29 May 07
For $250,000, an all expenses paid trip to the Holy Land and eternal life, give the correct answer to this ressurection multiple choice question.
Who was found in the tomb? Was it...
A. Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pilate had contributed. On the way back from the tomb the women meet Jesus (Matthew 28:9).
B. Mark 16:5, a young man in a white robe was sitting inside the tomb.
C. Luke 24:4, two men in dazzling apparel. It is not clear if the men were inside the tomb or outside of it.
D. John 20:4-14, Mary and Peter and the other disciple initially find just an empty tomb. Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb and find only the wrappings. Then Peter and the other disciple leave and Mary looks in the tomb to find two angels in white. After a short conversation with the angels, Mary turns around to find Jesus.
E. Hand of Hecate 12:5-15, A large canvas bag filled with various opiates which they subsequently smoked, fell asleep in the tomb and awoke to a large bird shadowing the dazzling light of the rising sun as it warmed its wings.
29 May 07
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate*Laughter*
For $250,000, an all expenses paid trip to the Holy Land and eternal life, give the correct answer to this ressurection multiple choice question.
Who was found in the tomb? Was it...
A. Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pil ...[text shortened]... and awoke to a large bird shadowing the dazzling light of the rising sun as it warmed its wings.
*Applause*
29 May 07
F. Pawnhandler 2:16-19 "And lo, they found the Risen Christ in the tomb, and he was sorely vexed. "Now you come? You abandoned me in my hour of need and now you show up? For these acts of cowardice and abandonment, your descendants shall be punished. They shall be pushing buttons to talk to people near and far, but shall not be able to discern the truth. They shall not know the hot babes from the scurvy scum. They shall not know those of black skin from those of white for many moons. They shall have time sucked from their lives as they are locked in mortal combat with trolls, those whose age in years outnumber their brain cells, and those under the influence of various substances who think they make perfect sense." And Peter gazed upon the Lord, pointed to Mary Magdalen and said "It's all her fault." And Mary kicketh Peter.
30 May 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerWhat does the gospel of Pawnhandler have to say about the virgin birth and the second coming of Christ? I have many problems with the literal Word with regards to these issues and I'd like them resolved.
F. Pawnhandler 2:16-19 "And lo, they found the Risen Christ in the tomb, and he was sorely vexed. "Now you come? You abandoned me in my hour of need and now you show up? For these acts of cowardice and abandonment, your descendants shall be punished. They shall be pushing buttons to talk to people near and far, but shall not be able to ...[text shortened]... the Lord, pointed to Mary Magdalen and said "It's all her fault." And Mary kicketh Peter.
30 May 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecatePawnhandler 1:4-9 And it came to pass that, as they were entitled to do as a betrothed couple, Mary and Joseph had relations, and soon Mary discovered she was with child. Her father Joachim spoke unto her thusly: "What is this that you have done? You cannot come to your own wedding feast heavy with child! What will the neighbours say?" Mary thus told her parents about an angel that appeared to her. Mary's mother Anna looked to Joseph. "Is this the truth?" Joseph confirmed it with a story of an angel appearing in a dream. Suddenly, there was a blinding light and a being appeared. "Mary, you have angered God in your blatant violation of the commandment to honour your mother and father. Joseph, these people have treated you quite well and yet you blaspheme in this angel tale. God is not pleased. Thus Mary, your tale of virginity will be passed along throughout the generations and women's sexuality will henceforth be looked upon as sinful. Joseph, your tale will be passed along as well, and people will look back at you as an older man with no sex drive who never had relations with his wife. Your child will be a son, and there will be endless controversy and arguments surrounding his life and death for the next four thousand years." And the angel disappeared in another blast of light.
What does the gospel of Pawnhandler have to say about the virgin birth and the second coming of Christ? I have many problems with the literal Word with regards to these issues and I'd like them resolved.
30 May 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerThat clears things up alot, however, I was flipping through revelations the other day and found it to be difficult to understand. Can you clarify for me when exactly I can expect to be smited, risen, ascended, descended, or otherwise scared witless by plagues, earthquakes, famine, 666 tattoos, angels with firey swords, and lets not forget the 4 horsemen? Why all the drama? Why not just turn the lights on like they do at the bar after closing and tell everyone to get the F out?
Pawnhandler 1:4-9 And it came to pass that, as they were entitled to do as a betrothed couple, Mary and Joseph had relations, and soon Mary discovered she was with child. Her father Joachim spoke unto her thusly: "What is this that you have done? You cannot come to your own wedding feast heavy with child! What will the neighbours say?" Mary thus to ...[text shortened]... for the next four thousand years." And the angel disappeared in another blast of light.
30 May 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecatePawnhandler 2:21-27 Peter spoke unto the risen Christ. "Can we have do-overs and take-backs? Or is this like one of those games wherein you make a move and are stuck with it? What happened to all that forgiveness stuff you kept talking about?" Jesus groaned. Then he spoke unto Peter, Mary Magdalen, the disciple whom He loved, the disciples whom he tolerated for the most part, the groupies, and the scribe amongst them: "I will give you and your descendants another chance then. I will return, at which time I will separate the wheat from the chaff, the dandelions from the roses, the pawns from the rooks, the Mogen David from the champaign. I will even give you warnings. These shall be the signs unto you. There will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth as losing football clubs become winners and winners become losers. Whole nations will have citizens as rotund as Herod. My prophets shall infiltrate web sites but be those you least expect. There shall be..." Peter interrupted the Lord. "Um, we have no clue what you mean, Lord, no disrespect intended." Christ looked at his disciple and spoke thusly: "Fire, brimstone, blah, blah, blah." "Oh, OK. But when will all this happen, Lord?" Christ winked at Peter. "In seven days." "In a week? We only have a week?" spake the apostle Matthew. Mary smiled. "No, he means seven days like the heavens and earth were created in seven days." Peter gasped. "You mean that wasn't literal?" Mary kicked him again.
What does the gospel of Pawnhandler have to say about ... the second coming of Christ? I have many problems with the literal Word with regards to these issues and I'd like them resolved...I was flipping through revelations the other day and found it to be difficult to understand. Can you clarify for me when exactly I can expect to be smited, risen, a ...[text shortened]... st turn the lights on like they do at the bar after closing and tell everyone to get the F out?
30 May 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecatePawnhandler 2:28-30 Mary looked upon the risen Christ. "But Lord, why all the drama? Why not just show up and smite?" The Lord gazed upon her. "And where's the fun in that?"
That clears things up alot, however, I was flipping through revelations the other day and found it to be difficult to understand. Can you clarify for me when exactly I can expect to be smited, risen, ascended, descended, or otherwise scared witless by plagues, earthquakes, famine, 666 tattoos, angels with firey swords, and lets not forget the 4 horse ...[text shortened]... ust turn the lights on like they do at the bar after closing and tell everyone to get the F out?
30 May 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateAt least you cannot accuse the bible of being contrived. If it were, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would be perfectly identical. The fact remains that Jesus rose from the dead. Believe and be saved! Otherwise you will be eternally cut off from the one and only God... May the Lord's grace be with you. Amen.
For $250,000, an all expenses paid trip to the Holy Land and eternal life, give the correct answer to this ressurection multiple choice question.
Who was found in the tomb? Was it...
A. Matthew 28:2-4, an angel of the Lord with an appearance like lightning was sitting on the stone that had been rolled away. Also present were the guards that Pil ...[text shortened]... and awoke to a large bird shadowing the dazzling light of the rising sun as it warmed its wings.
30 May 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI've been advised several times that the bible is the literal Word of God and has no discrepanicies. Can you appreciate that wallowing in the discrepancies that do exist would impact my faith dramatically? Which parts of the bible should I take as the literal truth and which parts should I ignore? Where's my guide book? I have great difficulty putting my faith in something so meddled with and full of gaping factual holes. Perhaps this was fine for the first thousand or so years after Christ. Afterall, very few people were literate and you could tell them Christ was a big pink elephant and people would buy it. Sadly, faith seems to be inversely proportionate to the sum of human knowledge.
At least you cannot accuse the bible of being contrived. If it were, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would be perfectly identical. The fact remains that Jesus rose from the dead. Believe and be saved! Otherwise you will be eternally cut off from the one and only God... May the Lord's grace be with you. Amen.
I don't raise these questions just to be difficult. These issues among others, have driven me from the Church and force me to evaluate my own spirituality. In fact, it's been my experience that the surest way to drive somebody away from organized religion (Christianity, et al...) is to take a person to Church.
30 May 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI teach Sunday School at the Church I go to and we’re currently covering the New Testament in class, namely Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. I began the lesson by having every member of the class each take turns looking out the window. I then had each of them write down on a sheet of paper what they had seen. When everyone was finished, we read each of them allowed. Some mentioned a squirrel they had seen, others mentioned the trees and birds, someone mentioned a parking lot and cars, and someone else mentioned some houses and a fence. If I were to let someone else read these papers, they could very easily come up with the conclusion that they were all looking out a different window.
I've been advised several times that the bible is the literal Word of God and has no discrepanicies. Can you appreciate that wallowing in the discrepancies that do exist would impact my faith dramatically? Which parts of the bible should I take as the literal truth and which parts should I ignore? Where's my guide book? I have great difficulty put ...[text shortened]... omebody away from organized religion (Christianity, et al...) is to take a person to Church.
The same thing is happening in these four books. We have four men each testifying what they had experienced in their own words, each providing a different perspective on the same event.
I have a testimony that the events in the scriptures did happen and should we choose to read the scriptures, study them, pray about them; we will be blessed.
In my experience, the surest way to drive someone from the Church is not giving someone the Christ-like love before and after they attend Church.
30 May 07
Originally posted by stepnkevThis is a good point, perhaps if you'd been my Sunday school teacher I would have a different perspective now.
I teach Sunday School at the Church I go to and we’re currently covering the New Testament in class, namely Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. I began the lesson by having every member of the class each take turns looking out the window. I then had each of them write down on a sheet of paper what they had seen. When everyone was finished, we read each of them al ...[text shortened]... from the Church is not giving someone the Christ-like love before and after they attend Church.
We are seperated from the event by 2000 years of history, the gospels were written, edited, translated and mistranslated often after the deaths of the Apostles involved in the writing. The bible itself was assembled by commitee. My wife and I can't agree on what color to paint the kitchen yet these learned souls, 400 or so years AD, hacked and chopped away at a rough approximation of todays bible. Now we have angels, contradictions, fallacies and fabrications to base our faith upon. Perhaps this was required to keep the religion from fragmenting and I can certainly see that a written record would not have become important until years had passed and the message was being spread. Nonetheless, I am left with doubt and the more research I do into how and when the bible evolved, the more doubt I have.
30 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by stepnkevAs a fellow believer, I appreciate your presence on this site as well as your willingness to post and open yourself up to all kinds of course jesting, harsh ribbing, and sometimes just cruelty.
I teach Sunday School at the Church I go to and we’re currently covering the New Testament in class, namely Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. I began the lesson by having every member of the class each take turns looking out the window. I then had each of them write down on a sheet of paper what they had seen. When everyone was finished, we read each of them al ...[text shortened]... from the Church is not giving someone the Christ-like love before and after they attend Church.
However, I must point out a couple of errors in your post.
1) You used "allowed" when you should have used "aloud." It's not a big deal, but many people on RHP will use a simple typo to dismiss your entire argument.
2) Also, I don't agree with your presentation on why the gospels are different in several aspects. They are...
a) Only two of the writers were disciples and were therefore eyewitnesses of the occurances. The others were dictated to by disciples/eyewitnesses. Luke admits as much.
b) Perhaps there were different observations, but more importantly, there were different audiences and purposes behind each one written. If your students were asked to describe the outside to a 1 year old, a ten year old, a fifty year old, and an 80 year old, they would all differ in the words, phrases, and things perceived which the students would use in the text/description. Or if you gave the exercise to the students to write about the tree outside, one might state in fact there is a tree outside (Mark). One might describe the tree scientifically (Luke). One might describe the tree metaphysically (John). One might describe the tree as the tree that the entire class has been waiting for and were starting to doubt would ever come (Matthew).
c) Everybody with even the slightest literary sense would be able to tell that each gospel in and of themselves is about this guy named Jesus. Therefore, this also doesn't stack up with your postulation that people reading the students' lists independantly would not know what they were reading about.
Again, I appreciate you being on here and posting. I'm hoping you'll take these criticisms not as offensive, but rather constructive. I hope your teaching Sunday School yields many soft hearts (including your own), and that God will show Himself sovereign and loving in the salvation of many of your students. God Bless.
30 May 07
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI've been advised several times that the bible is the literal Word of God and has no discrepanicies. Can you appreciate that wallowing in the discrepancies that do exist would impact my faith dramatically?
I've been advised several times that the bible is the literal Word of God and has no discrepanicies. Can you appreciate that wallowing in the discrepancies that do exist would impact my faith dramatically? Which parts of the bible should I take as the literal truth and which parts should I ignore? Where's my guide book? I have great difficulty put ...[text shortened]... omebody away from organized religion (Christianity, et al...) is to take a person to Church.
Certainly. But why not consider the amazing continuity therein as well? For instance, the perfect fulfillment of prophecy in the life of Jesus Christ. Or the fulfilled prophecy of Daniel, which predicted the next three historically verified empires since Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon (the Persians, Greeks and Romans), with the fourth kingdom yet to be fulfilled (Daniel 2). Surely a book which speaks so highly of honesty, genuineness and truth could not itself be a book of lies, disingenuousness and falsity.
Which parts of the bible should I take as the literal truth and which parts should I ignore? Where's my guide book?
I don't think the entire word of God is meant to be literal. Lord knows, the bible can be extremely difficult to grasp without the aid of the Holy Spirit. There is not one guide book to holy scripture, but I can personally attest that once I received the Holy Spirit, scripture's hidden truths began to reveal themselves. What once seemed foolish to me, now reflects the wisdom and glory of God.
I have great difficulty putting my faith in something so meddled with and full of gaping factual holes. Perhaps this was fine for the first thousand or so years after Christ. Afterall, very few people were literate and you could tell them Christ was a big pink elephant and people would buy it. Sadly, faith seems to be inversely proportionate to the sum of human knowledge.
I understand your tentativeness... I wouldn't be honest if I told you that believing the bible doesn't require a leap of faith. The reason I have grown in faith is not by justifying the bible's discrepancies to myself or ignoring the difficulties presented by God's word, which I don't claim to perfectly understand; the reason I have grown in faith since first believing in Jesus Christ is because God himself has demonstrated his Truth to me by his promises contained in scripture. If he'll do that for me, then he'll do that for you...