1. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    18 Nov '05 23:56
    I learned about this 30 years ago and am glad to finally see it on a website.

    🙂

    http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516
  2. R.I.P.
    Joined
    21 Dec '01
    Moves
    8578
    19 Nov '05 00:16
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I learned about this 30 years ago and am glad to finally see it on a website.

    🙂

    http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516
    Of course this is information is deducted from text in the bible, of which we have no way of proving how accurate it is. Don't you find it odd that Jesus is traditionally put in the middle ? Statistically he would have a greater chance being in one of the other positions.
  3. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    19 Nov '05 00:16
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I learned about this 30 years ago and am glad to finally see it on a website.

    🙂

    http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516
    Can you find an article that resolves the contradication regarding the number and type of people at the empty tomb?
  4. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    19 Nov '05 00:35
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I learned about this 30 years ago and am glad to finally see it on a website.

    🙂

    http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516
    Here is the first problem:

    This identifies the root of the problem: a lack of real faith in the integrity of the Word of God. Such faith leads to the indispensable conviction that the Word cannot contradict itself. When one is rooted and grounded in that premise, he has a basis from which to work out what seem to be apparent contradictions, of which there are many in the Bible.
    http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=516

    I've pointed our irrefutable contradictions on this site before which no literalist
    (verbal acrobatics nonewithstanding) has been able to explain.

    The second problem is that the site uses the King James translation which, although
    by far the most elegant to read, is also woefully unreliable. If you are going to tackle
    a passage, you should turn to the Greek.

    Thirdly, the blithe disregard of tradition is a mistake. If we have records saying
    2 people with Jesus going back to the early Christians, then what makes a person
    think that 1900 years later we have a better answer?

    The site misrepresents the interlinear translation of 'one' in their examination
    of St John's Gospel -- the 'one' is implicit in the word form used. We encounter
    this in many other languages (e.g., My father used to call his mother 'la vieja'
    which means 'the old' but, implicitly, 'the old [one]'😉. So the out that they
    leave themselves for a multiplicity of crucified folk is founded on sand.

    Regarding the Greek, Sts Matthew and Mark report two 'robbers' and St Luke
    reports two 'criminals.' These are synonyms. To try to reconcile the contradiction
    (wherein Sts Matthew and Mark the criminals apparently both revile Him, in St
    Luke one comes to God) by inventing a tradition is silliness.

    Recall that none of the authors were present for the crucifixion, and so they were
    relying on reports that they got. If you believe St Luke is a literal report, then
    it is a simple matter of Sts Mark and Matthew not hearing about the story. But,
    more likely, St Luke was embellishing upon the events at the crucifixion to make
    a theological point: that one can truly come to God in their last moments, if they
    act in sincerity.

    To panic because of a literal contradiction is an expression of weakness of faith.
    However, if you can look beyond the literalness of a text to see the greater theological
    presentation, then you have reached a greater maturity of faith.

    Nemesio
  5. R.I.P.
    Joined
    21 Dec '01
    Moves
    8578
    19 Nov '05 00:401 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Here is the first problem:

    To panic because of a literal contradiction is an expression of weakness of faith.
    However, if you can look beyond the literalness of a text to see the greater theological
    presentation, then you have reached a greater maturity of faith.

    Nemesio
    Or a greater blindness
  6. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    19 Nov '05 00:48
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Here is the first problem:

    [i]This identifies the root of the problem: a lack of real faith in the integrity of the Word of God. Such faith leads to the indispensable conviction that the Word cannot contradict itself. When one is rooted and grounded in that premise, he has a basis from which to work out what seem to be apparent contradictions, of which th ...[text shortened]... greater theological
    presentation, then you have reached a greater maturity of faith.

    Nemesio
    Hmmmmmmmmm....good post. I'll have to think on this.
    BTW. La vieja is also feminine.😉
  7. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    19 Nov '05 01:22
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Hmmmmmmmmm....good post. I'll have to think on this.
    BTW. La vieja is also feminine.😉
    Yes. My father called his mother 'la vieja.'

    It was a term of endearment. Literally translated, it means
    'the old,' but implicitly it is 'the old [(female) one].'

    I figured since it was his mother, her gender was self-evident.

    Nemesio
  8. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    19 Nov '05 01:24
    Originally posted by Jay Peatea
    Or a greater blindness
    The person who needs the Bible to be literally true at all times is
    by definition blinded to all other arguments.

    I have no problem with any one part of the Bible's being true, or any one
    part of its being false.

    That is not blindness. That is opened-mindedness to revelation and Truth.

    Nemesio
  9. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    19 Nov '05 08:04
    Originally posted by Jay Peatea
    Of course this is information is deducted from text in the bible, of which we have no way of proving how accurate it is. Don't you find it odd that Jesus is traditionally put in the middle ? Statistically he would have a greater chance being in one of the other positions.
    If all things were equal then this would be true; but who did everyone come to see get crucified?
  10. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    19 Nov '05 08:15
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    If all things were equal then this would be true; but who did everyone come to see get crucified?
    This question presupposes that Jesus was a bigger concern to the
    Romans than the other two criminals. This is not necessarily a
    safe assumption; thousands of people were crucified in Jesus's
    day. This was probably another day at the ranch for the soldiers.

    I'm not saying that He wasn't in the center or that the Gospels are
    wrong. But it's very likely that, if He was, it was a matter of
    coincidence, not because the Romans regarded Him as special or
    anything.

    Nemesio
  11. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    19 Nov '05 08:312 edits
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    This question presupposes that Jesus was a bigger concern to the
    Romans than the other two criminals. This is not necessarily a
    safe assumption; thousands of people were crucified in Jesus's
    day. This was probably another day at the ranch for the soldiers.

    I'm not saying that He wasn't in the center or that the Gospels are
    wrong. But it's ver ...[text shortened]... matter of
    coincidence, not because the Romans regarded Him as special or
    anything.

    Nemesio
    I disagree. The Romans very much saw Jesus as a threat to the entire empire. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Sadducees who both controlled the church that controlled the empire along with the holy emperor. There was no seperation between church and state back then.

    Jesus performed miracles, had a following, and declared himself the son of God.

    Jesus performed miracles at the crucifixion, and the Jews wanted to see him dead. Jesus was by all accounts the main attraction.
  12. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    19 Nov '05 08:40
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    I disagree. The Romans very much saw Jesus as a threat to the entire empire. Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Sadducees who both controlled the church that controlled the empire along with the holy emperor. There was no seperation between church and state back then.

    Your understanding of history is skewed by the Gospels. There are records of
    sedititious persons, for example Josephus. Jesus's entry is insignificant, just a
    few lines on a page.

    The Pharisees comprised a very, very small portion of the Jewish community --
    at most, just a few percentages according to historians of the day. They were
    not remarkably powerful, just remarkably corrupt which made them an easy
    target for Jesus.

    And, the Empire was Pagan. The Jews were a small minority with limited
    power throughout the Empire. That's why the many revolts that occurred were
    ultimately defeated with little difficulty. The Jews were an annoyance to the
    Emperor, not much more than that. Whenever they got out of hand, they just
    killed a bunch of leaders to keep them in line by fear.

    Jesus performed miracles, had a following, and declared himself the son of God.

    Jesus performed miracles at the crucifixion, and the Jews wanted to see him dead. Jesus was by all accounts the main attraction.


    I'd hate to list all the people in and around Jesus's time that performed miracles.
    You may think that Jesus was a main attraction (because, no doubt, He was the
    star of the show in the Gospel accounts), but the fact of the matter is, he barely
    registered on the radar for the Roman government.

    Nemesio
  13. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    19 Nov '05 15:02
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    The Romans very much saw Jesus as a threat to the entire empire.
    Why would Pilate even consider letting him go if this was the case? Instead of washing his hands, he would have applied for medals.
  14. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    19 Nov '05 17:56
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Yes. My father called his mother 'la vieja.'

    It was a term of endearment. Literally translated, it means
    'the old,' but implicitly it is 'the old [(female) one].'

    I figured since it was his mother, her gender was self-evident.

    Nemesio
    Ah..yes, but my mother called my father "el viejo", and was not always a term of endearment..LOL.
  15. R.I.P.
    Joined
    21 Dec '01
    Moves
    8578
    20 Nov '05 21:50
    Originally posted by The Chess Express

    Jesus performed miracles at the crucifixion, and the Jews wanted to see him dead. Jesus was by all accounts the main attraction.
    Normally in society the main event is at the end, or if something is really important it is often done first. Two possible reasons to put the main attraction at either end instead of the middle.
Back to Top