4 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio1. I put the word 'discovered' in quotes for a reason. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were WRITTEN in the 1st century but were not found in the caves until many centuries later, is not a problem. The 'discovery' of the Book of Mormon involved the miraculous appearance of plates of gold which subsequently disappeared. The only historical basis for dating the book is its appearance in the 1800s. You can't examine the manuscript and date it.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 20th century but describe 1st-century life (and
earlier). Do you disbelieve their historical claims?
Please keep in mind that Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be 'Scripture' and conse ...[text shortened]... by the Koran and maintained as factual by the Islamic community)?
2. What exactly does 'concocted' mean? It's a value-laden word. Do I think the book was actually written by Joseph Smith? No, not necessarily. It could have been written by a supernatural force.
3. I don't have a problem with the notion of a supernatural being visiting Mohammed, or all sorts of weird supernatural things happening to him.
This is why I emphasised that I thought we were talking about 'historical' truth, not 'theological'. It's a distinction I think you of all people will understand well. The reason I regard the Bible as 'theologically' true has much more to do with my own experiences and the fact that the theology of the Bible makes sense to me on a personal level than picking over historical details. I am a Christian primarily because I believe God recognised our need for salvation and sent Jesus to atone for our sins. I'm not aware of any other religion offering salvation as a gift, rather than somehow being earned.
I'm quite prepared to accept a supernatural origin of the Book of Mormon appearing to Joseph Smith (historically true in THAT sense), so long as I can point out that Galatians talks about the idea of a false gospel being presented by an angel (theologically false).
I can't remember the exact verse in Galatians, sorry, but it's there. It never seems to have occurred to Joseph Smith to question the theological content of what he miraculously received, and check that it actually accorded with the Bible it was supposed to supplement. From what I know of it, it doesn't.
For much the same reason I am content with the idea of Mohammed being visited by a spirit of some kind that told him something. Whether what the spirit told him was TRUE, well that's a matter of theology not history.
PS Most of the edits are attempts to correct typos. I shouldn't try doing this late at night!
Originally posted by NemesioI have never looked for contradictions in The BIBLE. Never had the need.Could you please list those contradictions and discuss them one at a time. I may learn something. I realize that you have problely discussed them before and I missed them. May be you can help enlighten me to your point of view.
By this, you mean 'Turn off your thinking brain.' I say this because you expect
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 blindfaith101We are talking about one, Blindfaith.
I have never looked for contradictions in The BIBLE. Never had the need.Could you please list those contradictions and discuss them one at a time. I may learn something. I realize that you have problely discussed them before and I missed them. May be you can help enlighten me to your point of view.
In St Mark the use of past perfect indicates that the stone was
rolled away before the women came.
It St Matthew, the narrative makes it clear that the stone was removed
after the women came. Consider:
St Matthew 28:1-5 -- After the sabbath, as the first day of the week
was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the
tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the
Lord descended from heaven, approached, rolled back the stone, and
sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning and his clothing was
white as snow. The guards were shaken with fear of him and became
like dead men. Then the angel said...
The use of grammar (Mary came to see the tomb, there was an
earthquake, the angel descended, the angel said) indicates
the order of events. Everything is in simple past.
This is in direct contrast with the events in St Mark.
For another major contradiction, please reread this thread and note
that the Crucifixion occurs after the Passover Seder in Sts Matthew,
Mark and Luke, but before it in St John.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioCould it be that each writer were told the story by a different person.What I mean Each writter was told by a different person. Remember the men were not there. So what happen was told by the women.
We are talking about one, Blindfaith.
In St Mark the use of past perfect indicates that the stone was
rolled away before the women came.
It St Matthew, the narrative makes it clear that the stone was removed
after the women came. Consider:
St Matthew 28:1-5 -- [i]After the sabbath, as the first day of the week
was dawning, Mary Magdalene ...[text shortened]... fter the Passover Seder in Sts Matthew,
Mark and Luke, but before it in St John.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderIn all the Gospels the Last Supper was before passover.
There are two easily mentioned as contradictions: John has the Last Supper on a different day than the other Gospels and John has Jesus carrying the cross all the way to Golgotha, whereas the other Gospels have Simon the Cyrene carrying it. Neither is important to Christian doctrine; although I wouldn't exactly call them "minor". They've b ...[text shortened]... Supper wrong (he wasn't there) and had Jesus carry the cross himself to stress his suffering.
MATTHEW 26:17 .....the first day of the feast......
MARK 14:12......The first day of unleavened bread.........
LUKE 22:7....... the day of unleavened bread.............
JOHN 13:1 ........before the feast of the passover........
These were all on the same day are they not. they are all on the eve of the passover.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of the skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: JOHN 19:17
There are two easily mentioned as contradictions: John has the Last Supper on a different day than the other Gospels and John has Jesus carrying the cross all the way to Golgotha, whereas the other Gospels have Simon the Cyrene carrying it. Neither is important to Christian doctrine; although I wouldn't exactly call them "minor". They've b ...[text shortened]... Supper wrong (he wasn't there) and had Jesus carry the cross himself to stress his suffering.
Understanding how one could think that CHRIST carried the cross all the way. It does not say whether He did or not. "he bearing his cross went forth". One can assume that HE carried HIS cross by Hisself. One can also assume that when HE went forth, on the way HE had help.
Originally posted by blindfaith101In St Mark 14:12, it says that they sacrificed the Passover Lamb. This
In all the Gospels the Last Supper was before passover.
MATTHEW 26:17 .....the first day of the feast......
MARK 14:12......The first day of unleavened bread.........
LUKE 22:7....... the day of unleavened bread.............
JOHN 13:1 ........before the feast of the passover........
These were all on the same day are they not. they are all on the eve of the passover.
is always done during the day before Passover (that is,
Passover is celebrated that night. At 14:17, it says 'when it
was evening' it means that it is Passover (the Lamb is put on the
lintels of the door to symbolize the 'passing over' of the spirit which
killed the first born of every household). This is what Passover
means.
So, you are wrong when you say that all of the Gospels, the
Last Supper was before the Passover. The 'First Day of Unleavened
Bread' is the day that Passover is celebrated (that is, that coming
evening).
However, St John's Gospel is clear when it says that Passover is
yet to be celebrated (cf. St John 19:14).
Nemesio
Originally posted by blindfaith101It could be that each writer was told a different story by a different
Could it be that each writer were told the story by a different person.What I mean Each writter was told by a different person. Remember the men were not there. So what happen was told by the women.
person, but that means that one of them was wrong, which means that
one of the accounts is wrong, which means that there is at least one
error in the Bible.
Either the stone was moved before the women got there or it wasn't;
or are you suggesting that they didn't notice an angel pushing as the
stone aside and talking to Mary Magdalene?
Nemesio
Originally posted by orfeoI would say that this is unusual. I would say that most Christians
3. I don't have a problem with the notion of a supernatural being visiting Mohammed, or all sorts of weird supernatural things happening to him.
would be of the opinion that any miracles done by Mohammed or
Joseph Smith or any other representative of a faith or sect were lies
or false.
If I told you that I have performed healings, would you believe me?
That is, would you approach my claims with the presumption of truth
rather than skepticism? (And I am not claiming I have -- in fact, I
am saying that I have not, but for the sake of example, I offer it.)
How about these faith healers on television who heal people when they
send money? Do you have a presumption of truth for them as well?
Candidly: my presumption about any extraordinary claim is what I
would call 'Thomasian' -- I would like to see it to believe it.
Furthermore, I don't find extraordinary claims (valid or not) has the
slightest impact on what I believe. If Jesus, Mohammed, or Joseph
Smith performed every single one of their alleged healings or none,
the magnitude of my respect for them would not change one iota.
Why? Because miraculous events are part of this world, a world of
little theological interest. Miraculous events are simply magic tricks to
compel people to pay attention to a particular dogmatic approach. I
don't need magic tricks to see the beauty of the Gospels (e.g.), of
Jesus's message, and the Divine Mind it reflects.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiopassover dinner is the night before the passover.
In St Mark 14:12, it says that they sacrificed the Passover Lamb. This
is [b]always done during the day before Passover (that is,
Passover is celebrated that night. At 14:17, it says 'when it
was evening' it means that it is Passover (the Lamb is put on the
lintels of the door to symbolize the 'passing over' of the spirit which
killed ...[text shortened]... el is clear when it says that Passover is
yet to be celebrated (cf. St John 19:14).
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioTo many threads! I can't find where you responded to my question on your view of scripture - but thanks for the sincere answer. (Do you recall which thread it was in?)
I'll assume that you'll take the claim seriously rather than making me cite it (again and again)
only to disappear after the citation.
Anyhow, I've not forgotten this thread - but have been thinking about it - and how I view inerrancy. I have not given that up - because I don't think these are errors per-say. I think God has a purpose for things like the discrepancies between John and the other gospels regarding the day of the crucification. In fact - one purpose was (ironically) noted by no1 - that Christ is the Passover Lamb.
But I also don't want to brush anything under the door either. The purpose of the Gospels was not to give a blow-by-blow history of Christ on earth. Some were not even written the intent to be chronological. So some of the "errors" have not real meaning. Some are still translational errors, some are still interpretation errors. And I do not claim that modern translations are perfect.
However, that being said, I do not claim to have answers to all the perceived contradictions. But I also think there are more critical questions than when was the stone moved. The question that is more important to me is why are the accounts different - and what are the truths that God wants us to understand.
I am not satisfied with my position on inerrancy - but I think am satisfied that the Bible is God's revealed truth - and not merely an old collection of books written by unreliable men.
Just wanted to let you know.
Originally posted by blindfaith101The Passover Seder is the night following the slaughter of the Passover Lamb
passover dinner is the night before the passover.
(St Mark 14:12)
In Sts Matthew, Mark and Luke, the Last Supper is the Passover Seder.
In St John, they have not yet had the Passover Seder because 'it was Preparation day
for Passover' (19:14).
I don't know how much clearer I can make this.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNow the first day of the feast of unleaven bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou we prepare for thee to eat the passover? And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them: and they made ready the passover.Now when the the even was come, he sat down with the twelve MATTHEW 26:17-20
The Passover Seder is the night following the slaughter of the Passover Lamb
(St Mark 14:12)
In Sts Matthew, Mark and Luke, the Last Supper is the Passover Seder.
In St John, they have not yet had the Passover Seder because 'it was Preparation day
for Passover' (19:14).
I don't know how much clearer I can make this.
Nemesio
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? MARK 14:12
And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. MARK 14:16,17
Then came the day of unleaven bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. LUKE 22:7,8
And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him LUKE 22: 13,14
Now before the feast of the passover, whe Jesus knew that the hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he love them unto the end. After supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscarlot, Simon's son, to betray him; JOHN 13:1,2
I have to admit that i not the wisest of understanding, but, in each of the Scriptures that I have read in the Kings James Bible, each account of the last supper was on the first day of the passover/before the feast(dinner). I may be wrong but to my understanding that THE LORD has given me all four accounts say the same thing. Am I wrong?
Originally posted by blindfaith101Yes, you are wrong.
I may be wrong but to my understanding that THE LORD has given me all four accounts say the same thing. Am I wrong?
'Day' begins at nightfall in Jewish reckoning: that is, the Feast of
Passover begins at sundown (the 'beginning of the day'😉. In the
morning before the Passover Seder (the Day of Preparation), the
observant Jew sacrifices the Passover Lamb. As we see in St Mark,
this sacrifice takes place (14:12) before Jesus and his Disciples eat.
This means that the Last Supper IS incontrovertably the
Passover Seder (according to St Mark, at least).
However, in St John Gospel, we see that (at 19:14), the Jews are
preparing for the Passover. This means that the Passover Seder has
not happened yet!
Do you see the problem: St Mark is 100% clear that the Last Supper
is the Passover (because of the Passover Lamb's sacrifice) but St
John is 100% that the Passover hasn't happened.
This is a contradiction.
I am trying to be 100% clear. These two passages (from St Mark
and St John) are the only two you need to establish with 100% certainty
when the Passover Seder is to be celebrated within their respective
Gospels.
This is not reconcilable.
Nemesio