I also agree that the purpose of the 4 crucified teaching was to show that all bible contradictions were only apparent, not actual. I'm not so sure that he was successful though.
The problem that I see with the position that the bible "fits like a hand in a glove" is that it doesn't, unless you sew on some extra fingers, cut some holes, reinforce the stitching and redefine both "hand" and "glove". Okay, I'm exaggerating a little ;) - but I think that the point is valid. The problems go away when you give up the idea that the bible is 100% internally consistant. And I'm not saying that to put down Christians or the bible, plenty of Christians live a godly life without believing that the bible is inerrant and totally from the lips of God.
But I do see where it all came from, a desire to believe that "The Book" is a foolproof guide to life. That desire is frustrated when glaring inconsistancies and contradictions stare you in the face, so you have to find a way to reconcile them. The result is 4 crucified, or 6 denials, or for that matter the doctrine of the Trinity <_<
Good things there Oaks, seems a lot of folks want to have something outside of themselves to look at for rules and laws. Instead of having the confidence needed to trust yourself, which is a process of growing. Learning the bible or any book can help, but it's not the answer in itself-the books that is.
George Aar hit it right on the nose. Why would God spread a bunch of different crucified or different denials here and there in four different gospelas that are supposed to be telling the same story? I believe as George does, that God does not do that. It would make no sense. He would more plainly tell it and there are only three denials of Peter in each gospel that records the denials.
I don't think it was an attack on anyone or God or anyone, just an observation, and a great one at that.
Thanks, George.
But I appreciate those that still want to believe the six denials. It shows they still have an interest in the gospels.
Well, Clay, if you would follow the dictates of our dearly departed MOGman, just READ what is WRITTEN,
I implied that the god promoted by WayWorld would have to be anal-retentive to be so obsessed with the amount of times a cock crowed, or how many were crucified with Jesus, and what their occupations were, etc. And I stand by that That WOULD BE an anal-retentive god, IMNSHO.
I think obsessing over the placement of commas, conjunctions and pronouns - all without changing anything of doctrinal substance - makes one's god into a rather small-minded entity. But that's what passed for "Biblical Research" at WayWorld.
Got a problem with my opinion? Gee, how unusual...
Well George, I do believe the commas and periods and how men rewrote or interpreted events in the Bible do matter and are not anal-retentive. I guess I misunderstood what you meant.
Recently read a book called "Misquoting Jesus". It points out that there are more variations in the different Greek texts than there are Greek words in the New Testament. So like VPW said , but not because he said it, I do believe that the word as given was without error. In regards to six denials, it does make sense to me, but from Bullinger's notes, not VPW teachings.
However the thought that comes to me is this, if a group or person spends their time working these types of things out in the from the word, it is a sign that they have lost sight of the important things and are dwelling to much on the things that don't matter.
30And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
KJV: Mk 14:72
72And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
Recommended Posts
Oakspear
I also agree that the purpose of the 4 crucified teaching was to show that all bible contradictions were only apparent, not actual. I'm not so sure that he was successful though.
The problem that I see with the position that the bible "fits like a hand in a glove" is that it doesn't, unless you sew on some extra fingers, cut some holes, reinforce the stitching and redefine both "hand" and "glove". Okay, I'm exaggerating a little ;) - but I think that the point is valid. The problems go away when you give up the idea that the bible is 100% internally consistant. And I'm not saying that to put down Christians or the bible, plenty of Christians live a godly life without believing that the bible is inerrant and totally from the lips of God.
But I do see where it all came from, a desire to believe that "The Book" is a foolproof guide to life. That desire is frustrated when glaring inconsistancies and contradictions stare you in the face, so you have to find a way to reconcile them. The result is 4 crucified, or 6 denials, or for that matter the doctrine of the Trinity <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Good things there Oaks, seems a lot of folks want to have something outside of themselves to look at for rules and laws. Instead of having the confidence needed to trust yourself, which is a process of growing. Learning the bible or any book can help, but it's not the answer in itself-the books that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"There you go describing what you see yourself"
Um, as opposed to what? Describing what somebody else sees?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Yeah ever heard of empathy? it's a thread even.
"anal-retentive" your head is up your own-
you are describing yourself
Can you break away from yourself and see from another idea or perspective without accepting it as truth?
I think you can, hell anyone can if they want to and care enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
cman, kindly keep your comments about me to yourself, huh big boy?
Or if you'd care to indulge in mindless personal attacks, let the games begin...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
then don't be calling people "anal-retentive"
you want to dish it out but can't take it huh...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
George Aar hit it right on the nose. Why would God spread a bunch of different crucified or different denials here and there in four different gospelas that are supposed to be telling the same story? I believe as George does, that God does not do that. It would make no sense. He would more plainly tell it and there are only three denials of Peter in each gospel that records the denials.
I don't think it was an attack on anyone or God or anyone, just an observation, and a great one at that.
Thanks, George.
But I appreciate those that still want to believe the six denials. It shows they still have an interest in the gospels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well, Clay, if you would follow the dictates of our dearly departed MOGman, just READ what is WRITTEN,
I implied that the god promoted by WayWorld would have to be anal-retentive to be so obsessed with the amount of times a cock crowed, or how many were crucified with Jesus, and what their occupations were, etc. And I stand by that That WOULD BE an anal-retentive god, IMNSHO.
I think obsessing over the placement of commas, conjunctions and pronouns - all without changing anything of doctrinal substance - makes one's god into a rather small-minded entity. But that's what passed for "Biblical Research" at WayWorld.
Got a problem with my opinion? Gee, how unusual...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Do me a favor and don't use big words you don't understand.
Like "God".
Other wise as for the post I responded to,
You were insulting to many.
Though you may not see it that way, it is imo.
So yes, it is my opinion that the comment was towards those who believe a certain way.
I can drop it though and will.
edit-
I know what the word means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_retentive
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
So Clay, you misread my post, but you're willing to let it drop?
Mighty magnanimous of you...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Well George, I do believe the commas and periods and how men rewrote or interpreted events in the Bible do matter and are not anal-retentive. I guess I misunderstood what you meant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
Recently read a book called "Misquoting Jesus". It points out that there are more variations in the different Greek texts than there are Greek words in the New Testament. So like VPW said , but not because he said it, I do believe that the word as given was without error. In regards to six denials, it does make sense to me, but from Bullinger's notes, not VPW teachings.
However the thought that comes to me is this, if a group or person spends their time working these types of things out in the from the word, it is a sign that they have lost sight of the important things and are dwelling to much on the things that don't matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
how can God be anal retentive? ("God has no anus but OUR anus...")
and who exactly has 3 peters?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Just messin around Sprawledout,
twice thou shalt deny me thrice
three denials twice (supposedly)
said twice-
KJV: Mk 14:30
30And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
KJV: Mk 14:72
72And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
i think the cock crowed twice in a row twice :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
If v p said it you know it was stolen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.