reported that HE did impossible to believe? Or is it the fact that HE died, was buried, and rose from the did? The written Gospel is about CHRIST, how HE came to save souls.Not the flesh of man, which is about what you are talking about. Try looking at the Gospel for the Spiritual point of view.
Most Biblical scholars agree that the four canonical gospels were written between 70 and 100 AD.
Matthew 70 - 100 AD
Mark 68 - 73 AD
Luke 80 -100 AD
John 90 -110 AD
And with both Matthew and Luke being more or less copies of Mark.
My question to our RHP Biblical scholars is this. Why do fundamentalists accept testimony written between forty ...[text shortened]... ese gospels were divinely inspired and therefore inerrant, why are they sometimes contradictory?
Originally posted by NemesioIs anyone here calling THE HOLY SPIRIT a liar?
This is a lie and you know it.
I've pointed out several which you have avoided like the plague.
Stop lying about what you call the 'Word of God,' because, if it is
inspired by the Holy Spirit, and you lie about it, then you are sinning
against the Holy Spirit and damning your soul to an eternity of hellfire.
Nemesio
Originally posted by blindfaith101By this, you mean 'Turn off your thinking brain.' I say this because you expect
Try looking at the Gospel for the Spiritual point of view.
a reader to ignore contradictions, you expect them to believe that the present
translation is representative of the original text, and that you expect them to
believe that the original text reflects the words of Jesus to begin with.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioMATTHEW 28:1,2
If you think I said that, then you have serious reading comprehension problems.
Blindfaith, perhaps you could answer this:
Was the stone moved before or after the women got to the tomb?
Nemesio
After
MARK 16: 1-5
After
LUKE 24:1-3
After
JOHN 20:1
After
I did not say anyone called THE HOLY SPIRIT a liar. I asked if anyone was calling THE HOLY SPIRIT a liar?
Originally posted by blindfaith101The following are taken from www.biblegateway.com and are NKJV translations.
MATTHEW 28:1,2
After
MARK 16: 1-5
After
LUKE 24:1-3
After
JOHN 20:1
After
I did not say anyone called THE HOLY SPIRIT a liar. I asked if anyone was calling THE HOLY SPIRIT a liar?
"1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,[a] and sat on it. 3His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6He is not here; for He is risen, as He said."
Matt 28:1-6
Ok this is definitely after. The women came, then an earthquake, then an angel descends; guards die; and angel addresses the women.
"And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away--for it was very large."
Mark 16:3-4
This sounds to me like the stone had been rolled away before they got there. Also no mention of an earthquake in this one.
"1 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them,[a] came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb."
Luke 24:1-3
This is also clearly before the women arrived!
"1 Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb."
John 20:1
You say all the verses show that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived? Are we reading the same Bible? Once again the women (or at least Mary Magdalene in John) found the stone rolled away. This can only mean that the stone was removed before they got there!
Let's sing a little song shall we?
"One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just isn't the same
One of these things just doesn't belong here
Now it's time to play our game . . ."
I'll give you a hint: It starts with the letter 'M'.
Originally posted by orfeoThe Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 20th century but describe 1st-century life (and
The Book of Mormon is an entirely different matter. On my understanding, the gap between when it was 'discovered'/written and the events it purports to describe is about 1800 years, which makes the debate over dating the New Testament books seem trivial in comparison.
earlier). Do you disbelieve their historical claims?
Please keep in mind that Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be 'Scripture' and consequently
inviolate. The claim made by Joseph Smith (the first prophet of the Church of Latter-Day Saints)
is that he copied from the originals, which were on ancient plates.
You appear to doubt it without having read it (though I cannot say). Why do you take a skeptical
approach to this document? Do you feel that parts of it, if not all of it were concocted? Do you
realize that many people feel that the Gospel of St John (as it is very different from the other,
earlier Gospels) is similarly concocted?
There have been brutally critical studies of the problems with the Book of Mormon, undermining
its historical veracity. I am reasonably familiar with them. But, similarly, there have been many
studies of the historical claims in the Bible, both Hebrew and Christian Scripture. I've read many
of them.
Without having read a sample of either of them, why would you be prone to accept the historical
claims of one text over another?
I know it may seem like I am being picky, but I feel that, in order to be a valid approach, one
must be consistent.
Nemesio
P.S., You said you accept the historical claims of the Koran. Do you accept the claim an angel
came to visit Mohammed and told him to be God's messenger or that Mohammed ascended into
heaven (both are insinuated by the Koran and maintained as factual by the Islamic community)?
Originally posted by blindfaith101The stone was rolled away after in St Mark?
MATTHEW 28:1,2
After
MARK 16: 1-5
After
LUKE 24:1-3
After
JOHN 20:1
After
I did not say anyone called THE HOLY SPIRIT a liar. I asked if anyone was calling THE HOLY SPIRIT a liar?
16:2-4 -- Very early when the sun had risen, and the first day of the week,
they came to the tomb. They were saying to one another, 'Who will roll back
the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?' When they looked up, they
saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large.
The term 'looked up' (anablepsasai) means to look closely or attentively.
The term 'had been rolled back' (anakekulistai) is very clearly 'past perfect'
tense, which indicates that the event predated the arrival of the women.
You are wrong; if you look in the original Greek, you will see that the stone was,
in fact, not rolled after the women got there.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI will eat my spiritual shoe if blindfaith can state in his own words what the notion of a past perfect verb tense means.
The stone was rolled away after in St Mark?
16:2-4 -- Very early when the sun had risen, and the first day of the week,
they came to the tomb. They were saying to one another, 'Who will roll back
the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?' When they looked up, they
saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large.
The term 'look ...[text shortened]... eek, you will see that the stone was,
in fact, not rolled after the women got there.
Nemesio
Originally posted by telerionmy mistake I misread the question, the stone was removed before they came to the tonb. in all cases.
The following are taken from www.biblegateway.com and are NKJV translations.
[i]"1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,[a] and s ...[text shortened]... it's time to play our game . . ."
I'll give you a hint: It starts with the letter 'M'.
Originally posted by NemesioDoesn't Mark mention the destruction of Jerusalem , which Mathew seems not to have known about ?
St John's Gospel has the latest date because of its advanced
theological position. Whereas St Mark's Gospel speaks of things in
a very matter-of-fact fashion -- Jesus almost seems like a regular guy
caught in the midst of things at times -- St John's has a very stoic
Jesus, a man on a mission.
Why would St John have chosen the day before P ...[text shortened]... y happened is immaterial: it is what
the story signifies that has spiritual meaning.
Nemesio
Originally posted by orfeo"The Book of Mormon is an entirely different matter. On my understanding, the gap between when it was 'discovered'/written and the events it purports to describe is about 1800 years, which makes the debate over dating the New Testament books seem trivial in comparison. "
We are currently talking about 'historical' truth, rather than 'theological', yes?
I don't know the Koran terribly well, so I'm not sure to what extent it claims to be recording historical matters, but in so far as it does so then YES, I would start with the assumption of truth. I don't see any overriding reason to not start reading it on the basis ...[text shortened]... 0 years, which makes the debate over dating the New Testament books seem trivial in comparison.
Shouldn't that apply to Moses trying to date the Sumerian flood story and the creation too? Except the time gap is considerably longer in Moses case.