-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion
- Thread starter Mars Man
- Start date
belle74311
Regular Member
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Wow...that was A LOT to read! lol and it kept taking me to other links too. Very interesting stuff here. Also I found a verse in the Bible that says:
John 14:15 Jesus (pbuh) says:
"I shall pray to my Father to send you another comforter, who will abide with you forever"
who is the comforter mentioned here and has that comforter come?
John 14:15 Jesus (pbuh) says:
"I shall pray to my Father to send you another comforter, who will abide with you forever"
who is the comforter mentioned here and has that comforter come?
Conclusions on John 19:14
Good morning there people...
What does (pubh) stand for belle74311?
I would like to make the motion, for those of you following (esp. sabro and Kaminari, but not only, of course) that we present our conclusions on John 19:14, and then move on to the next one which had been presented earlier on the Christianity: Conceptions & Misconceptions thread--Peter's denial scene. Is there a second on this motion?
In hopes that there will be, without seeming to be too impetious (sp?), I will present my conclusion below:
John 19:14
My conclusion is that after looking over the several points related to the understanding of this time problem, John 19:14 is an error on behalf of the editor(s) of that work.
1.The possibiliy is there, that the editor could have been referring to the Roman legal system of time counting, but normally people did not use it. None of the other editors/writers used.
2.The work attributed to John carries enough incongruity, when compared to the synoptics, that there is ample margin for the consideration of error being present.
.....................a. even in the immediate surroundings, Jn 18:4~9,10,11,25~
..........................27, 33~19:13 are inconsistent with the Synoptics.
3.The implied understanding of the editor(s) at John 11:7~10 gives the most likely understanding that the twelve hours of daylight (as opposed to night and darkness) deem time to be kept from sunrise, to sunset--as was the normal case in that era.
4.The more likely understanding produced by John 4:1~17, is that the count would be from sunrise to sunset, rather than the other possibility of from midnight to noon, with a count of 12 hours, and then again from noon to midnight with a repeating count of 12 hours.
5.The possibility that the editor(s) could have known the story presented by other writers and tellers, and yet lacks agreement here, and in other places, leaves ample room to consider a different editorial decision.
..........................a. The matter of differing in time count, being held as
.............................above, does not hold completely hold up internally, thus
.............................can not really carry much weight at all in the overall
.............................understanding on the usage of time count at John 19:14
Thus, my conclusion is that John 19:14 is a 'Narrative Error' of a historical nature--that is the history is incorrect on that time point. This conclusion does not deem the opposing understanding to be absolutely impossible, yet simply means that I reason the above conclusion to be the more reasonable, and realistic of the two.
I hope to hear from those who have been following, and for a second to the motion, and of course, to hear each of your laid out conclusions.
Sabro, I just got the notion the other day, that maybe it would be good if you were to check with your pastor on this matter too, since he would have some number of resource materials. Anyway, I hope to see your conclusion in laid out form too. The purpose here, is to share our conclusions on this one, and move on. I do not intend to question opposing conclusions further (and because of that, would hope that all conclusions be laid out logically and to the fullness needed to support that particular conclusion).
THANKS GUYS, and hope to hear from you...and you too belle 7431, if your are into it. See you allj !!!:wave:
Good morning there people...
What does (pubh) stand for belle74311?
I would like to make the motion, for those of you following (esp. sabro and Kaminari, but not only, of course) that we present our conclusions on John 19:14, and then move on to the next one which had been presented earlier on the Christianity: Conceptions & Misconceptions thread--Peter's denial scene. Is there a second on this motion?
In hopes that there will be, without seeming to be too impetious (sp?), I will present my conclusion below:
John 19:14
My conclusion is that after looking over the several points related to the understanding of this time problem, John 19:14 is an error on behalf of the editor(s) of that work.
1.The possibiliy is there, that the editor could have been referring to the Roman legal system of time counting, but normally people did not use it. None of the other editors/writers used.
2.The work attributed to John carries enough incongruity, when compared to the synoptics, that there is ample margin for the consideration of error being present.
.....................a. even in the immediate surroundings, Jn 18:4~9,10,11,25~
..........................27, 33~19:13 are inconsistent with the Synoptics.
3.The implied understanding of the editor(s) at John 11:7~10 gives the most likely understanding that the twelve hours of daylight (as opposed to night and darkness) deem time to be kept from sunrise, to sunset--as was the normal case in that era.
4.The more likely understanding produced by John 4:1~17, is that the count would be from sunrise to sunset, rather than the other possibility of from midnight to noon, with a count of 12 hours, and then again from noon to midnight with a repeating count of 12 hours.
5.The possibility that the editor(s) could have known the story presented by other writers and tellers, and yet lacks agreement here, and in other places, leaves ample room to consider a different editorial decision.
..........................a. The matter of differing in time count, being held as
.............................above, does not hold completely hold up internally, thus
.............................can not really carry much weight at all in the overall
.............................understanding on the usage of time count at John 19:14
Thus, my conclusion is that John 19:14 is a 'Narrative Error' of a historical nature--that is the history is incorrect on that time point. This conclusion does not deem the opposing understanding to be absolutely impossible, yet simply means that I reason the above conclusion to be the more reasonable, and realistic of the two.
I hope to hear from those who have been following, and for a second to the motion, and of course, to hear each of your laid out conclusions.
Sabro, I just got the notion the other day, that maybe it would be good if you were to check with your pastor on this matter too, since he would have some number of resource materials. Anyway, I hope to see your conclusion in laid out form too. The purpose here, is to share our conclusions on this one, and move on. I do not intend to question opposing conclusions further (and because of that, would hope that all conclusions be laid out logically and to the fullness needed to support that particular conclusion).
THANKS GUYS, and hope to hear from you...and you too belle 7431, if your are into it. See you allj !!!:wave:
I asked earlier about the pbuh- "Praise be unto him."
I am unclear on the John 19:14. I don't have any sources and apparently no one on the net has ever considered this a problem- because my research has turned up nothing. Did we rule out the possibility that it refers to the Thursday Pilate meeting?
I am unclear on the John 19:14. I don't have any sources and apparently no one on the net has ever considered this a problem- because my research has turned up nothing. Did we rule out the possibility that it refers to the Thursday Pilate meeting?
Good Morning, almost afternoon sabro san !!
I'd been hanging around waiting to see if you'd come on line. I had hoped that I had covered that in the first paragraph, basically, in my #164 on page 7. Unless we cut out the part of the text of John that copies the synoptics, there is really no room to consider that it most obviously seems. Thanks for the infor on those initials.
Sure, I'd be more than happy to help out. I'll phrase the question for below, and please do e-mail it with whatever note attached that you'd like to. Here goes:
Re: John 19:14
There are at least two ways to take the time identification in this verse, it seems. One is by the general way of counting the hours of the day in the Greco-Roman world at that time from sunrise to sunset. If one were to take that understanding, the time would be around 12 noon, by our standards today. If one were to take the Roman legal system's way of counting from midnight to noon, then noon to midnight, the time would be understood as having been around 6am. There is also the textual possiblity of 9am if one chooses the other reading (see NA 27th 4ed. UBS) along with the general norm for daylight time keeping used then.
The internal usage of time measurement may well be said to be open for both, but it has been pointed out that Jn 1:39 [staying in the sense of for the night is highlighted in vs 38]; 11:9, and likely even 4:6 give more weight to the understanding that the editor(s) had been thinking in the standard daylight counting norm for most people.
With all due respect and consideration for your busy schedule, may I ask if you happen to have any further information or resource materials on this matter that you may be able to share?
Now how you finish that off, sabro, I totally leave up to you. I tried to write this without any 'leading of the witness', if you know what I mean, and so purposely left out any question as to how there could be any contradiction with the synoptics. I'm sure they would already be aware of that anyway. PLease do let me know what transpires, and please do let me know if you would like to second the motion. Thanks See you !!!:wave:
I'd been hanging around waiting to see if you'd come on line. I had hoped that I had covered that in the first paragraph, basically, in my #164 on page 7. Unless we cut out the part of the text of John that copies the synoptics, there is really no room to consider that it most obviously seems. Thanks for the infor on those initials.
Sure, I'd be more than happy to help out. I'll phrase the question for below, and please do e-mail it with whatever note attached that you'd like to. Here goes:
Re: John 19:14
There are at least two ways to take the time identification in this verse, it seems. One is by the general way of counting the hours of the day in the Greco-Roman world at that time from sunrise to sunset. If one were to take that understanding, the time would be around 12 noon, by our standards today. If one were to take the Roman legal system's way of counting from midnight to noon, then noon to midnight, the time would be understood as having been around 6am. There is also the textual possiblity of 9am if one chooses the other reading (see NA 27th 4ed. UBS) along with the general norm for daylight time keeping used then.
The internal usage of time measurement may well be said to be open for both, but it has been pointed out that Jn 1:39 [staying in the sense of for the night is highlighted in vs 38]; 11:9, and likely even 4:6 give more weight to the understanding that the editor(s) had been thinking in the standard daylight counting norm for most people.
With all due respect and consideration for your busy schedule, may I ask if you happen to have any further information or resource materials on this matter that you may be able to share?
Now how you finish that off, sabro, I totally leave up to you. I tried to write this without any 'leading of the witness', if you know what I mean, and so purposely left out any question as to how there could be any contradiction with the synoptics. I'm sure they would already be aware of that anyway. PLease do let me know what transpires, and please do let me know if you would like to second the motion. Thanks See you !!!:wave:
I was thinking that the question was in regards to a conflict in the time tables of the crucifixion. You indicated that another verse from another gospel had Jesus on the cross at the same time. Can you rephrase the question again and I will send it on.
belle74311
Regular Member
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I'm not following at all what's being asked 
Maybe i should go back and read more in detail...if I get it, i'll try to research about it
PBUH means (peace be upon him) in Islam, we are commanded to say that after the mention of every Prophet of God.
Maybe i should go back and read more in detail...if I get it, i'll try to research about it
PBUH means (peace be upon him) in Islam, we are commanded to say that after the mention of every Prophet of God.
This is the response to Mars-Man's question I got from my pal Jake:
Sabro, here are some feasible explanations for this apparent contradiction.
1. The writers used different systems of keeping time. On this view, Mark used the Jewish reckoning of time which begins at sunrise (6am). John, on the other hand, used Roman time, which begins the day at midnight. If this is true, then when Mark states that it was the third hour when they crucified him (9am in JT), which would mean that his trial occurred roughly between 6am-9am (JT), this would correspond to John’s declaration that Jesus trial occurred roughly in the sixth hour of Roman time (6am).
2. The Jews divided both the nights and days into four equal parts. The first division commenced at six in the morning and lasted to 9. This sliver of time was referred to as “the third hour of the day.” Again, the portion of time lasting from 9am - 12pm was referred to as the “sixth hour of the day.” So on and so forth.
We see this classification suggested in Mark’s account:
Mark 15:25-34 25 It was the third hour when they crucified Him. 26 The inscription of the charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." 27 They crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left. 28 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors." 29 Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, 30 save Yourself, and come down from the cross!" 31 In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes, were mocking Him among themselves and saying, "He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 "Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!" Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him. 33 When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"
There’s no reason to assume that Mark meant to say that the events like darkness falling, Jesus crying out, etc. occurred at exactly 12pm and 3pm. Rather, it seems more likely that he is being far more general in indicating times at which certain events happened.
Again, this four-fold division was used at night
Matthew 14:25 25 And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea.
The forth watch would refer to any time from 3am to 6am.
If this is the case, Mark refers to the later part of the 1st section of the day (the third hour) whereas John refers to the early part of the 2nd section of the day (the sixth hour). John qualifies his statement with “about the sixth hour,” which allows for overlap.
3. When a person refers to “crucifixion,” it can refer to far more than to someone hanging on a cross. It’s similar to marriage (pun intended). When someone asks, “when did you get married,” do they want to know when the ceremony began, ended, or when I said “I do.” Some may refer to the whole day, given that it was all in preparation for the ceremony. Some may include the festivities after the ceremony. In other words, when I got married isn’t something that one can nail down to the minute, perhaps not even to the hour.
As such, when Mark says that Jesus was crucified at the third hour, he could be referring to the beginnings of a procedure that lasts for hours before the actual victim is erected on the cross. There are a lot of spaces for time gaps. For example, maybe after Pilate gives the decree, some of key Roman soldiers who would lead to procession had to go to the restroom (a silly example to prove the point). In the case of Christ, there’s some distance between Jerusalem and Mount Calvary (add to this the slow procession due to the stifling crowds). Maybe there were some preparations made at the scene of Mt. Calvary (the fetching of nails, the fixing of hammers, etc).
So, let’s take John’s account referring to the terminus of crucifixion - meaning that Jesus was actually erected on the cross “about the sixth hour”; roughly twelve o clock. Let’s say that Jesus was erected on the cross around 11:40 - roughly twelve o clock. Let’s assume also that Mark refers to the beginning of this process of crucifixion. If “third hour” is to be taken literally, then it can refer up to 9:55am. Let’s say that the interim is 2 hours. In this case, we are well within a period of time to escape the charge of contradiction by any historical standards.
This also accords well with when the synoptics place darkness falling over the land (I.e. sixth hour). If the “darkness” corresponds roughly with the Christ’s placement on the cross, and John pinpoints the terminus of crucifixion at sixth hour, then the synoptic might also refer to this terminus with the description of when this darkness descends.
Jake Magee
Associate Pastor
Oasis Christian Fellowship
oasisredlands.org
(909) 335-8211
Sabro, here are some feasible explanations for this apparent contradiction.
1. The writers used different systems of keeping time. On this view, Mark used the Jewish reckoning of time which begins at sunrise (6am). John, on the other hand, used Roman time, which begins the day at midnight. If this is true, then when Mark states that it was the third hour when they crucified him (9am in JT), which would mean that his trial occurred roughly between 6am-9am (JT), this would correspond to John’s declaration that Jesus trial occurred roughly in the sixth hour of Roman time (6am).
2. The Jews divided both the nights and days into four equal parts. The first division commenced at six in the morning and lasted to 9. This sliver of time was referred to as “the third hour of the day.” Again, the portion of time lasting from 9am - 12pm was referred to as the “sixth hour of the day.” So on and so forth.
We see this classification suggested in Mark’s account:
Mark 15:25-34 25 It was the third hour when they crucified Him. 26 The inscription of the charge against Him read, "THE KING OF THE JEWS." 27 They crucified two robbers with Him, one on His right and one on His left. 28 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors." 29 Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, 30 save Yourself, and come down from the cross!" 31 In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes, were mocking Him among themselves and saying, "He saved others; He cannot save Himself. 32 "Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!" Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him. 33 When the sixth hour came, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"
There’s no reason to assume that Mark meant to say that the events like darkness falling, Jesus crying out, etc. occurred at exactly 12pm and 3pm. Rather, it seems more likely that he is being far more general in indicating times at which certain events happened.
Again, this four-fold division was used at night
Matthew 14:25 25 And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea.
The forth watch would refer to any time from 3am to 6am.
If this is the case, Mark refers to the later part of the 1st section of the day (the third hour) whereas John refers to the early part of the 2nd section of the day (the sixth hour). John qualifies his statement with “about the sixth hour,” which allows for overlap.
3. When a person refers to “crucifixion,” it can refer to far more than to someone hanging on a cross. It’s similar to marriage (pun intended). When someone asks, “when did you get married,” do they want to know when the ceremony began, ended, or when I said “I do.” Some may refer to the whole day, given that it was all in preparation for the ceremony. Some may include the festivities after the ceremony. In other words, when I got married isn’t something that one can nail down to the minute, perhaps not even to the hour.
As such, when Mark says that Jesus was crucified at the third hour, he could be referring to the beginnings of a procedure that lasts for hours before the actual victim is erected on the cross. There are a lot of spaces for time gaps. For example, maybe after Pilate gives the decree, some of key Roman soldiers who would lead to procession had to go to the restroom (a silly example to prove the point). In the case of Christ, there’s some distance between Jerusalem and Mount Calvary (add to this the slow procession due to the stifling crowds). Maybe there were some preparations made at the scene of Mt. Calvary (the fetching of nails, the fixing of hammers, etc).
So, let’s take John’s account referring to the terminus of crucifixion - meaning that Jesus was actually erected on the cross “about the sixth hour”; roughly twelve o clock. Let’s say that Jesus was erected on the cross around 11:40 - roughly twelve o clock. Let’s assume also that Mark refers to the beginning of this process of crucifixion. If “third hour” is to be taken literally, then it can refer up to 9:55am. Let’s say that the interim is 2 hours. In this case, we are well within a period of time to escape the charge of contradiction by any historical standards.
This also accords well with when the synoptics place darkness falling over the land (I.e. sixth hour). If the “darkness” corresponds roughly with the Christ’s placement on the cross, and John pinpoints the terminus of crucifixion at sixth hour, then the synoptic might also refer to this terminus with the description of when this darkness descends.
Jake Magee
Associate Pastor
Oasis Christian Fellowship
oasisredlands.org
(909) 335-8211
belle74311
Regular Member
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
sabro said:
Just wanted to let you know that Jewish "day" for sure does not start at sunrise, but rather at sunset. I know this for sure because Muslims start the day at sunset as well and I know Jews and Muslims have that in common. You might want to let your Associate Pastor know.
So wouldn't that just throw off the complete explanation?
Belle, I believe you are right. I think Jake may have erred... but the counting of the hours may have repeated- the first twelve for "night" and the second for "day." Jewish days still begin at sunset. Greek days began at sunrise. Romans at midnight. I think it rather ironic that the system that makes the least sense is the one that prevails.
belle74311
Regular Member
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Also I felt it important to mention that the Jewish day is not divided into 4 different parts. Only by sunrise and sunset. And as we know, sunrise timing changes everyday, it is not always at 6am. And in April, when Jesus was supposedly crucified, sunrise is around 3:30-4:30am. Clocks were also not invented at that time yet, so they would not have a way to divide the day into 4 parts, especially those specific times Jake mentioned above. The only way they could measure a day is when the sun sets and the sun rises.
Is there any way the "comforter" can be anyone else other than the Holy Spirit according to Christianity?
Is there any way the "comforter" can be anyone else other than the Holy Spirit according to Christianity?
I'm not familiar with if or how the day might be divided- the easiest way of getting four parts is noon- which is easy to find and midnight which is a bit trickier.
I have always heard that that was a direct reference to the Holy Spirit. (And not to some later day saint or prophet.)
I have always heard that that was a direct reference to the Holy Spirit. (And not to some later day saint or prophet.)
Thanks sabro for sharing the information there; I greatly appreciate it.
There were a couple of points of consideration that were new for me, and others that were not. It was well written, and had a nice sense of humor. I liked it.
Now, I would like to ask if you wish to use that as your conclusion on this John 19:14 thing, or if you would like to use that information in processing a conclusion in your own wording, or what. My conclusion as given above still holds for me.
Kaminari hasn't checked back yet either, so it may be good to see what his opinion is on seconding or thirding the motion to go ahead and present our personal conclusions, and then move on to the next point. As I noted, I do not intend to challenge any conclusions presented on John 19:14, but to rather just acknowledge what the several conclusions are, and keep record of them.
belle74311 you correctly pointed out that the Jewish day begins at sunset. I reason that that is what Jake would possibly have had in mind, but simply worded the sentence a little less carefully than it should have been worded. I have no qualms with that, although I would point out that there apprears, from the information I've gathered, greater reason to consider the general usage of counting daylight hours from sunrise to sunset than is usually given by those who's prime assumption is that the several writings necessarily should not dissagree with one another.
The editor(s) of John could have used the Roman legal system, no one can prove to the absolute degree that that is not the case. It's just that also no one can say for sure that it wasn't the most normal way of counting from sunrise to sunset, as both Greek and Roman folk generally did anyway, and as the other gospel writers obviously did, that was used in John.
The length of that post was, even as it was, not quite as long as it really could have been, so as to get the solidity of the understanding across. No need to apologize, sabro san !! You may understand why my posts are so often so long--to get in as much detail, in as carefully worded a manner, as I most possibly can.
What do you think about John 19:14 belle74311 san? (in cross-comparison with Luke 23:1~46; Mark 15:1~34; Matthew 27:1~46) It is of course true that the 'hours' were the period of time, rather than a point in time (12:00 sharp, .vs. 12:00~1:00, for example)
There were a couple of points of consideration that were new for me, and others that were not. It was well written, and had a nice sense of humor. I liked it.
Now, I would like to ask if you wish to use that as your conclusion on this John 19:14 thing, or if you would like to use that information in processing a conclusion in your own wording, or what. My conclusion as given above still holds for me.
Kaminari hasn't checked back yet either, so it may be good to see what his opinion is on seconding or thirding the motion to go ahead and present our personal conclusions, and then move on to the next point. As I noted, I do not intend to challenge any conclusions presented on John 19:14, but to rather just acknowledge what the several conclusions are, and keep record of them.
belle74311 you correctly pointed out that the Jewish day begins at sunset. I reason that that is what Jake would possibly have had in mind, but simply worded the sentence a little less carefully than it should have been worded. I have no qualms with that, although I would point out that there apprears, from the information I've gathered, greater reason to consider the general usage of counting daylight hours from sunrise to sunset than is usually given by those who's prime assumption is that the several writings necessarily should not dissagree with one another.
The editor(s) of John could have used the Roman legal system, no one can prove to the absolute degree that that is not the case. It's just that also no one can say for sure that it wasn't the most normal way of counting from sunrise to sunset, as both Greek and Roman folk generally did anyway, and as the other gospel writers obviously did, that was used in John.
The length of that post was, even as it was, not quite as long as it really could have been, so as to get the solidity of the understanding across. No need to apologize, sabro san !! You may understand why my posts are so often so long--to get in as much detail, in as carefully worded a manner, as I most possibly can.
What do you think about John 19:14 belle74311 san? (in cross-comparison with Luke 23:1~46; Mark 15:1~34; Matthew 27:1~46) It is of course true that the 'hours' were the period of time, rather than a point in time (12:00 sharp, .vs. 12:00~1:00, for example)
I couldn't make a conclusion- since everything I know is rather second hand. My conclusion would be based only on my trust for each of my secondary sources- and that wouldn't be good scholarship. For the moment I am satisfied that most scholars can construct a reasonable time line that avoids what you term "historical inaccuracies."
belle74311
Regular Member
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Mars Man...I'm afraid I don't have much to offer on the John 19:14 topic right now because there are bigger questions about Christianity and what's in the Bible that I am struggling to understand.
I still can not logic into my brain that God gave me, how possibly God can ALSO be son of Himself?? (Son of God) How Jesus (pbuh) can be 100% human and 100% God, but when he supposedly dies while being crucified, it's not God anymore, but just the human Jesus (pbuh), and then on top of that Jesus(who's also God according to Christianity) goes to Hell. It is like trying to fit a square into a triangle hole. (no offense to Sabro who's been trying to explain it to me)
Perhaps once I get past these questions (if I ever can) can I go more into details about timings and dates and so on. Gotta go out though...will write more later!
I still can not logic into my brain that God gave me, how possibly God can ALSO be son of Himself?? (Son of God) How Jesus (pbuh) can be 100% human and 100% God, but when he supposedly dies while being crucified, it's not God anymore, but just the human Jesus (pbuh), and then on top of that Jesus(who's also God according to Christianity) goes to Hell. It is like trying to fit a square into a triangle hole. (no offense to Sabro who's been trying to explain it to me)
Perhaps once I get past these questions (if I ever can) can I go more into details about timings and dates and so on. Gotta go out though...will write more later!
Thanks for your honest and thoughtful answer there belle74311 san. I understand your concerns, and at the same time would yet encourage you to fully consider the database firstly before trying to assemble the model.
What are these writings? From whom did they come and for what reasons? What degree of validity can they hold for the real world? To what degree might they be fictional? To what degree truthful? Is there enough reason to understand the model they draw up as being evidence of having had any 'above human' knowledge?
To get to the root of how one take the concept of 'holy spirit', for example, firstly demands taking a look at the concept of any claim to know anything about that; if you understand what I'm getting at.
This is the 'bottom-up' method of inquiry that I have mentioned before in a couple of places if you had had the chance to read much of the material on the 'Christianity: Conceptions & Misconceptions' thread.
I would yet invite you to look at the details of the database first.
What are these writings? From whom did they come and for what reasons? What degree of validity can they hold for the real world? To what degree might they be fictional? To what degree truthful? Is there enough reason to understand the model they draw up as being evidence of having had any 'above human' knowledge?
To get to the root of how one take the concept of 'holy spirit', for example, firstly demands taking a look at the concept of any claim to know anything about that; if you understand what I'm getting at.
This is the 'bottom-up' method of inquiry that I have mentioned before in a couple of places if you had had the chance to read much of the material on the 'Christianity: Conceptions & Misconceptions' thread.
I would yet invite you to look at the details of the database first.