Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion

[Mars Man]

Please forgive me for not being able to get back here for a while--the uni is going into full swing, and with class prep and zemi (a group of students under my supervision, grouped together due to their interest in English, who I help with job hunting and that prep). . . I have my hands full.

studyonline, though I couldn't quite see the point that you'd been getting at, I think that perhaps your concern regarding knowing what is true or not, is important. Perhaps, we each have to strive with all the brain power we can muster up, to descern and distinguish just what is true and what is not--that takes serious study and observation over a course of time, I reason.

You have brought up some good points there 03cobra. Graphe, as used at 2 Timothy 3:16 is in the singular, and could be translated as 'scripture'--a collective noun, if you will. It unfortunately clouds any clear understanding on the intent behind the wording--did Paul mean any specific scroll, as a single work, that he felt was 'god-breathed', or did he mean the canon of works as a whole single unit? We just can't say for sure. The word 'theopneustos' is a compound word which, unfortunately, maybe, is only used there in NT writings though it does come up in classical Greek works a couple of times. Just what the etymology is I do not know, but the word itself does literally translate into god-breathed or god-blown and in that imagery seems to fit that description at 2 Peter 1:20, 21. (although the writer there was more likely referring to the act of speaking a prophecy rather the act of writing down that prophecy later on.)

Yes, I agree that this claiming the Bible--and I've been mostly focusing in on the NT in this thread for the moment--to be inerrant has been a human thing, just as each individual writing, for the far greatest part, has been. I would suggest that some sort of 'jump' to a conclusion of some sort has occured in the wording, ". . .God never claimed to give us a perfect book." After, and through studying, I would strongly reason and agree with you that our 'Bible of today' is a "set", a collection of individual writings--that's another point which Christian religious leaders are not coming clean on when teaching the public at large--and that those were obviously penned by humans. (due to the cultural norm of religious circles at the time, and due to a lack of any evidence, I would argue that it is extremely unlikely that any works were penned by women.)

I enjoyed hearing from you Mycernius. You brought up some points which should be looked into more clearly and in detail, but that would have to take a good look at the HS. I hope to look into that after I do some more on the NT for the time being.

Talk to you guys later on !! :wave:

 

[Mars Man]

Historical Errors in the Gospel Narratives #4

RECAP

In the past five scenes there have been 9 counts of historical error and two counts of doubt--and that's after even giving up one count for the opening of the quote attrebuted to Jesus as he chased the 'bad' people out of the temple.

Mk 11:17 ou gegraptai hoti ho oikos . . .
not (it is) written that the house. . .
( see post #17 2nd paragraph under the sub-heading 'Historical errors')

:note: I'd like to point out that by wading through all this detail, there is a greater point waiting over yonder which will be reached in time and through effort. The importance of the detail should not be let to cause impatience or feelings of wanting to jump to conclusions. Please bear with me on that much.

Historical errors in the Gospel Narratives #4

In the course of time spent at the temple, the three synoptic works have Jesus giving a number of speeches or discussions with some religious leaders of Judaism. The order of the parables and discussions is not so important for the moment and mostly the inner-context of speech and intention of direction and audience will be considered. In most cases, it isn't really necessary to point out the Greek text because most translations a clear enough to see the points made herein.

>Lk 20
9-12 The vineyard parable kicks off. No mention of any tower, winepress, not fence around the premises. 3 individual slaves were sent off over three sends of one each.

.....Mt 21
33-36 The same thing, but the content about the owner building a fence around the vineyard and digging a vat for a winepress, and putting up a tower is included in the context. A plural number of slaves were sent off over two sends in groups.

..........Mk 12
1-5 The same, with a description on the vineyard as per Mt. 3 individual slaves were sent off over three sends--one slave per send--with some number of slaves sent off after the third one. (how many in how many sends cannot be determined)

>Lk 20
13 Jesus is quoted as having said that the owner of the vineyard had said. . .
"What will I do ? I will send the son of mine the beloved fairly/likely this (one) they will respect."

.....Mt 21
40 Jesus is quoted as having said that the owner had said. . .
"They will respect the son of mine."

..........Mk 12
6 Has Jesus saying the same as in Mt.

>Lk 20
15, 16 The writer claims that Jesus then framed a somewhat rhetorical question and answered it in the course of his speech. The chief priests, scribes and the older men replied with, "not may (it) occur!"

.....Mt 21
40, 41 The writer claims that Jesus then asked a question, worded differently from the claim in Lk, to which the chief priests and older men (vss 23, 27, 28,31-33) answered, " Bad (ones) (they are) [therefore] badly (he) will destroy them and the vineyard (he) will let out (to) other cultivators who will give back to him the fruits in the season/appointed time of them [e.g. fruit]."

..........Mk 12
9 The writer presents Jesus as having framed a somewhat rhetorical question with slightly different wording from the others, but close to Lk's, to which he himself answers.

>Lk 20
17 The event of introducing the next segment of the discourse about the stone, in application of Pslm 118:22 & Isa 28:16, is different from Mt and Mk:
"but he having looked upon them [vs1] said,'what therefore is that having been written this: [: added for clarification] stone which rejected the (ones) building. . .'"

.....Mt 21
42 Jesus is quoted as having said to them [vs 23] "never did you [pl.] read in the writtings [e.g. scriptures] stone which rejected the (ones) building. . ."

..........Mk 12
10 This work pretty much agrees with that of Mt.

>Lk 20
{I will speed up here by just giving the outlined counts, and would hope that if there were any doubts as to the truthfulness of my claim, that personal checking would follow, or you can ask and I'll present them fully.}
21 The introduction to the question to Jesus about the tax is different from that of Mt and Mk.
28 Moses 'wrote us' (Mt has Jesus saying Moses 'said' (22:24), and Mk agrees with Lk) Also the wording of that context disagrees enough to give it one count of historical error.
34-38 All the answers to the question differ. Luke's is outstandingly different, but it's interesting how Mt uses ". . .(but)not did (you [pl.]) read that spoken to you [pl.] by the God. . ."{Mt was specifically written for a Jewish audience} Mt is to be found at 22:29-32.

Here it can be seen that. . .
going by Luke's layout, this string of conversation and dialog had all happened on one day, in one fairly unbroken string. (vss 1, 19, 20, 27,) but that is no absolute, only that I would like to consider this all as one scene, instead of being divided into several scenes. And taking this all as one scene--the temple dialog scene-- it can be seen to have (and no, no pun intended) the following:
the vineyard explanation and number of slaves: one count
the question framed and the answer: one count
the stone introduction: one count
the introduction to the tax question: one count
the introduction to the widow question: one count
the answer to the widow question: one count

In conclusion on this point

I concur and understand points made by others on the fact that the Bible has error in it. It is something that many have not looked into--and I mean many in Christianity. It is a shame that the leaders do not honestly put that matter on the table. I would like to stress, however, that by looking at these quotes, we are looking at what someone has claimed to know--as I've stressed so many times by now. For example the quote of Jesus telling those religious leaders what the make-believe vineyard owner had said. The point is, again, that Jesus had actually said those verbatim words in Luke's claim, for example, or he had not--that the general intention of the communication is the same is not the point, the historicity value of the claim is. Also, as I mentioned above, the results of this pursuit are yet to come.

So here, in the temple dialog scene, we have 6 counts of historical error.

 

[No-name]

I'm not getting your point. Those don't seem like "historical inacuracies," only slightly different tellings of the same basic story. It seems that the gospels were written by different guys, some from secondary sources, but each having a distinct focus or point of view. The accounts vary- and may actually be recounting slightly different events- if Jesus told the same parable more than once. The accounts don't seem to quote Jesus verbatim, but was that an expectation common of that day and age?

 

[studyonline]

studyonline, though I couldn't quite see the point that you'd been getting at, I think that perhaps your concern regarding knowing what is true or not, is important.

I agree. I hope that was your intention of the discussion here, too.

Perhaps, we each have to strive with all the brain power we can muster up, to descern and distinguish just what is true and what is not--that takes serious study and observation over a course of time, I reason.

I am not sure if my brain can handle that. I am not so smart and not so educated, but I think human brains are not like an absolute computer to solve any problem or know everything. That struggle, wanting to know, is of course a nature of any human being.

My question is if you are trying to understand the truth based on someone's opinion or books or your past experiences or your best logical approach to it, what is the chance to accomplish your job? Are you getting at least 80% of the accuracy or aiming at all the way 100%?

I think any book can be criticized like the way you do. No language is perfect. I have found an error even on a grammar book before, so I am not surprised if there is such a mistake in the Bible. Especially if those men wrote it, what's the big deal? I guess if God inspired the language itself, we could have seen a perfect written document then.

 

[Mars Man]

sabro !! Nice to hear from you again. Hope all's been going well for you. Please do excuse me for trying to save time here, I'm sorry, but it may be good to go back over the latter half of the 2nd paragraph on my #1 post, and also the 2nd and 4th points in the working premise, to capture the essence of where this is all going. Let me see, . . . here are a couple of points I'd put out on the table earlier which may help also:

post #12 "Scholarship and the religious scholars and commentators do agree that at least in the latter portion of the gospel accounts, chronological order is maintained--" We would have to reasonably accept the understanding that Jesus--who was a real teacher, or course--would have used the same or similar parables and stories over and over again. The Narratives, however, in any single flow of events most evidently show the intent to report on a single event regardless of whether there had been any confusion in the authors's mind as to if and when a discourse had been given or not.

post#12 ". . .every detail makes the total of historical occurence."
and then that point under the 'note smilie' in my most recent post.

I really think that you'd agree that after reading the opening of Luke's account, and the likes of John 21:24 (and note the editor's hand here in the "we have known that true the witness of him [his witness] is."--using my quite direct mode of translating) that they obviously intended to be reporting on what had happened in the real world. (something quite different from the Greek mythological tales, or those of the Ramayana, etc.) I would hope that you could visualize the fact that when author of Lk wrote that Jesus, at that particular moment, to that particular audience, in the real world in real time, had said, "ti oun extin to gegrammenon touto liton hon apedokimasan hoi oikodomountes. . ." (what therefore is the (thing) having been written this: stone which rejected the (ones) building. . .) he was claiming to know what Jesus had said at that particular moment in time to those who were actually listening in real time at very moment. The reason that all translators put these things in direct quotation marks is because of the overly obvious intention on behalf of those who penned to be claiming so.

Then you see, the writer of Mt claimed that Jesus at that exact moment in his real life had said, "oudepote anegnaote in tais graphais: lithon hon apedokimasan hoi oikodomountes. . ." (never did (you)[pl.] read in the writtings [e.g. HS] (a) stone which rejected the (ones) building. . .). In short, the author of Mt claimed that the writer of Lk was wrong--was in error by claiming that Jesus had said those other words. Of course the general referent behind the intended communication given by the Jesus they each portrayed is one and the same, yet that cannot erase each individual's claim to know what had been actually said--so you are very right in reasoning that these accounts were written by 'guys', just like me and you, and everyone else, imperfect humans.

Indirect quotations and direct transliterations can be seen, in that order at:
Lk 8:42; 9:7,8
Mt 14:19
Mk 6:8,9,39

Mt 21:9,15; 27:46
Mk 5:41; 7:34; 15:34
Jn 20:16

And it has well been pointed out that accepting the argument that direct quotations were simply a literary tool, does not remove the fact that often enough, it is impossible to work back to any original Aramaic wording for a particular quote making it impossible for us to understand if there had ever been such a thing said.

I hope this covers your concern.

studyonline san, hi there again, and thanks for coming back with more detail and points. If you were to read that first introduction post, #1, I think it may help in giving some indication as to my desire to look into just what may and/or may not be true as regards the writings wrapped up into a single book which is today (as opposed to the first century) called the 'Bible'. I am neither very smart or educated, perhaps, yet try to do my best in keeping up my educational pursuits on my own. And as I was (in case you'd missed it) once a very believing Christian, am not afraid to go with what reasons as being more or most truthful. I would say that there are some things which will always be 'fuzzy', yet some which have clear or 99% clarity, especially when looking at the scriptures, because they have been written already, we cannot really change that fact. Again, if you were to carefully consider the opening threads, you may be better able to see the where I'm coming from; yet as I have hinted at, there is much detail which we have to wade through to get to where we are going, and would appreciate patience there. OH, I almost forgot, all this is my own study and writing; I learned the Koine Greek and the Classic Hebrew (the former better than the latter, but neither perfect, of course) and have those volumes upon which any Bible nowadays is based. I have the BHK (which came from the BHS which is based on the Leningrad B-14 Hebrew text of the fourth century (if my memory serves me here), the LXX, and three of the major recensions. The translations which I give of the Greek are basically my own, with the help of two diffferent Greek/English lexicons; and I do it in a rather direct manner--staying as close to the Greek as possible unless the idiomatic style were not clear enough in English. So you get the '. . .(a) stone which rejected the (ones) building. . . ' rather than the Enlish, '...a stone which the ones building rejected--it's simply an inversion style that the reader of English can percieve--it's rather an archaic English style, though.

rearding men having written the works under consideration, yes, no one in his or her right mind would attempt to say that humans did not write them, but that the end product is. . . I think you know those arguments.

As I have said before, for the time being, I will go up to the resurrection scene in this present mode, before looking at other points in NT or OT. For those of you who are interested, please bear with me, yet join in at any time with questions, counter points, or addresses to any logical errors, wording or typos of mine, or whathaveyou. . .but as Mycernius graciously pointed out, basically about the text--discussion and explication. See you 'round !! :wave:

 

[Overcomer]

Just a few quick comments.

First of all, Mars Man, you have stated that you were once a believing Christian. Perhaps it would be beneficial to define just what it is to be a Christian.

A Christian is a person who is in a relationship with God in the person of Jesus Christ through the infilling of the Holy Spirit. I sometimes see atheists referring to themselves as ex-Christians. It's easy to see that they are defining a Christian as someone who attends a church and gives some intellectual credence to what is being said. In other words, they were nominal Christians, not true Christians and they really don't know what it really means to be a Christian.

Put simply, you can sit in a chicken coop, cluck like a chicken and eat chicken feed, but that doesn't make you a chicken. By the same token, you can sit in a church, listen to the sermons and sing the hymns, but that doesn't make you a Christian!

I'm wondering if this doesn't describe you, Mars Man. Can you honestly say you were ever in a relationship with Jesus Christ? If not, you were never a Christian.

Quite frankly, if a person is in a relationship with Jesus Christ, he can't suddenly say he no longer believes Jesus exists any more than he can be in a relationship with his brother and suddenly say that he doesn't believe his brother exists any more. Do you see what I mean? That's just crazy!

Secondly, I'd like to point out that no one can fully comprehend the Bible unless they are filled with the Holy Spirit. It's the Holy Spirit that gives a person revelation knowledge of the God's Word. Therefore, the person who does not have the Holy Spirit informing him as he reads and studies the Bible is never going to fully grasp it.

Thirdly, by inerrancy of Scripture, we mean that the Word of God as given to those who wrote it down in the original languages is perfect, without mistake, that it's God's own true words. All Christians recognize the fact that there have been copyist errors and mistranslations and misapplications of God's perfect Word by human beings. But please note that NONE of them undermine what Christ did by going to the cross out of love that we might spend eternity in heaven with him.

Fourthly, I see a criticism that is common among skeptics but which holds no weight as an argument. It's one that states, this Gospel says there were two people but this other Gospel talks about only one being present. Therefore, there's a mistake.

Well, no, there isn't! Let me explain:

Let's say I went to the beach with two friends, John and Mary. Later, I tell you how beautiful the sunset was. I then tell you what my friend, John, said about the sunset. I don't mention Mary at all.

John may tell you about the same sunset and he may mention what I said as well as what Mary said. Therefore, our two accounts are slightly different. But they are both correct.

The same is true of the Gospels. Different people tell the same story in different ways but that doesn't make either of them false, just different. And God allows the different personalities and writing styles of the authors of the books of the Bible to come through.

I am a writer. As a professional communicator, I give out information according to the needs and understanding of my audience/readers. For example, if I'm talking about stem cell research and ethics to a group of philosophy students, I will give them a lot of information from a medical point of view to help them understand. However, if I'm talking to a group of medical students, I will spend less time talking about it scientifically, but more time talking about it ethically, explaining philosophical concepts and methods of argument.

The same is true of the Gospels. The Book of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Therefore, there are many references to the Old Testament. The books of Luke and Mark were intended for Gentile audiences. That's why, in the book of Mark, for example, you'll find explanations of Jewish customs (eg. re: handwashing) which weren't necessary in Matthew because its audience of Jews were already familiar with them.

On the other hand, John was written for believers, both Jewish and Gentile, and it was intended to explain to people who Christ is and who they are in Christ. That's why he has so many "I am" statements from Jesus such as I am the way, the truth and the life, I am the door by which men will enter, I am the bread of life, etc.

Therefore, because the audience for each is different, the Gospels aren't identical, but that doesn't make them false. In fact, I would be more suspicious of identical Gospels than ones that varied in their telling of the same person and the same events simply because different people will tell the same story different ways. But, again, that doesn't make any of them false. Nor does it mean that they weren't being inspired by God to write them.

How reliable are the Scriptures? Awesomely reliable! Information scientists and document experts agree on this fact. There are some 25,000 ancient documents by which scholars can compare texts. What makes this sigifnicant? Consider this:

Let's say I give five people a letter to copy. They do so and I see that there is one sentence that has been copied five different ways. How would I know which one was right if I didn't have the original letter?

Let's say I give that same letter to 50 different people to copy. When I collect their copies, I see that one sentence has been copied five different ways by five of the copyists. However, the other 45 agree. Therefore, I can reasonably and validly claim that the 45 were right while the five were wrong.

I hope that illustrates why the fact that there are so many copies of Scripture to compare (be they full texts or partial) allows us to determine the accuracy of what was written so many years ago.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also showed how accurately the Bible has been preserved. The full text of Isaiah found in the caves there were compared with the Isaiah we are using today and there were only 15 differences, all a minor letter here or there, none of which changed the meaning of the text.

Mars Man, you have said that what you are writing here is based on your own study and writing and that you're not an expert. In that case, give me one good reason why I should believe what you write and say over what a real Bible expert would say? Even more importantly, why should I believe what you write and say over the revelation knowledge of Scripture that the Holy Spirit gives me?

There's just one more comment I want to make. Someone (not you, Mars Man) made the comment that Paul never knew Jesus and that he interpreted Scripture in his own way, changing what Christ said. I realize that there was a documentary on television recently that purported that, but it's hogwash! And I see many people speaking as if The Da Vinci Code was based on fact. It isn't! It's totally bogus!

First of all, Paul DID know Christ personally, the same way that I know him personally and that millions of Christians down through the centuries have known him personally. Christ reveals himself and fills those who accept him in faith with the Holy Spirit. Paul encountered the living Christ on the road to Damascus and was instructed, as he himself states in Scripture, by the Lord, stating clearly that his words were NOT his own (1 Thess. 2:13).

That's what makes Christianity so different from other religions. They're all about trying to reach out to a distant God with whom people never enter into a relationship. Christianity is all about God coming to us in the person of Jesus Christ and in the person of the Holy Spirit to establish a loving relationship with us and be an active participant in our lives.

One last thing -- are some translations of the Bible better than others? Yes, they are. But study and comparison of texts will show you which ones are accurate. You mentioned the New World Translation, Mars Man (I assume you take your name from Mars Hill?). That is a totally bogus translation that NO true Christian regards as acceptable. It's the Bible of a cult group (Jehovah's Witness). The JW formulated their doctrine, then re-wrote the Bible to fit it.

I believe that using a bogus, non-Christian translation of God's Word that no legitimate scholar finds valid to discredit the Bible is a dishonest approach. I expect that people who don't know anything about the various translations of the Bible may well be taken in by your use of it. That's why I encourage people on this board to read what other people have said about the reliability of the Bible at sites such as these:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/auth-bib.html

http://www.leaderu.com/focus/davincicode.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

There are many more. I suggest that anyone interested in this topic do a google search and read the myriad of articles attesting to the reliability of the Bible.

 

[Mycernius]

Some points I like to raise. Sorry they are not in order, but this seem the best way to me.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/auth-bib.html

http://www.leaderu.com/focus/davincicode.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

There are many more. I suggest that anyone interested in this topic do a google search and read the myriad of articles attesting to the reliability of the Bible.

I had a look at these three sites. The first one I find worrying. It smacks a little of the "We are right, everyone else is wrong" brigade. The first few paragraphs made me see that this man is 100% Christian and probably has a slightly intolerant view towards other beliefs, which in my opinion makes him a bad Christian. I also find that the name Satan comes up a lot. Satan is a Christian concept and atheists no more believe in Satan as believe in God. You need a Ying to a Yang and that is what he is.
The second is just a link about The Davinci Code. I do agree that the amount of rubbish that has been spawned by this WORK OF FICTION is unbelievable. The conspirationists are having a field day with this book. I have never read it.
The third link seem to be an group that have researched history to find what they want to find. The research of history is supposed to be objective. These people are subjective in their approch to history ie: This is what we believe and this is what we want to see. Historically wise there is very little to prove that Jesus did exist, a bit like Lao-tzu. I do believe he existed, but only as a man, not as a divine pressence.

That's what makes Christianity so different from other religions. They're all about trying to reach out to a distant God with whom people never enter into a relationship. Christianity is all about God coming to us in the person of Jesus Christ and in the person of the Holy Spirit to establish a loving relationship with us and be an active participant in our lives.

I'm sorry, but I find this statement arrogant. There are many religions alive today that believe that their Gods/spirits interact with them on a daily basis and they have a relationship and a responsiblity to them.

Put simply, you can sit in a chicken coop, cluck like a chicken and eat chicken feed, but that doesn't make you a chicken. By the same token, you can sit in a church, listen to the sermons and sing the hymns, but that doesn't make you a Christian!

I agree with this. I met many a person who does this, yet will question the truth about what they have heard. In some cases it is a case of "I'll go just in case", but then spend the rest of the week doing very unsavory things

Quite frankly, if a person is in a relationship with Jesus Christ, he can't suddenly say he no longer believes Jesus exists any more than he can be in a relationship with his brother and suddenly say that he doesn't believe his brother exists any more. Do you see what I mean? That's just crazy!

Are you saying that Christians aren't allowed to question their beliefs? Sounds a bit like brainwashing to me

Secondly, I'd like to point out that no one can fully comprehend the Bible unless they are filled with the Holy Spirit. It's the Holy Spirit that gives a person revelation knowledge of the God's Word. Therefore, the person who does not have the Holy Spirit informing him as he reads and studies the Bible is never going to fully grasp it.

Thirdly, by inerrancy of Scripture, we mean that the Word of God as given to those who wrote it down in the original languages is perfect, without mistake, that it's God's own true words. All Christians recognize the fact that there have been copyist errors and mistranslations and misapplications of God's perfect Word by human beings. But please note that NONE of them undermine what Christ did by going to the cross out of love that we might spend eternity in heaven with him.

I'm sorry, but that is hogwash. Why do we need the Holy spirit to be able to read and understand a book? Are you saying that as an atheists that it is beyond me to fully understand the bible? More Christian arrogance IMHO. The Bible is a collection of stories and fables. I think the ability to question and research in an objective way is the best way to read the Bible. If it said that on an annoited time you were to jump off a bridge, would you do it? NO, because common sense tells you that is wrong. Then why blindly accept what is written. All Mars Man is doing is pointing out some of the inconsistances in the Bible, because he has read it in an objective sense and has the human trait of asking questions. If we didn't ask questions and try to find things out, we would still be sitting in caves and the Bible would have never come into existance as no-one would have questioned or tried new things.

The same is true of the Gospels. Different people tell the same story in different ways but that doesn't make either of them false, just different. And God allows the different personalities and writing styles of the authors of the books of the Bible to come through.

I can see where you are coming from on this point. One persons view point is different to another. This I can agree on. My problem with the Gospels are on how they are told. Why was Christ Crucified? A Roman punishment, not a Jewish one, yet the Gospels say that he had offended the Jews, not the Romans. If he had offended the Jews he would have been stoned. It was their form of punishment. They are all biased towards a Roman audience, not a Jewish one.

First of all, Paul DID know Christ personally, the same way that I know him personally and that millions of Christians down through the centuries have known him personally. Christ reveals himself and fills those who accept him in faith with the Holy Spirit. Paul encountered the living Christ on the road to Damascus and was instructed, as he himself states in Scripture, by the Lord, stating clearly that his words were NOT his own (1 Thess. 2:13).

Is the same way that Joseph Smith encountered the angel Moroni? He went and founded the Mormons. Why is Pauls encounter with Christ accepted and Josephs isn't? There is no difference between either story and that of people who have encountered alien beings or angels in modern times. The only person who really knows what happened that day is Paul.

One last thing -- are some translations of the Bible better than others? Yes, they are. But study and comparison of texts will show you which ones are accurate.

Which do you use? I have read the King James and also have the NRSV Catholic anglised version plus Gnostic texts that never made it into the Bible we have today.

Love to hear any comments :rose:
:crab: (I like this crab)

 

[lexico]

The research of history is supposed to be objective. These people are subjective in their approch to history ie: This is what we believe and this is what we want to see. Historywise there is very little to prove that Jesus did exist, a bit like Lao-tzu. I do believe he existed, but only as a man, not as a divine presence.

I agree with your principled approach to historical truth as an objective investigation of something significant that happened in the past.

That's what makes Christianity so different from other religions. They're all about trying to reach out to a distant God with whom people never enter into a relationship. Christianity is all about God coming to us in the person of Jesus Christ and in the person of the Holy Spirit to establish a loving relationship with us and be an active participant in our lives.

The argument that Chritianity is a religion of revelation is a significant one. Nevertheless to call it the only religion of that quality would be incorrect. All three religious groups of the "book" that started with Abraham and Moses were revealed to them, and trandmitted to their descendents, either by flesh, by the prophets, or by faith, all accepted means of revelation. But some of those revelations are not personal.

Are you saying that Christians aren't allowed to question their beliefs ? Sounds a bit like brainwashing to me.

Doubting Thomas, the twin, was the prime example of a doubting Christian. The first generation that saw and interacted with Jesus seem to have been much more lively and natural than the stock image of "upright Christians" we have today.

I'm sorry, but that is hogwash. Why do we need the Holy spirit to be able to read and understand a book? Are you saying that as an atheists that it is beyond me to fully understand the bible? More Christian arrogance IMHO. The Bible is a collection of stories and fables. I think the ability to question and research in an objective way is the best way to read the Bible. If it said that on an annoited time you were to jump off a bridge, would you do it? NO, because common sense tells you that is wrong. Then why blindly accept what is written. All Mars Man is doing is pointing out some of the inconsistances in the Bible, because he has read it in an objective sense and has the human trait of asking questions. If we didn't ask questions and try to find things out, we would still be sitting in caves and the Bible would have never come into existance as no-one would have questioned or tried new things.

I think it is not only unscientific, but unbiblical and going against the Judeo-Christian tradition not to ask questions as no questions can also mean no genuine interest in the truth. Of course slanted questioning with the intention of destroying and thereby stalling a Christian idea would be met with equal hostility, but questioning is an important part of learning. The ancient Hebrews and the post-disapora Jews never oppressed questions but encouraged them instead. Perhaps that "no uestion policy" was a trait acquired during the state sponsored Christian evangelism of the Justinian Roman Church when the subjects voluntarily succumbed to the emperor's faith ? Or could it have been a Germanic/Celtic tradition ?

Why was Christ Crucified? A Roman punishment, not a Jewish one, yet the Gospels say that he had offended the Jews, not the Romans. If he had offended the Jews he would have been stoned. It was their form of punishment. They are all biased towards a Roman audience, not a Jewish one.

I believe there is a lot more to be analysed on this point although the standard Christian interpretation has its own way of rationalising it. The exaggerated conflict between Jesus and the pharisees/saduccees/the priestly council, the relative silence on the Messianic movement and the zealots, a cursoary remark on the baptist followers of John, the mysterious behaviour of Judas' action and the bribing of the Jewish crowd on the day of execution all deserve a deeper analysis that would point to more than one layer in the current version of the gospel accounts. For example, it has been pointed out that the statement, "To God what is God's, to Caesar what is Caesar's" was never said by Jesus (or was not listed in the original book of Jesus' saying) is meaningful as Revelations clearly states that paying tax to the Roman empire amounts to idol worship as any tax collected from the Jews will also be dedicated to the Roman pantheon. This would be totally unacceptable in the mainstream Judaic tradition, and hence a spurious insertion by a later redactor keenly aware of Roman presence.

One last thing -- are some translations of the Bible better than others? Yes, they are. But study and comparison of texts will show you which ones are accurate.

In the branch of textual science called stemma studies, there is not one accurate version, but only possible, logical reconstructions. Nevertheless the difference between what you have in mind and the objectively presented reconstructed version(s) would be little in text, only fundamentally different in what value we might asign to them.

 

[Pararousia]

Mycernius:

Why do we need the Holy spirit to be able to read and understand a book? Are you saying that as an atheists that it is beyond me to fully understand the bible?

An atheist can read the information, sure, but there has to be a spiritual "perceptive" ability. There is an explanation about perception under the "What is an atheist" thread. So to answer your question, I don't think a human being who is an atheist can. The devil even believes that there is a God. If an atheist could understand it, he or she wouldn't remain an atheist for very long.

Mycernius, you brought up a lot of good questions in another thread that seem to fit here also, so I'm going to copy it over to here:

I have a big problem with the story of Jesus rising from the dead and the whole crucifiction. It stems from several facts of Jewish and roman law at the time of the crucifiction and events that took place. As has been pointed out the Gospels were written about 68 - 74 AD apart from John, which seems to date from 100AD. The date of the first gospels composition (Matthew, Mark and Luke) is from about the time of the Jewish Rebellion, which ended at the seige of Masada. To be acceptable in a Roman world the authors would have to be careful on what they put into the gospels. There aim was to try and spread their faith among the general population. To do this it would be advantagous to paint the Jews in a bad light and the Romans in a good light.
It is here were the laws of the time don't really add up to what is in the Gospels. Crucifiction was used against people who had commited a very serious crime against the Romans, yet the Gospels have Jesus commiting a crime against the Jews not the Romans. The Jewish elders could condemm people to death in their own courts at the time. Their method of execution was stoning, not cruxifiction, so why crucify him and not stone him? In fact why take it to the Roamn authorities at all, he was a Jewish problem? Either way all the Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified.
The next problem I find is the crucifiction itself and the time it took Jesus to die. Crucifiction is a slow death and would take several days for anyone to expire, yet it took Jesus 9 hours to die. There is also the fact that the crucifiction seemed to take place away from the public. Surely such a criminal should have been executed in front of the public. Matt 27:55, Mark 15:40, Luke 23:49 all seem to attest that the execution was seem from afar ie: not public.
Just before jesus died it is mentioned that he was given a sponge of vinegar. Why do this? Vinegar acts as a restorative to exhausted people. Then why give a restorative to a man who the authorities wanted dead? Unless the execution was a ruse of some kind. In John 19:31 - 37. it is mentioned that the soldiers go to brake the legs of the men on the crosses. This was an act of mercy, it speed up the death of the victim. When they came to Jesus the reported him as dead, so the legs weren't broken. Yet one soldier stabbed him in the side and blood flowed from the wound. My biology is not great, but I was always taught that a dead body does not bleed much. the heart has stopped and there in no pressure to push the blood out, so why did this dead man bleed? There are the following passages in John 19:35 - 37 saying that certain scriptures were fulfilled by this act. This refers to texts that certain events would happen when the Messiah is executed and low and behold it does. Finally there is the taking down of the body and its burial. normal procedure was to leave the body on the cross for the birds to pick at. Same was done in the mediaeval period with the gibbet. Bodies where not allowed to be taken down. Yet Jesus was, and given to Joseph of Arimathaea. Then the body is wrapped and buried only to rise several days later. Reading through the Gospels I get a feeling that the crucifiction was a hurried affair and that Jesus never died on the cross. The entire execution was staged IMHO.

A lot of Jewish customs are involved in this account that aren't necessarily obvious to us today. Some Catholic traditions have further screwed up our understanding to some extent, ie, Jesus being crucified on Friday instead of Wednesday or Thursday, as I hold. But as the scriptures point out, Jesus was crucified just prior to Passover. Israel was a conquered nation under the rule of the Romans and they were a rebellious group of captives to say the least. Roman rule was the rule of the day, but the Romans wisely made religious concessions to the Jewish people to keep the peace. The Romans didn't, however, allow the rabbinic authorities to put people to death, by stoning or otherwise. This is why the rabbinic authority had to trump up a charge of treason against Caesar to bring against Jesus. Simply saying He claimed to be God wouldn't work. They had to accuse Him claiming to be King. A treasonous person could be crucified.

And, yes, His crucificion was a hurried affair, because it occurred on the eve of Passover, one of the biggest Jewish "holidays". Passover had the same rules applied to it as a weekly sabbath. The Jewish authorities had to get Jesus accused, convicted and crucified prior to Passover. Furthermore they had to be careful not to get themselves "polluted" by being touched or near the gentile Romans in the process or they wouldn't be able to celebrate Passover the next day. (Keep in mind, this means there were two "sabboths" that week.)

The scripture says that Jesus' followers onlooked from afar. This means they kept a healthy distance from the Roman soldiers. The crucifixions were public events meant to scare the people and warn they against violating Roman law. My understanding is that this one was right outside the city gate adjacent to the main road so that everyone coming and going out of the city would see them.

People who were crucified had to push themselves up by their feet everytime they needed a breath of air because of the way they hung by their wrists/hands. Having your legs broken took that painful ability away and the crucified suffocated. Jesus didn't need His legs broken because He was on a time schedule Himself. It was His plan to be off the cross by sunset, the beginning of the Jewish Passover. Yes, in only 9 hours, He freely and voluntarily gave up His life's spirit so that His body could die. Jesus, according to Christian belief, is THE Passover lamb that was slain once as an eternal sacrifice, never to be slain again year after year.

When the soldier came by and saw what appeared to him to be a dead Jesus, he stuck a spear into Jesus' side to make SURE. Blood and water flowed out is how the scripture describes it. Not being a doctor myself, I've heard it said that the spear may have pierced the heart and released what it contained of separated clear plasma/red blood. I'm not going to take the time to find a confirmation of that on the internet right now. The diciple of Jesus who came and took the body down from the cross got special permission from the Roman government, as the scripture says, to do just that. A concession, if you will, so that this Jewish man could be put into the grave before Passover began.

So that day ended, whether by the Roman calendar or the Jewish calendar count. The next day was Passover. The day following that was the regular weekly Sabbath. The next day, early, Jesus rose from the dead.

Disagree, argue if you must. This is what makes Jesus (and Christianity) different from all other religious beliefs.

Thank you.

 

[studyonline]

To Mars Man

Please do not think I simply discard your effort nor totally ignoring the place for us to reason, a logical approach.

I do not think lightly the significance of the Greek language/Hebrew or its grammars because those things surely help anyone to understand the Bible. Other resources such as historical facts, traditions or customs in Islael also help us to understand the Bible better, not just simply to be able to "read" it.

However, I do think that mastering the language or the grammars is not what we need to do. Just because of knowing/mastering the language itself won't lead anyone to actually understand what the scripture says. I do not think it is our effort or struggle to know the truth someday by studying though studying is important.

One more thing is that if your effort is to be able to read the Bible-not to understand it -then I do not think you can find what is true and not. Isn't it more logic to find out if there is God and God lead those people to write the scripture or not? Or you think you can find what is true or not by studying the grammars? One typo or two won't make the whole letter invalid to me as long as I can get the main point, you know.

 

[Mars Man]

Hello there Overcomer, and welcome to the forum !! I hope you enjoy it and share a lot and learn a lot with all the same big happy family !! I didn't catch any introduction in the Memeber's Introduction area, and noticed that your post # 26 had been your very first post, so just thought I'd throw that in.

Thanks for you comments and opinions; and I'm glad you made it a quick note, rather than really going to town on it. It's always nice to look at what's out there, although a lot of the territory you covered had already been covered in the 'Missionaries in Japan' and ' Christianity:Conceptions/Misconceptions' threads. Of course, no one is going to blame you for not having checked all those posts out before commenting here on this one. It looks like you have read through the posts in this thread; I can't help reasoning that you may not have caught a few things very well, or either didn't let them soak in quite well enough to have avoided making double or ungrounded points. Nevertheless, I appreciate your concern, and would love to take the proper time, energy and effort to discuss them with you--of course in a mature academical fashion.

Now regarding my having been a Christian, just I had done for Pararousia, I will do for you--I will answer that by PM since this is not the place for such. (but please note !!!*** I may change my mind and put it somewhere else for everyone to see, so that I won't have to do this anymore, BUT OF COURSE, will let you know where it is.)[PM=Private Message]

In cases like this is all so tempting to break cadance and run on head strong into the rush of the ocean waves--but experience and training have taught me well to refrain from such, because the sand below slides out from under our feet, and we loose the ground we stand on. I will deal with some concerns that you seemed to have missed, or have not considered so thoroughly that relate to the textual matter. (I had hoped to come into the office today, and go into #5, but it'll have to wait, maybe. . .sorry 'bout that. :sorry: Oh !! and before that a big 'HELLO' to my brothers (lexico and Mycernius) I feel comfortable knowing you two are always hanging around there somewhere, AND to studyonline 'HOWDY THERE' I'll get back with you in a moment--thanks for waiting !! :sorry:

If you would please double check that fouth point in paragraph 8 (after the intro sentence) and follow through with me to see if I've got it right: So in that example you have yourself and person J and person M--three people, going to the beach one afternoon and seeing a sunset, correct? Then, after some time, you tell me (that makes a first hand report by an actual witness) about 1.)the sunset 2.)what J said about the sunset. Now up to this point I am not supposed to have known that M had been present, nor, of course, to have known what M may have said about whatever; is my understanding right, here? Next, after some time I meet J and he tells me about the sunset (that's also a first hand report by an actual witness) and he mentions what M had said about the sunset, but did not mention what you had said about the sunset--correct? Therefore the area of concern which I think you are trying to point out is whether your description of the sunset matches that of J and M; right? This presents no problem whatsoever, because people have different ways of seeing and interests, and would surely have some details like the color of the sky, feeling of the wind, and so on, different from another who experienced and saw the same scene. I see no problem there.

Now what if J told me that a jogger had come running by just where you all had been sitting, and you had said to the runner "Can you tell me what time it is?" and he answered, " My clock says just before six." whereas M happened to tell me that two runners had come running by and you had said to them "Do you all have the time?" and they replied, " Our clocks say just before six." In this case, I think you'd agree, there is a contradiction; right? I mean it isn't realistic for a third party to claim that one runner came by, and you had asked and he had answered, and then two more runners had come by, and you had asked them--in plural--and they had answered--in plural. Nevertheless, assuming that the general event had taken place, either J's report is historically truer, or M's report is--that the acts and words spoken have become history is no doubt at all; would'nt you agree?

Overcome san, please, now I do not claim to be an expert in this field, but there is this thing called modesty, you know. Now, would you consider yourself to be an expert in this field? If not, then at least for now, you and I are on the same ground--although I reason that I am capable of a few things that you aren't, such as read the Greek recensions (I have three of them, as you should be aware of if you have conscientiously read through this whole thread) and the LXX which I also have, and the BHK (in Hebrew, of course) which most every modern English translation's OT is checked by. And I can read that too. And other than post #2, where I used the New World Translation which you are drastically mistaken on, I used the Greek, as you should have caught in fourth paragraph of that same post. Did you notice that I had said in the third paragrah of that same post, that most other versions and translations read similar? I hope you would think about that, because obviously either I'm lying or telling the truth, and if I'm lying, then a quick check of a number of other translations and version would prove that forthright; wouldn't you think?

So then, going back to that Jericho scene, please tell me just how it is that you deny that there is a historical error there on behalf of one of the writers.
As a gift, since you are new on the forum, I'll take the trouble to write down the transliteration of the Greek (which knowledge of is of course absolutely necessary to understand the copies of the original autographs--unless you would just expect the "Spirit" to give a person an understanding of the Greek without ever having to have studied the language and its grammer and culturally, idiomatic styles [in which case there would never have been any need whatsoever to have translated the Greek into Latin, Coptic, Syric, or English]

Luke 18:35 Engeneto de en to engezien auton eis Iereixo typhlos tis
ekatheto para tin hodon epaiton.

Mt 20:29 Kai ekporeuomenon auton apo Iereixo ekolouthesen auto oxlos poles kai idou duo typhloi kathemenoi para tin hodon. . .

Lk--(it)happened but/that in the getting near (of) him into Jericho (a) blind man someone/certain one (was) sitting beside the way begging.

Mt--and (they) going (their) way out (of) them from Jericho followed (to)him crowd much and look! two (duo) blind men sitting beside the way. . .

There is no doubt that these two writers are talking about the same single event at a point in real time; right? Non of the scholars I've talked to or have read, nor any of the commentators either, have attempted to claim otherwise. If you reason that these two reports on what happen on that day back then in the first centry are talking about different events, then please do inform me of you athentic evidence, so I can see where so, SO many folks I know who do this kind of work such as looking at the Qumran scrolls and such, have gone wrong! Please.

It was nice looking over these points with you, and I hope to hear from on these above points firstly, PLEASE before trying to walk over other grounds.

Pararousia, I hope the beach was nice!! In all reality, and preciseness, you have not answered the question which I had asked you in the 'Missionary' thread back in August. The question was: what do you think was written on that sign supposedly place above Jesus' head on the stake? To answer it, all you have to do is tell what words you think were written there from the following choices:
1. Houtes estin Iesous ho basileus ton Ioudaion.
2. Ho basileus ton Ioudaion.
3. Ho basileus ton Ioudaion outos.
4. Iesous ho nazopaios ho basileus ton Ioudaion.

Remember, it was said to have been written in Greek, so if one of the four possible choices is representative of true history, i.e. is exactly what had been written there, then then the others are not false claims. Which one do you think was written there, is the question--and please answer on this thread, here, if you don't mind. I really appreciate your time and concern for honesty and fairness. Talk to you all later, gotta run do a class now, and then I'm outa here !! Oh boy, tight schedule. See you all 'round !! :wave:

 

[Mars Man]

A few quick comments here--and I mean what I say.

Please, forgive me studyonline, I've gotta run do some things today and cannot really get back on line until Tuesday, I think, so I'm just gonna give a real rough outline here, and one request, then get back with you. I hope you'll find room to forgive my putting you on hold a bit longer. Sorry and thanks for waiting.

Paragraph 1 in your #30 post is accepted, I have no qualms about that at all. The second paragraph is understood, and I agree with that; I think that all is very important as well, and when studying Greek for and with the NT one always gets that naturally--yet I have found differences on details among commentators and scholars in what and why propositions.

The third paragraph is incorrect in that there is a preconcluded summary before analysing the statment made.

The 4th paragraph relects what seems to be in itself quite unusual, in that there is a situation where one reads without an attempt to understand. The usage of the wrod 'true' may be too general for what you may have been intending to argue, I'm not to sure, because there could still be some room for expanding the idea you have in your mind. Communicating takes two, of course, and listening or reading is first and foremost, but speaking and writing come closely on the heels of those two. I'll get back with you there.

In the meantime, why not open your copy of the Bible, and follow through on all those passages that I had looked at, and tell me if I am wrong somewhere, and just how it is that I am wrong. That would surely make your arguments more sturdy and acceptable by academics who deal in Biblical literature--those who put those NT writings into English for you in the first place. I'd greatly appreciate it too !!

 

[03cobra]

Mars Man, do you think it is possible that God chose to reveal Himself through prophets and through Jesus Christ, and further possible that the Bible is just what man has written down of the events and sayings of those revelations? That people were supposed to comment on the accuracy of the texts as they were written, but people were never supposed to claim perfection and inerrancy?

If so, the debate should be about the message of God revealing Himself, not about the perfection of lack thereof of the writings.

 

[Mars Man]

Howdy there 03Cobra !

That's a very difficult question it seems, because it is not a straight forward question--there are a lot of presuppostitions weaved into the base upon which the question seems to be based.

In kind of thinking outloud, I'd reason that the writings which make up our Bible of today (not including, at the moment, the Apocrypha) came into existence well after humankind and nature at large had. Concepts of divine and their belief-systems also arose in different cultures and social groups at different locations simultaneously, some surviving, some not. In that case it would be preferable to weigh the claims of all these systems, the newer against the older, until the oldest were weighed against nature itself.

A certain god is described/prescribed by those who wrote the works which were eventually bound together, the Bible, yet before validity should be bestowed upon the model presented therein, the writings, which portray a claim of being informed, should be verified as having realistic knowledge of any reality which can be checked against other models or/and finally, nature itself.

I think the god-model presented by the Jewish religionists of old reflects that society and culture's needs and understandings, and that of the Essene cult which more obviously gave birth to much of what then became 'Christian', as the group seemingly split into two, does not hold water. So for that reason, I would tend to conclude that to say that there may have been a real revelation by the "God" of the models they formed, which is that very same model (I mean like, they gave a god, and then say that that god gave them the information for that god's personality, mind, intent, reasoning, etc.) is unlikely.

Of course, if we were to say that the Bible is just what men wrote down from what they had remembered from the prophets (including Jesus) and other people, then we couldn't say that the "God" of those writings superintended the writing, or that the writing constitutes a message from that "God"--thus the Bible could not be called the inspired inerrant "Word of "God".

That is a good question in a lot of ways, because it will cause any one to think about it very carefully. I would never say that the possibility of such is zero, because I simply don't know, but I would say that the possibilty of it is the least probable. Of course there is a reason for my saying or reasoning so, but that is what is coming out in a multitude of detail which has only begun. Philosophical questions are not on the table at the moment because they must have detail under them, and we haven't seen the whole thing yet. Please try to understand, that for me to just rush to a conclusion leaves all the solidity backing that conclusion out of the mind of one who has not had the opportunity to see that all.

I hope you are willing to follow through on all the details, as they build towards an understanding--at least to see what the understanding is. (not that my purpose to de-confirm any one, if that happens, it happens, but it is not my purpose.)

 

[Mars Man]

Historical Errors in the Gospel Narratives #5

RECAP

Up to this point, in looking at the historical reports, we have had six scenes. There have been 15 counts of historical error and 2 counts of doubt--meaning it cannot be ascertained if a particular event had actually been real history. The activity that is being reported on is the trip up to Jerusalem before Jeshua's (or Joshua) death, starting with each Gospel account introducing the trip. (John does not introduce it) So, starting with Jericho (Luke's solo account about inside Jericho was skipped), then going into Jerusalem, the various things in the temple or Jerusalem area.

I would like to again stress, that it is a report on historical events and conversations that we are looking at. There is no reasonable way to deny this that I could imagine, and of course scholarship realizes this. It is for that reason then, that even if one writer has simply forgotten detail, that writer's report is in error--that didn't happen that way, and thus is not a historical fact. In that way, it's a historical error.

Historial errors in the Gospel Narratives #5

>Lk 21
The story goes on about some private talk regarding the buildings of the temple where some make a comment to which Jeshua (his real name) responds:
"tauta ha theoriete lelusontai hymera en hais ouk aphethysetai lithos epi litho hode hou ou katalythesetai."
These (things) which you (pl) are beholding will come a day in which not be left/remain stone upon stone here which not will be loosed down.

.....Mt 24
Jeshua and his disciples are leaving the temple when the conversation comes up. The writer claims that Jeshua answers:
"ou blepete tauta panta? amen lego hymin ou mi aphethi hode lithos epi lithon hos ou katalythesetai."
Not are you (pl) looking at these (things) all? truely (I) say (to) you (pl), not should be left/remain a stone upon stone which not will be loosed down.

...........Mk 13
The context here gives one disciple talking; and Jeshua's answer as:
"blepeis tautas tas megalas oikodomas? ou mi aphethi hode lithos epi lithon hos ou mi katalethi."
Are you (s) looking at these (things) the great buildings? not should be left/remain here (a) stone upon stone which not should be loosed down.

Lk and Mt have it addressed in plural while Mk has it in singular to fit the context given. I have decided to use the real name, Jeshua--a shortened form of the name Jehoshua--which could be Joshua just as well. (as in the HS work by that title)
The next portion of this goes to the talk in a private spot on the Mount of Olives. I had hoped to put that together, but something has just come up, and I have to go. Not knowing how to save this, I'll post it now, as one scene, the 'temple building' scene. In this scene there is one count of historical error. (I don't think the concern over the number of mentioners is important; it could well be just a slide of speaker into group. The whole of the context, especially with the quotes, show that two of them have to be historically inaccurate, and thus in error.

 

[Mars Man]

Historical Errors in the Gospel Narratives #6

This is basically kind of picking up where I had left off at, although I will take it as another scene.

After some number of disciples had brought up the subject of the temple, to which some reply had been given, this next scene is up on the Mount of Olives, in some kind of private setting.

>Lk 21
7 some number of people, most obviously the intention is from among the disciples, come up to Jeshua and ask:
"didaskale pote oun tauta estai kai ti to symeion hotan melli tauta ginesthai?"
Teacher, when thus these (things) will be and what (will be) the sign whenever likely be about (to) these (things) occuring?

.....Mt 24
3 the disciples come up to Jeshua and ask:
"eipon hymin pote tauta estai kai ti to symeion tis sis parousias kai synteleias tu aionos?"
Say (to) us when these (things) will be and what (will be) the sign (of) the your (sing.) presence and (of) conclusion the age/system? (The Hebrew for tou aionos is 'li 'olam')

..........Mk 13
3,4 four disciples approach Jeshua and ask:
"eipon hymin pote tauta estai kai ti to symeion hotan melli tauta synteleisthai panta?"
Say (to) us when these (things) will be and what (will be) the sign whenever likely to be about (to) these (things) be concluded all. (Hebrew 'all'= khal)

>Lk 21
8 Lk uses passive, "planethete" which represents a clearly different word selection than that of active voice. The Aramaic/Hebrew is the same, and it means a different phrase. Mt and Mk use active voice, "planese"

Lk has the phrase, "ego eimi kai ho kairos hengiken. . ."
I am (he/the one) and the appointed time has approached. . .

.....Mt 24
4 has the phrase, "ego eimi ho xristos. . ."
I am (he/the one) the christ

..........Mk 13
6 has, "ego eimi kai pollus planesousin."
I am (he/the one) and many (they) will make to err.


>Lk 21
9 has the word, "akatastasias " (disorders) that the others don't have. Also Lk uses, "proton" (first) and "eutheos" (immediately) which the other dialogs do not include; altogether a noticeable difference.

>Lk 21
11 the writer tells us that Jeshua had said:
"ererthisetai . . .phobithra te kai ap' ouranou symeia megala etai."
will be roused. . .fearful sights and also from heaven signs great will be.
Lk often uses passive voice where the other two use active voice--which is also different wording in English even. Mt and Mk don't have this phrase.

12 is different in three places from the others, and Mk is different from Lk and Mt in verse 9. (Mt's 9)

15 the quote is very different from that of Mt and Mk.

18,19 this quote is not in the others, but the concept is, therefore there is error on this quote too. (Mt vs 13 and Mk vs 13--but notice the inversion in the dialog flow of order between Mt and Mk.

.....Mt 24
9b the writer claims that at that point in the conversation Jeshua had said,
"esesthe misoumenoi hypo panta ton ethnon dia to onoma mou."
(you[pl]) will be (ones) being hated by all the nations/peoples through/via the name (of) mine.

..........Mk 13
The above quote comes verbatim in verse 13a, mixed in a flow which shows continuation of dialog by the 'kai' (and) that comes before it, and the conclusion coming in part b of that verse. Also notice the inversion of Mk vs 10 with that of Mt vs 14 a. Also notice that Mk does not include the words "tote heksei to telos" (then will come the end) with that vs10 compared with vs 14 matter above.

What can be seen here, is that. . .
The question which had been asked in private as given by the three sources cannot all be truthfully what had been spoken at that time. It is not reasonable to try to force all three of them at different times, the writers are all talking about the very same point in time and action. Two of them have to be historically incorrect-- one count . The conversation that follows, a discourse of sorts, by Jesus (Jeshua) contains seven counts . (And that's not including Mark's wording at verse 9 which disagrees with the other two, and Matthew's not having the equivalents of Luke 21:16 and Mark 13:12)

In conclusion up to here on this 'Mount of Olives' scene , there are 8 counts of historical error. This is even after allowing two, clear errors in being able to recall what had been said, to be passed over. I will continue with this same scene in the #7 post--this is all one scene on the Mount of Olives.

 

[No-name]

It seems as if the three are telling the exact same thing using slightly different wording. That the event being depicted is consistent in all three tellings and that the quotes are similar in content but probably not verbatim. I would not exactly call that "historically inaccurate."

 

[Pararousia]

Mountains out of molehills

Mars Man said:

The story goes on about some private talk regarding the buildings of the temple where some make a comment to which Jeshua (his real name) responds:

Real name? Really? Or are you trying to type in English the Hebrew equivalent? Like perhaps Y'shua. Or Yeshua? Or perhaps like Yochanan is John in English? Or Mattityahu is Matthew in English?

All those little Hispanic boys are going to be terribly hurt to find out they're spelling their names wrong!

 

[studyonline]

A prophecy has been out regarding of the coming disaster in the west, Los Angeles. Although some people may still not believe God who is "alive" and "talks", this may be a purpose of "sowing the seed", at least that's how I see it.

If you are in Los Angeles area and be able to evacuate, please do. This wildfire could be the next Katrina, God's cleansing process. If not this one, it could be an earthquake in that area. Knowing what would happen gives you at least the readiness in your mind and heart. Reading the Bible is one way to know who God is, but it is just one way. Through signs and wonders, God manifests Himself also.

 

[No-name]

Also remember that there were actually few writing conventions like quotation marks, small and capital letters, and most of what we would consider punctuation. Spelling is a pretty recent convention too. I don't think many ancient authors would have cared much about perfectly preserving the word order and exact phrasing of a "quote." Would not the concept be entirely alien to them?