Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »That is an interesting claim, especially in light of what Jesus' contemporaries actually thought about the nature of the messiah (they never conceived of him as being divine) and what his divinely appointed role would entail (again, they never conceived of the eschatological meaning behind the cross).
But we don't know what Jesus' contemporaries actually thought about the nature of the messiah do we? We do know that according to the gospels, Jesus claimed to be the son of God to His contemporaries though.
If this was not in keeping with prophecy, it would have been quite easy to subvert Jesus' role in the prophecy in any number of ways.
It just seems odd to me.Fanny Cradock wrote: »If you want to explore more on this then I would point you towards Tom Wright's work. I think that this and this talk would be relevant. You can also find plenty of additional information about what the Jews expected from the true messiah in his book Simply Jesus.
Thank you for that; I shall peruse those links later.0 -
So, don't you think it is odd that the Jews were able to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God by forcing His mother to state on record that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph but didn't?
If one looks at the earliest books of the NT - those written by Paul - there is no reference to the virgin birth. Again the same is true of the earliest Gospel, Mark. For whatever reason these authors did not report it. The message of the NT is primarily focused on the later life, the death and resurrection of Jesus and what that means for creation. Their message was that Jesus was risen (after being executed in just about the most humiliating, not to mention painful, method practice by the Romans) and that he was a totally different type of messiah to anything anyone had previously imagined. That was what the enemies of the early Christians would have tried to counter. Perhaps later they changed tactic. Or, if you are of a more sceptical nature, perhaps the early Christians began to concoct stories to make Jesus fit in with prophecy.
Additionally, women were not valued as witnesses. They were considered unreliable simply because of their gender.Then unless Jesus allowed His mother to be sacrificed on charges of adultery and blasphemy, He could have been discredited by the words of His mother.
Well, we really don't know what happened to Mary. I could propose that she fled and lived out her days in safety. That seems to be a real possibility to me. Why do you not consider such a scenario in your posts?0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Well, we really don't know what happened to Mary. I could propose that she fled and lived out her days in safety. That seems to be a real possibility to me. Why do you not consider such a scenario in your posts?
One theory is that she went with John to Ephesus where the goddess Diana was worshipped. It's not surprising that Mary is associated with similar imagery to Diana, because that was the imagery the people knew.0 -
Of course we do. Sorry, Wh1stler, but I think you actually need to do a bit of research into this before making such claims. Try those resources I gave you earlier.But we don't know what Jesus' contemporaries actually thought about the nature of the messiah do we?We do know that according to the gospels, Jesus claimed to be the son of God to His contemporaries though.
The messiah was to be a divinely appointed human who was in every other respect the same as the rest of us. There is no evidence that any Jew prior to the resurrection thought that the messiah was going to be executed or the he would *shock* *horror* turn out to be God himself. (And this goes for the disciples themselves.) Indeed, all of this was so outrageous and so blasphemous that it lead to Jesus being executed.0 -
philologos wrote: »marienbad: Simply put, what are you trying to achieve or argue in respect to Jesus? That's what I want to know. That's the topic we should be focusing on, not the tangent.
PDN has pointed out that Josephus is not a contemporary source for Herod or Salome. He's about as contemporary to them as he was to Jesus. That's a valid point. That's why I feel we need to focus on what we're trying to say about Jesus, because this is actually the topic, not the tangent.
Maybe let's presume for a moment that the 'Jesus' Josephus refers to is the same Yehoshua/Yeshua/Joshua personality that Christianity (Messiah-anity) as a belief system was later built on. When thinking about this, we must always remind ourselves that the term 'messiah' is a title, not a common name like Fred, John or Jesus. Jesus would most likely have been referred to as either Yeshua/Joshua ben Josephus (presuming he was under Joseph's care) or Yeshua/Joshua ben Miriam, if it was held by the society that his actual father was unknown.
The name Yehoshua/Yeshua/Yushu/ and Issa/Isa (we must not forget Isa) was a common name in that time, as is obvious from the variants that appear in the OT, such as Joshua, in English from. It would appear, even if someone arrived from another planet and never knew a thing about this man's existence, that certain belief structures, varied though they may well now be, stemmed from some ideas purportedly expressed by a mysterious individual of this name, sometime around 2000 years ago.
At the same time, the question as to why he was expected to appear and to whom, is widely disputed and argued about, with the whole wise men or astrologers 'from the East' arriving on the scene and mysteriously knowing how to find this expected-one, when the Jews, who were the people whom you would most expect to know when and where to find him, along with Herod, a provincial king, could not figure it out.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but that it's a storyline that begs as many questions as it answers. If there is an absence of explanation for the seemingly current and confused account of what was going on, it can probably come down to three main possibilities:
(1) It's all true
(2) It's all invention
(3) It's based on some original truths and some invention and became merged with myths and speculation, with the possibility that someone still has access to the correct and actual account of what was going on, but for whatever reason wants to keep it hidden. After all, the Dead Sea Scrolls were only discovered in the 1940's, so who knows what else is either out there, or has already been found, and possibly bought and sold to those who could afford to do so for 'business' purposes?
Who would such people be? Who would lose most if factual material or information from that time were to turn up and explain not just the newer Christian origins, but how it tied in with what appears to have been a following that was simultaneously averse to both the established formats of Jewish religion and those of the Roman overlords of the region? Would it solely undermine the modern day Christian religion, the Jewish, or maybe both, along with Islam, which derives from a common thread in several respects? Or, would it unite them? Then again, who would that situation suit, or, more importantly, not suit?
Do the various religions somehow despise each other because their upper levels know or at least have a good idea of what remains hidden? Would that not be a genuine revelation at this time, as we are obviously all in the dark to some degree.
Maybe also, that this possibly is not the case, but we do know that when it comes to holding on to power -- and knowledge and the concealment of it, is the greatest form of power, and also its greatest potential destroyer -- certain types of people can justify just about anything, to preserve the status quo, even if it ends up killing millions, billions maybe, as the reins of power, even if they are attached to a horse that is heading into a valley of certain death, are hard to let go, as both the horse and the rider are as one. ehwis.
I appreciate that these are merely my own questions and ideas, and even if one is not the slightest bit 'religious' at all, even from a point of following a thread back to where it seemingly disappears under a locked door, is indeed interesting, as all things come from an origin, and origins must exist because you can't have an effect without a cause, can you?
A0 -
Advertisement
-
One theory is that she went with John to Ephesus where the goddess Diana was worshipped. It's not surprising that Mary is associated with similar imagery to Diana, because that was the imagery the people knew.
I visited Ephesus some years ago, and there is a house/shrine/church there dedicated to Miriam/Mary. There's no reference to where she went in the bible, and despite RC beliefs about her being taken off to heaven, there is absolutely no mention of such a thing in the texts.
You are correct about much of the merging of the imagery of Mary and Diana, as the cult was based on Artemis Diana, the chief goddess in the area in those times.
Paul/Saul got himself into trouble there for arguing for his religious beliefs, as it threatened the livelihood of the silversmiths who made statues and such like for the Diana cult. This is mentioned in Acts 19 -
23 And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. 24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana brought no small profit to the craftsmen.
It reminds me of something similar I've seen in Knock, except the statues are now plastic or plaster.0 -
Of course it isn't equivalent. Fair enough if you made a mistake and forgot to type the last line - but you shouldn't get stroppy at someone for reading what you wrote rather than what you meant to write.
Firstly, I would like to explain my reasoning behind my accusing you of deliberate mis-interpretation.
You chose to read what I wrote as a claim that Mary had been forced to testify for Her son. You seized on a single grammatical ambiguity and made that claim even though, if your characterisation of the first sentence in that post carries my intended meaning:Wh1stler wrote:Don't you think it is odd that the Jews were able to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God by forcing His mother to state on record that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph?
is contradicted by sentence three:
Wh1stler wrote:Why did the Jews miss that opportunity to 'kill' the Jesus phenomenon for good?
and yet you do not consider this in your attack on my post. I accept that sentence one, in isolation, is ambiguous but sentence three puts it in context. Or else it's a blatant contradiction.
But rather than attempt to exploit that avenue of attack, (the blatant contradiction), which you know can be easily defended by either adding the clause 'but didn't?' to sentence one or assuming that 'were able to' implied 'could have but didn't' applied to sentence one, either of which reconcile sentences one and three, you decided to focus on the easily decipherable ambiguity of sentence one and completely ignore the contradiction caused in your own reasoning and the contextual setting of sentence one.
And one has to try hard to justify that line of reasoning when sentence three so easily solves the ambiguity. Neither Marien nor Tommy came to the same conclusion as you because they considered the post in its entirety; it is as if you read the first sentence and then simply stopped reading and answered.
The post in question, Post 3854, in its entirety boils down to: Given that there were numerous opportunities from the time it was known to the San Hedrin that Jesus was claimed to be 'The Actual Only Son Of God', and given that the actions of the Jews, little things like paying Judas to betray Jesus; like stirring up the crowd and 'forcing' them to choose Barabus over Jesus; those things that prophecy 'demanded, actually served to fulfill their own prophecy; since, apparently, Jesus is the fulfillment of that prophecy: Why aren't all Jews Christians?
This is a fair question that arises out of the text of the Bible. The Gospels can be understood as a kind of 'battle' between the laws of the Jews and the path of Christ but how can we tell who is wearing the white hat? And I mean that from a neutral perspective.
There are 'mistakes' in the stories; errors and contradictions. How does ignoring them justify faith? Faith in what? It is a story that you have interpreted in a way that requires you to ignore certain details and implications contained in those accounts.
But worse, you peddle your 'mis-informed' views in such a way as to encourage others to ignore those details and implications too; it is deliberately mis-directing; it is an attack on thought. And it should be challenged; about two billion souls are at stake.
There are so many opportunities sought throughout the story of Jesus to 'scupper' the prophecy that it is difficult to believe that the Jews weren't aware either of the implications of Jesus' claims or the prophecies which were being fulfilled as a result of their own actions. But neither you nor I know what the prophecies mean from a Jewish perspective.
However, there are two possible considerations. One is: The Jewish authorities accepted that Jesus was the Messiah and used their influence to ensure that certain things came to pass and the other is, that the authorities rejected Jesus and sought to destroy Him. Either of these things raise important questions.
If it's the first possibility, the question is: Why don't Jews venerate Jesus as the Son of God?
If it's the second, why didn't they just 'scupper' Him?
I hope that this clarifies Post 3854 for you.No, I doubt if the Jews had the power to force that at all. You are aware that they didn't actually have monolithic power to force people to do stuff? They had very limited powers under an occupying Roman army.
You doubt it? They had the power to get the Romans to crucify Jesus didn't they?I would suggest you maybe do a little reading up on First Century Palestine? You think the Jews were running around stoning adulterers every five minutes?
Would you? Can you suggest some reliable historical sources regarding first century Palestine?
And no, I think they were very careful like that.
If you can't deal with my points at face value and as a result of honest consideration then feel free not to divert attention away from my honest and considered views.0 -
Firstly, I would like to explain my reasoning behind my accusing you of deliberate mis-interpretation.
You chose to read what I wrote as a claim that Mary had been forced to testify for Her son. You seized on a single grammatical ambiguity and made that claim even though, if your characterisation of the first sentence in that post carries my intended meaning:
I didn't 'choose' to interpret anything. I read your post as what it said.
As I've already said, I accept that there was confusion based on how it was poorly worded - but the confusion was genuine. No need to go accusing me of somehow deliberately misunderstanding you.
Once again you're barking up the wrong tree.and yet you do not consider this in your attack on my post. I accept that sentence one, in isolation, is ambiguous but sentence three puts it in context. Or else it's a blatant contradiction.
You think I should have noticed that you had ommitted a phrase because otherwise your post would contain a contradiction? Come on, look at some of the drivel that gets posted in this thread! Contradictions are rife in posts without me trying to find clues in them!
Now, we can move on from this if you like and discuss the points you want to make - or we can keep on arguing about why I'm not a mind-reader and can't guess what words you ommitted.This is a fair question that arises out of the text of the Bible. The Gospels can be understood as a kind of 'battle' between the laws of the Jews and the path of Christ but how can we tell who is wearing the white hat? And I mean that from a neutral perspective.
There are 'mistakes' in the stories; errors and contradictions. How does ignoring them justify faith? Faith in what? It is a story that you have interpreted in a way that requires you to ignore certain details and implications contained in those accounts.
I'm not sure what you mean about ignoring errors and contradictions.
I'm more than happy to discuss any alleged errors or contradictions in the Gospels. The problem is that we rarely get to discuss them here.
Atheists come on here and make blanket assertions about how the Gospels are full of mistakes and contradictions - but when we ask them to name one or two so we can discuss them then one of two things happen.
a) They fail to mention specifics.
b) Or they name an alleged contradiction. We point out that there's a perfect plausible explanation that involves no explanation. Then they get angry and start insisting that theirs is the only possible interpretation and how dare I, or the many theologians and linguists who disagree with them dare to do so.
But if you think that the Gospels are full of errors and contradictions then by all means let's talk about one or two of them.
We might get further in a discussion if you dropped the rhetoric.But worse, you peddle your 'mis-informed' views in such a way as to encourage others to ignore those details and implications too; it is deliberately mis-directing; it is an attack on thought. And it should be challenged; about two billion souls are at stake.
I don't 'peddle' anything. I study and teach the subject of theology because I find it fascinating, and because I think its important to discover the truth. We're probably not going to get far in any discussion if you persist in using inflammatory rhetoric just because I hold different views to you.
It's called free will. Look back through history. Without the sword being used to enforce an ideology (something I abhor btw) no message has ever been universally adopted and embraced.If it's the first possibility, the question is: Why don't Jews venerate Jesus as the Son of God?
Most of us have an innate tendency to hold on to what is familiar and to reject anything that seems innovative and challenging to our pre-existing views. No matter how convincing Jesus might have been, His message was never going to to be embraced by alll, or even by a majority of the Jews who heard Him and witnessed what He did.
So what we should expect to happen is exactly what happened. The message was embraced by a small minority of Jews. They told other people, and the movement slowly grew (at an average rate of about 3% a year over the next 3 centuries) until it became a worldwide force.
So the reaction of the Jews, and others, to the Gospel is entirely consistent with everything we know about human nature.
They did their best to scupper Him.If it's the second, why didn't they just 'scupper' Him?
They lied about Him. Claimed He was demon-possessed. Accused Him of being a wine-bibber and a glutton. Derided Him as a carpenter's son. And eventually had Him killed.
All of which are entirely consistent with what we would expect from normal human beings who run a relligious bureaucracy under an occupoying regime - rather than from some mythical awesome super-efficient omniscient machine with the self-discipline of the Gestapo.
In other words, the Jews a religious hierarchy riven by factions and disputes and, as such hierarchies always do, they didn't always do what you (2000 years later and with minimal understanding of their culture and context) might think would have been the most logical thing. That;s how real history as opposed to the imagined histories of conspiracy theorists) actually works. Real history is messy - and that reality is reflected in the Gospels.
They did, as a very last resort. But read the Gospels and see for yourself how that happened.You doubt it? They had the power to get the Romans to crucify Jesus didn't they?
The main argument that enabled them to get the Romans onside was the threat to public order, and the idea presented to Pilate that Jesus, by claiming to be the Messiah, represented a challenge to Roman rule. This all happened at the one time of the year (Passover) when public opinion was most volatile and nationalistic tendencies were running high.
Look at how, even then, Pilate was slow to sanction the death penalty. Now imagine them bringing Mary to Pilate and saying, "Crucify this woman for us, because she won't tell us who the father of her son is!" Pilate would have laughed in their faces. If he was to crucify every woman who couldn't or wouldn't identify a child's father then there wouldn't be enough wood in Palestine to build enough crosses.
Gladly. I usually recommend my students to start with a good Bible Commentary or New Testament Survey - eg http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Survey-Merrill-Tenney/dp/0802836119Would you? Can you suggest some reliable historical sources regarding first century Palestine?
Tenney's book is great for the beginner to get a grasp of the culture and setting of the Gospels, understanding the different schools with Judaism and the prevailing philiosophies etc that were influential in First Century Palestine.
Sorry, I really haven't a clue what you're on about here. I addressed your views based on what you yourself posted. If you post with more clarity then there shouldn't be a problem.If you can't deal with my points at face value and as a result of honest consideration then feel free not to divert attention away from my honest and considered views.0 -
I visited Ephesus some years ago, and there is a house/shrine/church there dedicated to Miriam/Mary. There's no reference to where she went in the bible, and despite RC beliefs about her being taken off to heaven, there is absolutely no mention of such a thing in the texts.
You are correct about much of the merging of the imagery of Mary and Diana, as the cult was based on Artemis Diana, the chief goddess in the area in those times.
Paul/Saul got himself into trouble there for arguing for his religious beliefs, as it threatened the livelihood of the silversmiths who made statues and such like for the Diana cult. This is mentioned in Acts 19 -
23 And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. 24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana brought no small profit to the craftsmen.
It reminds me of something similar I've seen in Knock, except the statues are now plastic or plaster.
You have a point here, but I think you may be overstating it a little.
There’s a tradition that Mary the mother of Jesus did go to Ephesus in her later life, and did die there. It’s not in scripture, but that’s true of the end-of-life stories of most of the people who appear in the Gospels or in Acts. And there’s nothing fundamentally implausible or improbable about the suggestion. But it should be pointed out that there’s an earlier tradition that has her dying in Jerusalem. (Both traditions, for the record, include assumption into heaven.)
It’s also true that the cult of Mary has some features in common with the cult of Diana/Artemis, which was strong in Ephesus at the time of Paul.
But we can’t trace the tradition which puts Mary in Ephesus back before the fourth century. The cult of Diana was long extinct by then. To suggest that the Marian cult was an adaptation of the Artemisian cult, we have to assume the historicity of the tradition that has Mary dying in Ephesus. And, as I say, I think the most we can say about it is that it’s a historically plausible tradition, but it’s not evidenced.
Even if we do assume the historicity of that tradition, it’s very easy to put two and two together and get five. The features of the Marian cult which appear to echo the Artemisian cult - the statues and statuettes, for example - come along much later. Veneration of Mary is first recorded in the third century, but in Egypt. It doesn’t really take off until the fifth century, when the Council of Ephesus uses a teaching about Mary - that she was the Theotokos, or God-bearer - to define dogma regarding the divine and human nature of Christ. Icons of Mary are not known before the fifth century, and even they show her with the Christ-child, and so are unlikely to be a development of the Artemisian tradition. (In the iconography, Mary doesn’t appear without the Christ-child until well into the Middle Ages.) To maintain a link, we have to assume a now-lost tradition of 200 years or so f Marian imagery between the decline of the Artimisian cult and the rise of the Marian cult, in which Mary is first depicted like Artemis - with no child but rather more than the usual quota of two breasts - and then gradually loses the extra breasts and acquires a child. And there really is no evidence for this.
0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »But we can’t trace the tradition which puts Mary in Ephesus back before the fourth century.
I think it could be argued that the Mary/Ephesus link is a lot earlier than that.
Jesus, when on the Cross, commended Mary to the care of the apostle John (John 19:26) which could lead us to assume that John took Mary with him wherever he travelled to.
Ireneaus (died 202 AD) reported that John lived in Ephesus, and he is supposed to have got this information from Polycarp (69-155 AD). So it is easy to see that the idea of Mary being in Ephesus could be very early indeed.0 -
Advertisement
-
On Mary and Diana, I think their is a lot of Isis in the imagery also and other pagan goddesses but this is to be expected and I don't think detracts from the power of Mary as a feminine expression of Gods power.
Was it Lewis who said all previous god and goddesses were the world prefiguring the incarnation?
On the Jews not destroying the Jesus/God connection.
I don't think they understood what they were dealing with, their concept of a messiah was a leader who would raise the Israelites to world power status not defeat death and sin. Also as PDN said they were running internal power struggles themselves all the while covering their own backs against the Romans. When it came to dealing with Jesus they saw a challenge to their authority and an excuse for Rome to take tighter control. Get rid of as fast as possible was the strategy not a theological debate.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »You have a point here, but I think you may be overstating it a little.
There’s a tradition that Mary the mother of Jesus did go to Ephesus in her later life, and did die there. It’s not in scripture, but that’s true of the end-of-life stories of most of the people who appear in the Gospels or in Acts. And there’s nothing fundamentally implausible or improbable about the suggestion. But it should be pointed out that there’s an earlier tradition that has her dying in Jerusalem. (Both traditions, for the record, include assumption into heaven.)
It’s also true that the cult of Mary has some features in common with the cult of Diana/Artemis, which was strong in Ephesus at the time of Paul.
But we can’t trace the tradition which puts Mary in Ephesus back before the fourth century. The cult of Diana was long extinct by then. To suggest that the Marian cult was an adaptation of the Artemisian cult, we have to assume the historicity of the tradition that has Mary dying in Ephesus. And, as I say, I think the most we can say about it is that it’s a historically plausible tradition, but it’s not evidenced.
Even if we do assume the historicity of that tradition, it’s very easy to put two and two together and get five. The features of the Marian cult which appear to echo the Artemisian cult - the statues and statuettes, for example - come along much later. Veneration of Mary is first recorded in the third century, but in Egypt. It doesn’t really take off until the fifth century, when the Council of Ephesus uses a teaching about Mary - that she was the Theotokos, or God-bearer - to define dogma regarding the divine and human nature of Christ. Icons of Mary are not known before the fifth century, and even they show her with the Christ-child, and so are unlikely to be a development of the Artemisian tradition. (In the iconography, Mary doesn’t appear without the Christ-child until well into the Middle Ages.) To maintain a link, we have to assume a now-lost tradition of 200 years or so f Marian imagery between the decline of the Artimisian cult and the rise of the Marian cult, in which Mary is first depicted like Artemis - with no child but rather more than the usual quota of two breasts - and then gradually loses the extra breasts and acquires a child. And there really is no evidence for this.
You are right about the various traditions that later came to be tagged on to the post-gospel/Acts period, often reinforced as tradition by the edicts of various Church Councils, including those of Ephesus, where Mary/Miriam was stated to be the 'god-bearer', with both its own overt and subliminal associations with breast feeding, child rearing, motherhood etc, in which department the cultic Diana appears to be well endowed.
This was a time when the newly developing Roman Church, mainly as a result of developments in the time of Constantine, began to further advance a policy of syncretism, involving the merger and adaptation of ideas from several previously and originally separate traditions, especially in the area of local sects and religions, thereby claiming an underlying unity in the development of local variants of what was by now becoming a predominant belief system.
From my understanding of it, there would appear to have been a free for all aim of pulling in traditions of other local religions, cults and traditions as a method of inclusion for the sake of corporate unity under a single banner, per se.
This can be seen in many instances, where non-biblical traditions were fostered and promoted as being somehow authenticated on the basis of the word of certain scholars who, though some centuries removed in time and location from Palestine, claimed them to be so, and being further approved at Church Councils, thus making them part of the prevailing and forming orthodoxy.
Such things as the story of an assumed woman by the name of Veronica wiping the face of Jesus on the way to Golgotha, is one such story or tradition that is to be seen presented as a truthful depiction in practically every Roman Catholic church and in many works of art, leading many devotees to believe that something not originating in any factual or authentic account of the gospels, was in fact true, as in the story of Mary's flight up to heaven.
Whereas I can agree with you on the point that we can’t really trace the tradition which puts Mary in Ephesus back before the fourth century, this must then beg the question as to why Mary, the mother of Jesus, would go and live in a pagan cult centre, where the likes of Paul was attacked by the angry followers of Diana, if Jesus had put her into John's care, presumably to keep her safe. It simply doesn't add up, unless you can give me some other reasoned view on this for consideration. It also begs the question as to why James, another of her sons, would not firstly look after her, but as there is no explanation give, then this also is unknown as to why it might be.
I'm not clear as to if you meant that the cult of Diana was long extinct by the times of the First Council of Ephesus, as the cult existed in many countries and was part of practically all the Latin tribes for hundreds of years after this time. Do you mean that it had become extinct in the Ephesian area, and if so, why do you think this was the case?0 -
@ ISAW
No we dont know many. We know few apparent contradictions.
We determine the truth by analysis. this involves both scholarship and looking at the world today.
Did you look at this page? http://islamtomorrow.com/bible.asp#ch2
There are many others when looking at the bigger picture, such as why the Jews were expecting a Messiah to deliver them from the embarrassment of coping with Roman occupation. Why then, would Christianity as learned from Paul get into bed with Rome and that establishment? Paul liked the Roman establishment and used it on many occasion to get out of trouble when he inflamed the crowds. Paul even claimed the emperors were there in that office as cesar only because God put them there!0 -
I think it could be argued that the Mary/Ephesus link is a lot earlier than that.
Jesus, when on the Cross, commended Mary to the care of the apostle John (John 19:26) which could lead us to assume that John took Mary with him wherever he travelled to.
Ireneaus (died 202 AD) reported that John lived in Ephesus, and he is supposed to have got this information from Polycarp (69-155 AD). So it is easy to see that the idea of Mary being in Ephesus could be very early indeed.
Really??? Can you show me where in John 19:26 that it states the actual word JOHN???0 -
seeskaskooch wrote: »Really??? Can you show me where in John 19:26 that it states the actual word JOHN???
Who do you think "the beloved disciple" refers to?0 -
As I've already said, I accept that there was confusion based on how it was poorly worded - but the confusion was genuine. No need to go accusing me of somehow deliberately misunderstanding you.
Okay.You think I should have noticed that you had ommitted a phrase because otherwise your post would contain a contradiction? Come on, look at some of the drivel that gets posted in this thread! Contradictions are rife in posts without me trying to find clues in them!
Fair enough.Now, we can move on from this if you like and discuss the points you want to make - ...
Yes, I would like that.I'm not sure what you mean about ignoring errors and contradictions.
I'm more than happy to discuss any alleged errors or contradictions in the Gospels. The problem is that we rarely get to discuss them here.
Atheists come on here and make blanket assertions about how the Gospels are full of mistakes and contradictions - but when we ask them to name one or two so we can discuss them then one of two things happen.
a) They fail to mention specifics.
b) Or they name an alleged contradiction. We point out that there's a perfect plausible explanation that involves no explanation. Then they get angry and start insisting that theirs is the only possible interpretation and how dare I, or the many theologians and linguists who disagree with them dare to do so.
But if you think that the Gospels are full of errors and contradictions then by all means let's talk about one or two of them.
I wouldn't say that the Gospels are 'full' of errors and contradictions and in fact I would concede that there may be a great deal of accuracy contained within those accounts but, and admittedly this has a lot to do with my own method of interpreting the data offered in the Gospels, to me, it appears that the 'truth' has been used to create a historically robust framework into which the authors have woven a different, unverifiable story in order to 'distort' history.
To me it is similar to someone constructing a historically accurate account of certain events in Elizabethan Britain and then superimposing the story of Hansel and Gretel in order to present Hansel and Gretel as being a true story. Do you see what I mean? Does anyone?
If you were able to glean thirty facts presented in an account and twenty-nine were verifiably true then although the thirtieth fact may not be verifiable one way or the other, the truth of the other 'facts' could lend credibility to something that may not be true. And it would not be unreasonable to think that it is safe to assume that the unverifiable fact is likely to be true since all the other facts are demonstrably true. In this way, it is possible to hide lies within the truth.
So, by no means do I think the Bible is filled with errors and contradictions but I do see some errors and contradictions; some inconsistencies and if you can account for them then I'd be happy to give up ground on the basis of reason, logic and taking human-nature into account.
This discussion can be conducted respectfully and that is all I ask for.
If you can start off by treating my views as being the result of honest and due consideration, that I am here, like you, in the persuit of truth; if you can accept that my questions arise from my analysis of the Bible; that I am not here to deride Christianity for fun, then we should be able to discuss my concerns regarding the agenda that brought Christianity into existence.
Are you game?0 -
-
(snip)he Gospels, to me, it appears that the 'truth' has been used to create a historically robust framework into which the authors have woven a different, unverifiable story in order to 'distort' history.
To me it is similar to someone constructing a historically accurate account of certain events in Elizabethan Britain and then superimposing the story of Hansel and Gretel in order to present Hansel and Gretel as being a true story. Do you see what I mean? Does anyone?
(snip) I'd be happy to give up ground on the basis of reason, logic and taking human-nature into account.
(snip) we should be able to discuss my concerns regarding the agenda that brought Christianity into existence.
Are you game?
Sorry for the sniping, it was a long post and I kept the bits I'll address.
OK it could be like a novel set in historic times with characters and events from the time woven into the story, Jesus as Zellig if you will, but why?
Human nature, hmmm isn't that the bit that caused the trouble in the first place
Agenda tell us more? agenda sounds planned, the gospel reads more like they were making it up as they went along.
The games afoot
0 -
To me it is similar to someone constructing a historically accurate account of certain events ...and then superimposing [something different]... to present [it] as being a true story. Do you see what I mean? Does anyone?
what do you mean by "historically accurate"?
what "different story" do you assert the gospels were superimposing?
how do you reconcile that the New Testament is a collection of disparate earlier sources with the idea that it was cooked up afterwards and retrofitted?If you were able to glean thirty facts presented in an account and twenty-nine were verifiably true then although the thirtieth fact may not be verifiable one way or the other, the truth of the other 'facts' could lend credibility to something that may not be true.
What are you asserting was the invented "fact" which was thrown in later?And it would not be unreasonable to think that it is safe to assume that the unverifiable fact is likely to be true since all the other facts are demonstrably true. In this way, it is possible to hide lies within the truth.
And if the unverifiable fact actually was true ? Isnt it just as reasonable to assume that?I do see some errors and contradictions; some inconsistencies and if you can account for them then I'd be happy to give up ground on the basis of reason, logic and taking human-nature into account.
So you are willing to admit the New testament isnt cooked up by a conspiracy and admit what yo now view as "errors" arent if you are given a reasonable explanation. Im sure PDN can provide that.if you can accept that my questions arise from my analysis of the Bible;
does it? what are you questions?0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Who do you think "the beloved disciple" refers to?
Good question, and one I often wondered about. It seems that that identifier has never been clearly determined or agreed upon LINK and if it was the John who supposedly wrote the Gospel of John, he was hardly the most humble amongst Jesus' followers. It also begs the question as to why Jesus would love this one more than the others. Did Jesus not preach that his followers should love all men? LINK
I also wondered why Jesus would assign his mother to anyone in particular when he knew that he would ressurect. Any ideas on this?
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
He knew Mary would probably live for more than 40 days?
That was exactly my point, so why 'give her' to anyone to look after her, as she would be no worse off than before, as Jesus was destined to die and resurrect anyway? Didn't she have other children, depending on interpretation of the texts, or at least one, James? Why would he, being head of the church in Jerusalem, not be the one appointed to look after her? It always struck me that she obviously wasn't in much danger if she was able to stand at the foot of the cross, with centurions and Roman politicians around. Why would they not also kill her in too, as an example to others?0 -
It could be, but there's no evidence that it is. Nobody mentions a "Mary dies in Ephesus" story before the fourth century. People could of course have put together the Mary/John and John/Ephesus connection (the first of which is scriptural) before that time, but there is no record that they did. And, if they did, how do we explain the "Mary dies in Jerusalem" tradition?I think it could be argued that the Mary/Ephesus link is a lot earlier than that.
Jesus, when on the Cross, commended Mary to the care of the apostle John (John 19:26) which could lead us to assume that John took Mary with him wherever he travelled to.
Ireneaus (died 202 AD) reported that John lived in Ephesus, and he is supposed to have got this information from Polycarp (69-155 AD). So it is easy to see that the idea of Mary being in Ephesus could be very early indeed.
Besides, Adamas' theory requires not just a much older "Mary dies in Ephesus" tradition than we have a record of, but also a much older "Marian cult in Ephesus" than we have any record of.
The fact is that the images of Mary which are most evocative of the images of Artemis - Mary alone, standing upright, in long robes - are actually quite modern. Early images of Mary show her with the Christ-child in her arms, usually seated (or head-and-shoulders) and often in company with various apostles or with Joseph. The Artemis-looking images really come to the fore only in the nineteenth century, and are associated with Marian apparitions at places like Lourdes and, as Adamas pointed out, Knock.0 -
Well, one explanation for the “Mary in Ephesus” tradition is that it could be based on historical truth. Why not? True, Ephesus wasn’t always safe for Christians but neither was Jerusalem; nowhere was, really. And I think the widowed and elderly Mary’s priority would not have been a safe neighbourhood so much as a family/community that would support her. If she was cared for in later life by the beloved disciple, as Jn 19 suggests, then it’s not implausible that she went where he went, and that he (and a band of followers) ended up in Ephesus.. . . Whereas I can agree with you on the point that we can’t really trace the tradition which puts Mary in Ephesus back before the fourth century, this must then beg the question as to why Mary, the mother of Jesus, would go and live in a pagan cult centre, where the likes of Paul was attacked by the angry followers of Diana, if Jesus had put her into John's care, presumably to keep her safe. It simply doesn't add up, unless you can give me some other reasoned view on this for consideration. It also begs the question as to why James, another of her sons, would not firstly look after her, but as there is no explanation give, then this also is unknown as to why it might be.
Another possibility is that the tradition is based on the connection with the beloved disciple in Jn 19, plus a tradition that has John - assumed to be the beloved disciple - dying in Ephesus.
If either of these is the explanation, then the “Mary/Ephesus” tradition could indeed be much older than we have evidence of. This is speculative, but I think it’s plausible speculation.
But your suggestion requires not just an early Mary/Ephesus tradition, but an early Marian cult in Ephesus, to take over, adapt and continue the statuette trade. And there’s no evidence for this at all.
The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was destroyed (by Goths) about 165 years before the Council of Ephesus, and it was not rebuilt. The ruins were removed and recycled in building roads and forts; some of the ornamental stonework was removed to other cities (and in fact it’s thought that some of the columns in the Hagia Sophia - not built for another hundred years - came originally from the Temple in Ephesus). If the cult had still been thriving, we would expect the Temple to have been rebuilt (as happened on previous occasions). This suggests that the cult was greatly diminished by the time the Temple was finally destroyed, and without the Temple it's unlikely that it would have survived in Ephesus much longer. The Diana cult, which is analogous, may have survived among the Latin tribes but the Ephesians, of course, were not Latins and, one suspects, did not greatly care what the Latins thought.I'm not clear as to if you meant that the cult of Diana was long extinct by the times of the First Council of Ephesus, as the cult existed in many countries and was part of practically all the Latin tribes for hundreds of years after this time. Do you mean that it had become extinct in the Ephesian area, and if so, why do you think this was the case?
The clincher for me, though, is that the Artemis-looking Marian iconography is pretty modern; earlier Marian iconography is very different, and not really evocative of Artemis in the way that, say, a Lourdes Madonna is. This is the reverse of what you’d expect if the Marian cult originated in Ephesus and was an adaptation of the Artemisian cult.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »
Besides, Adamas' theory requires not just a much older "Mary dies in Ephesus" tradition than we have a record of, but also a much older "Marian cult in Ephesus" than we have any record of.
I think you might have picked me up wrongly on this Peregrinus. I wasn't suggesting that there was a Marian cult at Ephesus before say the 4th Century.
I have little doubt that the association of Mary dying at Ephesus was generated to draw devotees of other cults in that area to switching over, or at least syncretising their beliefs with the newer form of virgin worship within the growing religion of Roman influenced Christianity.
Just because a temple structure might have been destroyed does not really mean the same thing as saying that the cult died out. Look at the way certain sects of Jews cry and pray at the Wailing Wall in Jeusalem, today, thousands of years after the temple place was destroyed.
I can't see how the imagery of Mary, as an ever-virgin type of goddess, could not have come from the idea (I'm not saying fact) that she died at Ephesus. Sure the imagery might have been modified to suit, as it would hardly be seen proper to portray Mary with a heavy-duty rack of multiple boobies, but the ideas associated with motherhood, virginity, sex and life have always played a big part of religions throughout the generations, as can be seen within the places like Lourdes and Knock today, where Mary is lauded as being 'Queen of Heaven', which clearly derives from earlier cults such as those of Isis, Astarte, Diana, Ashera, which, as part of the Graeco-Roman world of the times we are talking about, would be part of the background culture, regarless of what name they might be called.
We know that representation of Mary became more common after the Council of Ephesus in 431, so it figures that it what may have been hearsay until then about where she may or may not have gone, would easily transfer to and from the ideas associated with the Diana cult.
Having said all that, we have to admit that the biblical texts say nothing at all about where she went, which in itself seems quite odd, as the whole religion of Christianity as we know it, could not have started without her, even if she was an orthodox Jew.0 -
Okay.
Fair enough.
Yes, I would like that.
I wouldn't say that the Gospels are 'full' of errors and contradictions and in fact I would concede that there may be a great deal of accuracy contained within those accounts but, and admittedly this has a lot to do with my own method of interpreting the data offered in the Gospels, to me, it appears that the 'truth' has been used to create a historically robust framework into which the authors have woven a different, unverifiable story in order to 'distort' history.
To me it is similar to someone constructing a historically accurate account of certain events in Elizabethan Britain and then superimposing the story of Hansel and Gretel in order to present Hansel and Gretel as being a true story. Do you see what I mean? Does anyone?
If you were able to glean thirty facts presented in an account and twenty-nine were verifiably true then although the thirtieth fact may not be verifiable one way or the other, the truth of the other 'facts' could lend credibility to something that may not be true. And it would not be unreasonable to think that it is safe to assume that the unverifiable fact is likely to be true since all the other facts are demonstrably true. In this way, it is possible to hide lies within the truth.
So, by no means do I think the Bible is filled with errors and contradictions but I do see some errors and contradictions; some inconsistencies and if you can account for them then I'd be happy to give up ground on the basis of reason, logic and taking human-nature into account.
This discussion can be conducted respectfully and that is all I ask for.
If you can start off by treating my views as being the result of honest and due consideration, that I am here, like you, in the persuit of truth; if you can accept that my questions arise from my analysis of the Bible; that I am not here to deride Christianity for fun, then we should be able to discuss my concerns regarding the agenda that brought Christianity into existence.
Are you game?
VERSES THAT CONTRADICT THEMSELVES
Genesis 6:3 and Genesis 11:11 - Life limited to 120 years?
Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:20 - Jacob's life was preserved?
Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9 - Who was God's firstborn?
Numbers 23:19 and Genesis 6:6-7 - Does God repent or not?
2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 - Did Michal have children?
2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 - 700 or 7000 horsemen?
2 Samuel 8:9-10 and 1 Chronicles 18:9-10 - Toi or Tou? Hadadezer or Hadarezer? Joram or Hadoram?
2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 - 700 or 7000 charioteers? 40,000 horsemen or footmen? Captain's name?
2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 - Who provoked David?
2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5 - 800,000 or 100,000?
2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 - 7 or 3 years?
1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 - 40,000 or 4,000 stalls?
1 Kings 5:15-16 and 2 Chronicles 2:2 - 3300 or 3600?
1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 - 2000 or 3000 baths?
2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 - 22 or 42 years old?
2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 - 18 or 8 years old? 3 months or 3 months and 10 days?
Erza 2:65 and Nehemiah 7:67 - 200 or 245 singers?
Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 - Who was Salathiel's father?
Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 - Who was Joseph's father?
Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not?
Matthew 10:5-10 and Mark 6:7-8 - Bring a staff or not?
Matthew 15:21-22 and Mark 7:24-26 - The woman was of Canaan or Greece?
Matthew 20:29-30 and Mark 10:46-47 - One or two beggars?
Matthew 21:1-2 and Mark 11:1-2 - What happened to the ass?
Matthew 26:74-75 and Mark 14:72 - Before the cock crow once or twice?
Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 - How did Judas die?
John 3:16 and Psalms 2:7 - Only begotten son?
John 5:31 and John 8:14 - Was Jesus' record true or not? VERSES THAT CONTRADICT THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE AND/OR THE DIVINITY OF JESUS
Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16 - No one saw God.
Isaiah 42:8 - Do not praise and worship images.
Isaiah 45:1 - "Anointed" does not mean "God".
Matthew 14:23, 19:13, 26:39, 27:46, 26:42-44 - Jesus prayed.
Matthew 24:36 - Jesus was not all-knowing.
Matthew 26:39 - Jesus and God had different wills.
Matthew 28:18 - All power was given to Jesus.
Mark 1:35, 6:46, 14:35-36 - Jesus prayed.
Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19 - Jesus denied divinity.
Mark 12:28-29 - God is one.
Mark 13:32 - Jesus was not all-knowing.
Mark 16:19 and Luke 22:69 - Jesus at the right hand of God.
Luke 3:21, 5:16, 6:12, 9:18, 9:28, 11:1-4, 22:41 - Jesus prayed.
Luke 4:18, 9:48, 10:16 - Jesus was from God.
Luke 7:16, 13:33, 24:18-19 - Jesus was a prophet.
Luke 10:21 - Jesus gave thanks.
Luke 23:46 - The spirit of Jesus was commended to God.
John 4:19 - Jesus was a prophet.
John 4:23-24 - Worship in spirit and truth.
John 14:28 - One was greater than the other.
John 5:19, 5:30, 7:28, 8:28 - Jesus was helpless.
John 5:20 - The Father showed the son.
John 5:30 and 6:38 - Jesus and God had different wills.
John 5:31-32 - Jesus' witness was not true.
John 6:11 and 11:41-42 - Jesus gave thanks.
John 6:32 - The Father was the provider, not the son.
John 7:29, 16:5, 16:28 - Jesus was from God.
John 7:16, 12:49, 14:24, 17:14 - Jesus' words were not his.
John 8:42 - Jesus did not come of himself.
John 10:29 - "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all."
John 14:1 - Jesus said, "...believe also in me."
John 14:16, 17:1, 17:9, 17:11, 17:15 - Jesus prayed.
John 14:31 and 15:10 - Jesus followed commands.
John 17:6-8 - "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me."
John 20:17 - Jesus had a god.
Acts 2:22 - Jesus was "a man approved of God."
Romans 8:34 - Jesus was an intercessor.
1 Timothy 2:5 - Jesus was the mediator between God and humans.
http://islamtomorrow.com/bible.asp#ch20 -
seeskaskooch, instead of cutting and pasting a lot of irrelevant stuff, why not try engaging in some discussion.
Fot example (picking one out at random), the Samaritan woman at the well called Jesus a prophet in John 4:19. How is that a contradiction? Do you think there is another verse in the Gospels somewhere that says "Jesus was not a prophet"? Where is any contradiction or mistake?0 -
seeskaskooch wrote: »VERSES THAT CONTRADICT THEMSELVES
Genesis 6:3 and Genesis 11:11 - Life limited to 120 years?
Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:20 - Jacob's life was preserved?
Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9 - Who was God's firstborn?
Numbers 23:19 and Genesis 6:6-7 - Does God repent or not?
2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 - Did Michal have children?
2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 - 700 or 7000 horsemen?
2 Samuel 8:9-10 and 1 Chronicles 18:9-10 - Toi or Tou? Hadadezer or Hadarezer? Joram or Hadoram?
2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 - 700 or 7000 charioteers? 40,000 horsemen or footmen? Captain's name?
2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 - Who provoked David?
2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5 - 800,000 or 100,000?
2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 - 7 or 3 years?
1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 - 40,000 or 4,000 stalls?
1 Kings 5:15-16 and 2 Chronicles 2:2 - 3300 or 3600?
1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 - 2000 or 3000 baths?
2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 - 22 or 42 years old?
2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 - 18 or 8 years old? 3 months or 3 months and 10 days?
Erza 2:65 and Nehemiah 7:67 - 200 or 245 singers?
Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 - Who was Salathiel's father?
Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 - Who was Joseph's father?
Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not?
Matthew 10:5-10 and Mark 6:7-8 - Bring a staff or not?
Matthew 15:21-22 and Mark 7:24-26 - The woman was of Canaan or Greece?
Matthew 20:29-30 and Mark 10:46-47 - One or two beggars?
Matthew 21:1-2 and Mark 11:1-2 - What happened to the ass?
Matthew 26:74-75 and Mark 14:72 - Before the cock crow once or twice?
Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 - How did Judas die?
John 3:16 and Psalms 2:7 - Only begotten son?
John 5:31 and John 8:14 - Was Jesus' record true or not? VERSES THAT CONTRADICT THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE AND/OR THE DIVINITY OF JESUS
Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16 - No one saw God.
Isaiah 42:8 - Do not praise and worship images.
Isaiah 45:1 - "Anointed" does not mean "God".
Matthew 14:23, 19:13, 26:39, 27:46, 26:42-44 - Jesus prayed.
Matthew 24:36 - Jesus was not all-knowing.
Matthew 26:39 - Jesus and God had different wills.
Matthew 28:18 - All power was given to Jesus.
Mark 1:35, 6:46, 14:35-36 - Jesus prayed.
Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19 - Jesus denied divinity.
Mark 12:28-29 - God is one.
Mark 13:32 - Jesus was not all-knowing.
Mark 16:19 and Luke 22:69 - Jesus at the right hand of God.
Luke 3:21, 5:16, 6:12, 9:18, 9:28, 11:1-4, 22:41 - Jesus prayed.
Luke 4:18, 9:48, 10:16 - Jesus was from God.
Luke 7:16, 13:33, 24:18-19 - Jesus was a prophet.
Luke 10:21 - Jesus gave thanks.
Luke 23:46 - The spirit of Jesus was commended to God.
John 4:19 - Jesus was a prophet.
John 4:23-24 - Worship in spirit and truth.
John 14:28 - One was greater than the other.
John 5:19, 5:30, 7:28, 8:28 - Jesus was helpless.
John 5:20 - The Father showed the son.
John 5:30 and 6:38 - Jesus and God had different wills.
John 5:31-32 - Jesus' witness was not true.
John 6:11 and 11:41-42 - Jesus gave thanks.
John 6:32 - The Father was the provider, not the son.
John 7:29, 16:5, 16:28 - Jesus was from God.
John 7:16, 12:49, 14:24, 17:14 - Jesus' words were not his.
John 8:42 - Jesus did not come of himself.
John 10:29 - "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all."
John 14:1 - Jesus said, "...believe also in me."
John 14:16, 17:1, 17:9, 17:11, 17:15 - Jesus prayed.
John 14:31 and 15:10 - Jesus followed commands.
John 17:6-8 - "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me."
John 20:17 - Jesus had a god.
Acts 2:22 - Jesus was "a man approved of God."
Romans 8:34 - Jesus was an intercessor.
1 Timothy 2:5 - Jesus was the mediator between God and humans.
http://islamtomorrow.com/bible.asp#ch2
that is just a curt and past list. It would be better if you actually took a single theme e.g. contradictions of Jesus being subservient to God and also being God.
ill start at the bottom.
All 33 at the bottom question Jesus position as a man and as a prophet as a "son of god" and as god himself.
There is a duality of being a man and being God.
One point is that Jesus the man was not going to use God powers or do things against reason to live his life. The point of his life was that anyone could emulate him. they did not have to be God to do it. they could do it with normal human powers.
So you have to distinguish between a mortal incarnation of God (Jesus) and God (Christ).
with that in mind all the apparent contradictions of the bottom 33 disappear. for example being subservient to the will of the father.
e.g.
If Jesus was God, why did He say "The Father is greater than I" in John 14:28?
Father greater than I
"If Jesus was God, why did He say "The Father is greater than I" in John 14:28?"
Well, The phrase “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) was spoken by Jesus during the upper room discourse, and the greater context is the promising of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus says repeatedly that He is doing the Father’s will, thereby implying that He is somehow subservient to the Father. The question then becomes how can Jesus be equal to God when by His own admission He is subservient to the will of God? The answer to this question lies within the nature of the incarnation.
During the incarnation, Jesus was temporarily “made lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:9), which refers to Jesus’ status. The doctrine of the incarnation says that the second Person of the Trinity took on human flesh. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, Jesus was fully human and “made lower than the angels.” However, Jesus is fully divine, too. By taking on human nature, Jesus did not relinquish His divine nature—God cannot stop being God. How do we reconcile the fact that the second Person of the Trinity is fully divine yet fully human and by definition “lower than the angels”? The answer to that question can be found in Philippians 2:5-11. When the second Person of the Trinity took on human form, something amazing occurred. Christ “made himself nothing.” This phrase has generated more ink than almost any other phrase in the Bible. In essence, what it means is that Jesus voluntarily relinquished the prerogative of freely exercising His divine attributes and subjected Himself to the will of the Father while on earth.
Another thing to consider is the fact that subservience in role does not equate to subservience in essence. For example, consider an employer/employee relationship. The employer has the right to make demands of the employee, and the employee has the obligation to serve the employer. The roles clearly define a subservient relationship. However, both people are still human beings and share in the same human nature. There is no difference between the two as to their essence; they stand as equals. The fact that one is an employer and the other is an employee does nothing to alter the essential equality of these two individuals as human beings. The same can be said of the members of the Trinity. All three members (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are essentially equal; i.e., they are all divine in nature. However, in the grand plan of redemption, they play certain roles, and these roles define authority and subservience. The Father commands the Son, and the Father and the Son command the Holy Spirit.
Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19 - Jesus denied divinity.
Now this is a different issue. stated more broadlyAccording to Jesus only God is good (cf. Matthew 19:16-17; Mark 10:17-18; Luke 18:18-19), whereas in John 10:11, 14 Jesus says that he is good. Now Christians claim that these verses prove that Jesus is Divine because he supposedly calls himself good, and yet only God is good. There seem to be two main problems with this position. First, the word for good in John 10:11, 14 is kalos whereas in the Synoptic Gospels it is agathos. Doesn’t this show that Jesus wasn’t claiming to be just as good as the Father seeing that two different words are being used? Moreover, both Joseph of Arimathea and Barnabas are called good (Luke 23:50; Acts 11:24). If the logic of the Christians was valid then this means that they too are God since they happen to be good! How do Christians avoid escaping the dilemma of their own logic?knowledgeable Christians do not refer to John 10:11 in order to prove that Jesus is God merely because Jesus applies the word "good" to himself, which would indeed be a weak argument, but as evidence to disprove that Jesus was denying his essential goodness in Matthew 19:16-17, Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19. In other words, it is the anti-Trinitarian, especially the Muslim, who uses Jesus’ statement in these aforementioned Synoptic texts to disprove his Deity, prompting the Trinitarian response that Christ wasn’t denying his absolute goodness but was questioning the man to see whether he had thought through his reasoning since if he had then he would realize that he is basically claiming that Jesus is God. So, this is nothing more than a straw man argument.
More on that here http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_only_god_good.htm
And on the broader argument
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_jesus_good.htmIt is evident from these "replies" that the Muslims either have no clue what the Christian position is or are deliberately distorting it in order to attack a straw man. For example, in the second link Muslim neophyte Sami Zaatari claims that Christians use Matthew 19:16-17 to prove that Jesus is God, which is a gross distortion of the facts. We, therefore, challenge him to quote the particular Christian resource or author that made such a claim.
Yet since Muslim dawagandists are starting to use this argument more often we have decided to address it here once and for all, by God’s grace.0 -
seeskaskooch, instead of cutting and pasting a lot of irrelevant stuff, why not try engaging in some discussion.
Fot example (picking one out at random), the Samaritan woman at the well called Jesus a prophet in John 4:19. How is that a contradiction? Do you think there is another verse in the Gospels somewhere that says "Jesus was not a prophet"? Where is any contradiction or mistake?
Exactly. Could we choose maybe 5 verses or so to start with and work off those? What do you think, seeskaskooch? Are you on for it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Exactly. Could we choose maybe 5 verses or so to start with and work off those? What do you think, seeskaskooch? Are you on for it?
ISAW made the claim there are few contradictions. I simply showed you some. If you want to go through one by one, that is good, but you may do it on your own time, as I have a life to live! But I am game to read some of your thoughts on them, unless they are so long and errorfull as the last one of ISAWs. Here he is pasting form a website that is titled :answering muslims! Isn't that a little bit narrow and one sided research? I only copied and pasted the Islam site because ISAW didn't seem to want to take the time and effort to click on it, but still decided to cram on about the bible having few contradictions. If I put it in his face, then he may actually look at it. Most people don't mind questioning things, its just the answers that don't suit there prefabricated ideas about how things are in the world. As they've invented their own reality in their minds. And it just won't suit if its out of sync with the actual true world reality.
So right at the start for ISAW....I've never found anywhere in that bible where Jesus says he is god. John 10:11 simply means he is a leader and a teacher. He only says he is son of man, which we all are if you think about it. The raising of Lazarus is one of his supposed miracles. But look at it, Lazarus wasn't dead in one account, but he is dead in another! It just goes to show you how things can get as skewed as they are today as seen by ISAWs last post. Why would he try and quote what god thinks? Did god tell him personally? The dualism of the nature of Jesus and the doctrine of the trinity wasn't even decided upon until the council of Chalcedon long after Jesus was off the scene, so don't we have the blind leading the blind here? As for Hebrews and the Philippians, did Paul actually meet Jesus? Or did he undergo a form of psychosis? Would you trust the so called "truth" from a man clearly displaying symptoms of psychosis?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement