Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Textual Discrepancies & How They Could Impact Christianity
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 3 of 93 (587074)
10-16-2010 7:47 PM


Some groundwork on Dr. Bart Erhman:
Erhmam verses Luke and Mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDrdQuk1Jwk

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 10-16-2010 7:51 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 5 of 93 (587081)
10-16-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
10-16-2010 7:51 PM


Bart Erhman's methods further critiqued
Ground work on Bart Erhman is in order.
Bart Erhman on NPR critiqued:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQPNrQxqmo&feature=related
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 10-16-2010 7:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 10-16-2010 8:30 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 7 by AdminModulous, posted 10-16-2010 10:35 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 15 of 93 (587263)
10-18-2010 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by purpledawn
10-17-2010 6:25 AM


Re: Trinity and Great Commission
The task in Mark is to proclaim the "good news", not teach. The door to door Christians aren't trying to teach anyone to obey what Jesus had commanded, they are spreading the "good news" and telling people they are condemned if they don't believe and become a Christian.
This concept seems to arrive from one who has never made a disciple of Christ by preaching or teaching. This criticism arises from a mind which assumes a prior that the Gospel is not true.
Such mind has no experience and assumes they can lean on their own understanding as an inexperienced outsider and pronounce authoritative interpretations of the New Testament.
All should be clear that the a prior assumption of this concept is that the Gospel of Christ is not true.
As one who has had experienced leading people to Christ I'll state my problems with it.
The task in Mark is to proclaim the "good news", not teach.
Jesus did many marvelous things. It is stupid to assume you can just come to someone and say "Jesus will save you" and they are not TAUGHT many things about this Jesus.
In Mark 9:9-13 Jesus instructed His three disciples Peter, James and John not to say anything about His transfiguration until He should be raised from the dead.
"And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man should have been raised from the dead." (v. 9)
It is foolish to assume that these things were [not] TAUGHT to the new believers. And there was quite a bit more to TEACH the disciples after they were saved. After His resurrection, and the new believer's acceptance of that resurrection, we can assume the apostles were overflowing with many other things like the transfiguration they wanted to teach and testify to.
Certain things about Jesus, to be more comprehensible, have to be taught AFTER someone has come to believe in Him and been baptized.
Acts says that the new disciples CONTINUED in the TEACHING and fellowship of the apostles.
"And with many other words he solemnly testified and exhorted them saying, Be saved from this crooked generation.
Those then who received his word were baptized, and there were added on that day about three thousand souls.
And they CONTINUED STEADFASTLY IN THE TEACHING AND THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE APOSTLES ..." (See ACTS 2:40-42)
The apostles, after they led people to be saved and baptized had a lot of things to TEACH the new believers. And they did. Not only were they teaching, but they had with them "fellowship" which is more intimate, personal, - expressing practical community needs, need for prayers, perhaps encouragement to support, encouragement and training to do what they themselves were doing.
The door to door Christians aren't trying to teach anyone to obey what Jesus had commanded, they are spreading the "good news" and telling people they are condemned if they don't believe and become a Christian.
Just because Mark highlights salvation from condemnation does not mean that the new believers were not under continued teaching. Acts records the earliest gospel messages. And we are told the new Christians continued in the teaching of the apostles.
And the Gospel of Mark itself shows Jesus teaching that the kingdom of God is not a binary matter that one is simply IN or OUT. Rather in Mark Jesus portrays God's kingdom as requiring growth and development:
"And He said, So is the kingdom of God as if a man cast seed on the earth, And sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and lengthens - how he does not know. The earth bears fruit by itself: first a blade, then an ear, then full grain in the ear.
But when the fruit is ripe, immediately he sends forth the sickle, because the harvest has come." (Mark 4:26-29)
Maybe the skeptical unbeliever doesn't CARE about the development of the kingdom of God. But I wager that the apostles DID. And though the growth of this divine life was very mysterious, they paid attention to it.
They must have observed the disciples whom they led to Christ. They must have noticed levels of maturity among them. And accordingly they continued to TEACH them.
Here again the experience of Christian workers who have actually preached the gospel is important to consult. Paul surely preached the Gospel as did Peter his senior apostle as well as Apollos. Paul says that they not only planted the Gospel seed. They also watered, cultivated and tended to this "farm" so that the spiritual life within the listners would GROW.
"I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.
So then neither is he who platns anything nor he who waters, but God who causes the growth.
Now he how plants and he who waters are one, but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
For we are God's fellow workers; upi are God's cultivated land, God's building." (1 Cor. 3:6-9)
The importance of this passage is not a matter of who wrote what first. It is not matter of textural dating. It is a matter of experience.
The apostles, (and Peter was included in verse 22) were like farmers. A farmer does more than just drop the seed. They watered, the cultivated. This means TEACHING after the believers became Christians. This means fellowshipping with them.
They met from house to house and continued to teach and fellowship. You cannot exploit Mark's concise record of the essential Gospel activity as proof of excluding this cultivating work.
Jesus said the earth brought forth of itself and the planter does not know how. And Paul said God is the only one that gives the spiritual growth.
The two portions are really the same. It is a divine development within man who believes in Christ. But it is not a development that has no part for the worker's cooperation. He continues to teach about Jesus. He continues even more so to be a model and example of one to follow. Mysteriously, the growth of divine life occurs in those who have been saved.
I have stop writing here to run an errand. I'll come back.
The main point here is that Gospel preaching requires continiued teaching and fellowship if one is concerned for the development of the Kingdom of God.
I think the first apostles were concerned for that. And I don't think they regarded Christ's example or instructions to only mean they announced to people how to get saved and then left them alone.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 10-17-2010 6:25 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 19 of 93 (587628)
10-19-2010 7:28 PM


Long long before there was any Nicene Creed or Council the prophet Isaiah wrote that the Mighty God Yahweh would become a little child born. And he prophesied that the Son given was the Eternal Father.
" For a child is born to us, A son is given to us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace ..." (Isa. 9:6)
After the coming of Jesus Christ, well after by about 400 years, some Christians considered Christ, Isaiah's prophecy as well as many other scriptures. They considered them in light of attacks against the nature of Christ and His deity. And they came up with a word - "Trinity".
Before these men were ever born the Bible already said that a little child would be called the Mighty God and the Son given would be called the Eternal Father.
The Christians at Nicene just put a theological word "Trinity" on the biblical revelation that had been there for centries.
There might not have ever been the need for such a word had not some opinionated teachers (probably unbelievers in Christ) had not launched attacks against the Gospels that God could not be incarnated as a man.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 10-19-2010 7:55 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 23 of 93 (588121)
10-22-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by purpledawn
10-20-2010 8:54 AM


Re: Topic Please
The thread is about textual discrepancies and how they could impact Christianity.
"Textural criticism is the art and science of reconstructing the original text from the multitude of variants contained in the manuscripts. It is significant that the Bible has not only been preserved in the largest number of manuscripts of any book from the ancient world, but that it also contains fewer errors in transmission. Actually, the variant readings which significantly affect the sense of a passage are less than one-half of 1 percent of the New Testament, and none of these affect any basic doctrine of the Christian faith. The textural critic has given a studied judgment on many of these significant variants, so that for all practical purposes the modern critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible represent, with their footnotes, exactly what the autographs contained - line for line, word for word, and even letter for letter."
[A General Introduction to the Bible, chapter - Restoration of the Scripture Text, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION, Giesler and Nix, pg. 375, Moody Press ]
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 10-20-2010 8:54 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2010 1:38 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 25 of 93 (588206)
10-22-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
10-22-2010 1:38 PM


Re: Original Autographs
I know that's the line, I said it in Message 1. That is what this discussion is about. To discuss or debate whether the discrepancies individually or as a whole could impact the basic tenets, doctrines, traditions, or beliefs.
Maybe it is "the line" simply because it is the real case. That's more than being just "the line". That's the situation.
Present your statistics which lead you to another view of the proportion of variant texts to the whole, which you find serious or devastating to major orthodox Christian teachings.
I presented percentages by experts in the other thread. Present your alternative percentages.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2010 1:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 7:41 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 26 of 93 (588214)
10-22-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
10-22-2010 1:38 PM


Re: Original Autographs
Since we don't have the original autographs, no one can prove whether they are true or not. These discrepancies do show us that changing what was written was not uncommon no matter the reason.
This is an old arguement " No one has ever seen one of these infallible autographs."
True. But no one has ever seen a fallible one either.
Margin notes in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 has been conveniently thrown in women's faces when it suited the institutions needs.
I think there is a difference in the abuse of a passage and the mistake in the text.
An accurate text is not free from twisting, abuse, exageration. Practically any text, even one more favorable to Christian sisters, might be somehow made to argue someone's spiritually destructive agenda.
All things considered, it is hard to fault Paul for male chauvinism of the bigotted and oppressive type, ie. Moslem style.
He did also say that in Christ there was not the social strata of male and female (Gal. 3:28)
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:27,28)
This is not a idealistic passage. This is not Paul saying that in Christ there SHOULD NOT BE Greek and Jew, slave and free, male and female. This is not what should not be. This is what CANNOT be.
"There CANNOT BE ... male and female". The normal prevailing Christian assembly CANNOT exist if there is oppression of females by males, Gentiles by Jews or vica versa. There CANNOT be social stratification of masters opprressing slaves. There CANNOT be. Not there SHOULD NOT be. There CANNOT be.
It won't work in the New Testament church. That is the Apostles word. So I think if you're serious about the whole new covenant you have to take in all that the apostles uttered.
Besides, if you have a group of females whose prayers are powerful and touch the throne of God, those prayers can move the authority of God in the church and in the world.
Find me any indication that the prayers of WOMEN are less significant to God then the prayers of men. Authority in prayer know no sex and no gender.
There CANNOT be male and female.
It would be a erroneous stretch to assume that this means the opposite sexes should loosely mix together. This error has been tried in some Pentacostal churches. They assumed that no male and female meant that believers could be sloppily inattentive to the proper distance there should remain to avoid sexual temptation.
The result of these mistakes was fornication. So while Paul says there cannot be male and female he is not negating proper boundaries between unmarried people of the opposite sexes.
But the context of Galatians 3:28 should indicate oppressive bigotry and abuse of classes.
" ... there cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."
Let's consider this word of Paul along with, his practice of not letting a woman exercise authority over a man. I would note that it is perhaps a personal matter because Paul says - "I do not allow ..."
This might be regarded as Paul's personal practice. I have noted that Paul also commended a certain woman Junia, who he said was note among the apostles. My opinion is that this Junia who had a reputation among the apostles probably spoke some things very edifying.
I don't think she was completely silent. It could be her teaching. Or it could have been the power of her prayers on behalf of the church, or both.
At any rate, those words about sister Junia came from the same man who has perturbed some with his instructions for woman to be silent in the church meeting.
Since Paul said that the saints may all prophesy one by one, I am not sure what this silence was that Paul requested.
Having women keep silent was not a practice of Paul's. It may have been a later practice due to cultural laws, which I have no problem with. Religion does change with the civilization, otherwise Christians would all be dressed like first century Jews. The problem is they aren't consistent.
I am not sure about this paragraph. However, history has demonstrated that Christian woman have both been used as teachers.
Mrs. Jessie Penn Lewis did very valuable research on the complete bibilcal usage of such terms as soul, heart, spirit.
Mary McDonough's book "God's Plan of Redemption" I would recommend to anyone interested in the will of God with not the slightest hesitation. It is very deep and enlightening.
On problem is people's misplaced confindence in the clergy / laity system. They feel "authjority" is only had by those with wierd collars. And if you do not have REVEREND before your name you have no spiritual authority.
The clergy / laity system is the works of the Nicolaitans which Jesus said He hated in Revelation chapter 2. And the clerical class of meditorial priesthood is something of a throw back to the Old Testament. Women covet the hierarchical positions. Men do even more.
People erroneously think these positions mean authority. The Brethren left completely the meditorial class and the clergy laity system. The exposed the clergy / laity system and unscriptural for the new testament church. I completely agree with thier presentation of the priesthood of every believer.
How much of the resentment of women towards Paul is a coveting of official clerical titles of something which Christ does not want in His church to begin with ?
The scholars also try to discern why a text was changed such as the verses concerning Christ's agony at Gethsemane. (Luke 22:43—44)
I don't know anything about arguments over Luke 22:43-44. Is this another Bart Erhman special ?
Before Luke was written we have the writing of the epistle of Hebrews. And it tells us that with strong cryings to the Father who was able to deliver Jesus out of death, He cried:
Notice that this is not cries to be delivered from death but to be delivered OUT of death. That must means cries of the Son for the Father to resurrect Him once He did die.
"This One, in the days of His flesh, having offered up both petitions and supplications with strong crying and tears to Him who was able to save Him out of death and having been heard because of His piety." (Hebrews 5:7)
Before Luke wrote of Gethsemene we have the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul) telling us that Christ offered up tearful cries and petitions to the Father for Him to be saved out of death.
I have no doubt about the agony of Jesus to be absolute for the will of His Father before the cross. He was also a man. And Luke's emphasis in the Gospel of Luke is the humanity and typical yet fine manhood of the Savior.
It is totally and completely realistic that from the SAME mouth came the victorious prayer of John 17 before His crucifixion and His agonizing battle with human temptation in the Garden of Gethsemene in Luke.
That ONE all-incompassing personality could react both ways to His coming trial is not a surprise to me at all. He is God / Man.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2010 1:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 8:04 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 27 of 93 (588219)
10-22-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
10-22-2010 1:38 PM


Re: Original Autographs
The author of Luke doesn't really present a suffering servant.
What would you call His experience of resisting temptation in the wilderness in Luke 4:1-13 ?
Was that no suffering on His part to fulfill His service to His Father ? Of course it was.
In Luke 19:41-44 we read of Christ lamenting with visible tears for Jerusalem. He suffered their rejection as thier Savior once again. He "wept over it" (19:41)
This is a stronger word for wept then in John 11 at the resurrection of Lazarus. This is not simply the trickle of a tear down His cheek. This is strong crying out loud in suffering sorrow for Jerusalem.
And in Luke 20 He tells the parable about Himself as the vinyard master's son. He is rejected and killed in the parable (Luke 20:9-19)
And when the vineyard owner sent his son, they said "This is the heir; let us kill him that the inheritance may be ours." (v.14)
That surely indicates the suffering of the Son of God for the service of His Father and for the nation of Israel. And for His suffering the Father takes up retribution against His murderers:
"And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the master of the vineyard do to them?
He will come and destroy these vinedressors and will give the vineyard to others. And when they heard this, they said, May it never happen!"
Jesus explains to them that the Old Testament said the the stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.
This all indicates the rejected and suffering servant Messiah whom is cast out of the city and crucified by jealous religionists. This of course is an intense suffering to the faithful Messiah Jesus.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 10-22-2010 1:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 8:34 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 32 of 93 (588292)
10-23-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
10-23-2010 8:34 AM


Re: Original Autographs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- jaywill:
What would you call His experience of resisting temptation in the wilderness in Luke 4:1-13 ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
purpledawn:
My comment was concerning Gethsemane; but the in the verses you present, the author doesn't depict suffering.
This comment sounded to me as if you were refering to all of Luke's Gospel:
The author of Luke doesn't really present a suffering servant.
As for the wilderness temptation ? I don't know what kind of bias would enfluence a reader to understand that to go without food for 40 days in a desert did not involve some suffering.
This is skeptical bias gone wild.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 8:34 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 6:38 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 35 of 93 (588336)
10-24-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by purpledawn
10-23-2010 6:38 PM


Re: Original Autographs
You're not listening. The author didn't depict Jesus as suffering. He just says Jesus was tempted by the devil and he ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. No words described suffering.
A simple person can see two things in every Gospel.
1.) Jesus was a servant.
2.) Jesus suffered.
So Jesus was a suffering servant.
It is not a complicated theological treatise. The simple and opened minded can see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by purpledawn, posted 10-23-2010 6:38 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 10-24-2010 11:08 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 36 of 93 (588337)
10-24-2010 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
10-23-2010 3:19 PM


Re: Original Autographs
It is also important to understand fasting as it was practiced then in the Judaic community (and in much of modern Judaism on fast days). Fasting as described in Luke 4 would have meant eating nothing between sunup and sundown. It would NOT mean going 40 days without any food. It would also have meant limiting what was eaten to a meal in the evening and one again before sunup.
To often today we read the texts from today's perspective and NOT from the perspective of a Jew living at the time it was written.
That may be some nice cultural information. However, it is no way proves that that was the kind of fast Jesus had.
Elijah went 40 days without food. Only ONE small meal sustained him for that length of time.
"And the angel of Jehovah ... Rise up and eat, for the journey is too great for you. And he rose up and ate and drank, and he went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb the mount of God." (1 Kings 19:7,8)
That was complete fast of 40 days. Now the ministry of the Son of God was more vital then the ministry of Elijah the prophet. I don't think the fast of Jesus should have been less "miraculous" or less extraordinary then that of Elijah the prophet.
So while knowing tid bits about Hebrew culture is good, I would not grasp at your info to devalue the exceptional and perhaps miraculous introduction of Christ's ministry, which introduction was with a 40 day fast.
Besides, why would it be tempting to Jesus to turn stones into bread if He knew that after sundown He would get something to eat ?
Where was the food that He was going to eat after sundown? Did it say that He took forty days of "after sundown" supplies with Him ?
Besides you directly contradict that Luke 4:2 says:
"And He did not eat anything in those days, and when they were concluded, He became hungry."
Did you see that? "He did not eat ANYTHING in those days ..."
He was sustained by His enjoyment of the word of God. His heart and mind were totally occupied with the word and promises of God:
"And Jesus answered him, It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone."
The rest of the quote is that man shall live on everything that proceeds from the mouth of God. That portion of the quotation from (I believe) Deuteronomy 28, is supplied in Matthew's Gospel.
In John's Gospel we see Jesus was expected to eat for they were all without food. Jesus said to His disciples that He had food to eat of which they did not know.
His inward spiritual character was so strong that He sustained even His physical strength with His moment by moment enjoyment of His Father.
Jesus took quite literally what had been said by Job in Job 23:12 -
"As for the commandment of His lips, I have not turned back from it; I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my apportioned food."
Christ was more than Job. And Christ was more than Elijah.
I have no problem believing that He ate nothing at all in those days as Luke tells us plainly.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 10-23-2010 3:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 10-24-2010 9:54 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 41 of 93 (588479)
10-25-2010 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
10-24-2010 11:08 AM


Re: Suffering
We aren't talking about every gospel. We're talking about Luke. In the verses you shared the author did not depict suffering. By suffering I assume you mean issues like physical pain and/or mental anguish. If it is otherwise, please explain. The added text concerning Gethsemane depicts mental anguish. Without it, no mental anguish is perceived.
Yes, Christians today conflate the gospels to create yet another gospel.
It would make an interesting thread to see if each gospel does actually depict Jesus as a servant and if each gospel does depict Jesus a suffering depending on what one feels suffering means.
Some ancient manuscripts do not include Luke 22:43,44. I don't know how big of an issue this is to any except skeptics like yourself.
Considering other passages of Luke, a suffering servant is still present. I gave you examples already.
The parable of the vineyard owner's son being murdered and cast out of the vineyard by the vinedressors (Luke 20:9-19).
Now the reason I say this is a suffering servant teaching because the Messiah is not depicted here as coming in with victorious conquest but rather being rejected by those His own people. The Messiah that most of the Jews were expecting, a reigning and victorious military champion.
The parable is that the head stone was rejected by the builders. And the vinedressors killed the heir out of jealousy and to get the inheritance for themselves. Ie. a rejected and slain servant of God.
The idea of a rejected and executed Messiah, one who comes to DIE, was not the typical Jewish Messianic expectation. As such it can be classified as a "Suffering Servant" view of a Jewish Messiah.
You are putting your emphasis on how much the suffering is discribed, whether mental or physical, what have you. That is beside the point. As long as you have a teaching from Jesus of a REJECTED King of Israel, you have the classic "Suffering Servant" paradoxical view of the Messianic promise.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 10-24-2010 11:08 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 10-26-2010 8:06 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 42 of 93 (588481)
10-25-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
10-24-2010 9:54 AM


Re: Original Autographs
I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the stories, the God and even the Christ that you create.
Concerning the 40 day fast, what I believe is simply what Luke wrote. He ate NOTHING in those days.
"And He did not eat anything in those days, and when they were concluded, He became hungry." (Luke 4:2)
Luke says He did not eat anything. You say He ate something. I'll go with what Luke wrote.
However a Jew of the period would understand that 40 is one of the magic numbers, like 3 and 7 and 12 and so was symbolic.
That is very nice. But " ... He did not eat anything in those days. " Whether it was 3, 7, 12, 18, 24, 40, 42, 144. He did not eat anything in those days.
Now I think the meaning verse 2 is that in those days, He did not eat anything. And Luke is writing primarily for the Gentiles. And he is not sloppy, but rather says:
"It seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first ..." (Luke 1:3)
w of the period would understand the custom of fasting and that the terms "during those days" meant that the fasting rules were observed during the period.
Where did He get after sundown food in the wilderness ?
The Devil could have just as easily tempted Him to eat BEFORE the customary time. That would have been just as much a violation of His fast. The Devil didn't do that - tempt Jesus to start eating mid day before sundown.
Your case is not that strong.
And became hungry does not indicate suffering.
All the more devastating to your case. So how do you know He ate after sundown everyday, if He did not become hungry until the 40 days were ended ?
Which returns us to the topic.
The issue with textual discrepancies is partly due to the fact that most Christians are ignorant of Judaism.
That's interesting. It doesn't, however, establish your agenda to read He ate something when it says He didn't.
Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew.
We might say that Jesus was not a Christian. Then again we might say that Jesus is the only Christian really.
I think the latter is more accurate. Jesus is really THE ONLY Christian. All real Christian believers are living IN Him. And I don't mean sentimentally. "For me to LIVE is Christ" said Paul.
The different books of the Bible were not written by Christians, but primarily by Jews, Jews with a basic cultural mythos that is missing in modern Christians.
You are grasping at the mythos to bulster up your skeptical rejection of the Gospels. That is probably your only interest in this mythos. That is how can it give you a rational to disbelieve what the Gospels say about Jesus Christ.
That ignorance of the basics let's you pull stuff out of context like your quote from Job and truly believe that it really applies to the Luke desert narrative.
It applies for the simple reason that all the positive patriarchs and persons of faith in the Old Testament were only leading up to Christ. He is the climax of these partially spendid men of God.
That is at least the teaching of Jesus Himself. And I regard it as valid. He taught that He is the greater David, the greater Jonah, the greater Solomon. By way of extension this means that all the foregoring heros of faith were previews of the One Who alone was totally pleasing to the Father, the Son.
And that is the second great issue of textual discrepancies.
Christianity created "a Bible". They sat down in committee a few hundred years after Jesus death and made one of the biggest changes in how the holy texts would be viewed, they went beyond canonization and created a BOOK.
For the Jews, things were and still are scrolls. Each is a separate story by a separate author meant to address a separate issue.
Christianity and committees, human editors, redactors took those separate stories and forced them into a new creation, a Bible, one book and over time that attitude has evolved into thinking that there is but one story.
That act alone totally changed the way the scriptures were viewed so that today, many Christians see the Bible as one story and not the anthology of anthologies it really is.
This is your conspiracy theory.
I wonder what you would expect a Book from God to be. Perhaps you feel that because it has human writers and human copyists it cannot be the product of the Divine Being.
Perhaps you would expect a book by God to come floating down with wings and a golden glow about it.
No, there are human authors with their styles. There are human copyists, with there little errors. Still we have an ADAQUATE communication from God to man in the Holy Bible.
God is wise enough to oversee these matters that you find tale tells signs of a purely human product.
Either you are an atheist who believes no God exists who ever inspired a Book, or you are some kind of thiest who hold superstitious ideas about what a Book from God to man should be like.
Tell me. Do you feel a real communication from God to man should be textural critical proof ? It should not have been copied, perhaps ? There should be one autograph, perhaps.
I do not regard this human interaction as signs that the Bible is not inspired by God. Given man's tendency to worship physical relics, I can understand that God would allow the autographs to pass out of man's grasp.
If we had the autorgraph of the Gospel of Luke, it would probably be being kissed, bowed down to, and an superstitious relic of idolatry. Man is like that.
So I think God in His wisdom only allowed copies to exist. And there are so many more than any other ancient writing.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 10-24-2010 9:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 10-25-2010 11:49 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 44 by jar, posted 10-25-2010 11:54 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 45 of 93 (588493)
10-26-2010 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Omnivorous
10-25-2010 11:49 PM


Re: Original Autographs
Is that an accusation of satanic associations or something like?
I was debating someone a few weeks back. Out of the blue, he compared my reasoning to Lucifer's, said "I see you"--and quit the debate.
I don't have any snarky follow-up for any reply you might wish to make, jaywill; I'm honestly curious. The phrase seems recently to be used like a form of "Get thee behind me, Satan!"
Is that right?
The comment "We see you" written by me maybe is not that helpful. I will erase it. Your objection is accepted. However, I have said it before and have not used it to "close" any debating.
The point I make is that the subtlety of boasting in supposedly more accurate knowledge of things like Jewish customs, Roman politics, etc., does not mean jar has good reasons for his contradicting the New Testament.
This kind of thing has been argued both ways. Many of your Jewish Christians go through great lengths, in their more intimate knowledge of the culture, to argue FOR the gospel's authenticity.
For example Zola Levitt would be likely to match and exceed jar's insights into Jewish culture. But Zola Levitt would arrive at opposite conclusions.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 10-25-2010 11:49 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Omnivorous, posted 10-26-2010 9:03 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 46 of 93 (588494)
10-26-2010 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
10-25-2010 11:54 PM


Re: Original Autographs
Yawn.
The feeling is mutual.
The story is meant as epic, it is a symbolic tale that describes HUMAN traits, being tempted and resisting temptation. It was not meant as a literal event.
Again, Luke the evanglist writes:
"Inasmuch as many have understaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us, even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
It seemed good to me [Luke] also, having CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)
The question is do you or do you not trust Luke. I trust Luke's investigation and reporting.
Even given the elements of his particular style or flavor, even given that some sayingss seem in different order then elsewhere read, regardless, I basically trust that God used him to report to us.
I don't reject the gospels, just the interpretations of SOME chapters of Club Christian.
I count your complaint as a rejection, not so much of interpretation, but of quotation.
"And He did not eat anything in those days, and when they were concluded, He became hungry."
It applies for the simple reason that all the positive patriarchs and persons of faith in the Old Testament were only leading up to Christ. He is the climax of these partially spendid men of God.
That is YOUR interpretation. There is no indication though that Job or any other Old Testament book was written referring to Jesus. What is seen is that the authors of the New Testament often used quotemines from earlier writers just as you do by taking stuff out of context.
Your view is not of one unified revelation but of a fragmented religious scrap book of Jewish culture. You do not see or believe in the unity of the revelation of the Bible.
The instance on the Mount of Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah were seen conversing with Jesus is an example. When Peter blurted out that they should make three tabernacles, one for Jesus, one for Elijah, and one for Moses, God rebuked Peter. "This is My beloved Son. Hear Him" They looked up and saw Jesus only.
Jesus Christ completed the testimonies given by all the men of God in the OT. We needed them to appreciate the Son of God. They all, in a positive way, manifested something of this Coming One. Only the Son is completely satisfying to the Father.
You're shortsighted if you cannot see this, I think.
"God having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, ..." (Hebrews 1:1,2a)
"For as many promises of God as there are, in Him [Christ] is the Yes; therefore also through Him is the Amen to God, for glory through us." (2 Cor. 1:20)
Jesus Christ is the great and final "Yes" to all the promises of God. And through Him we even have the grace to recognize this and proclaim "Amen" through Him.
I don't mind if you dismiss these passages as "quote mining". It is your loss.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 10-25-2010 11:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 10-26-2010 8:37 AM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024