This was new for me! I had heard a respected ex-twi leader declare "Ah, the Holy Spirit is the Interpreter of Scripture!" But never Jesus. But now that I think about it, since the Comforter is come to lead us into all truth, and since Jesus is still alive and well, and leading and guiding us in perfect harmony w/ the Holy Spirit, it makes perfect sense!!!!!!
On 8/31/2024 at 11:29 PM, TLC said:
Is it so difficult to believe that the life that Jesus first had was laid down at Calgary, and the life that he was raised with is something brand new and different than anything that ever existed before?
If so, then you have plainly never really understood nor believed Acts 13:33
It's difficult to believe in the resurrection if the Comforter inspired the writers to record events that don't make sense. The short video link below brings up such an event. Here's a summary of it.
Jewish custom was that when washing a corpse and during the funeral and burial processions, specific spices strong enough to mask the smell of decomposition were present in order to cover up the odour. Once the body was buried, there would be no need to return 3 days later to put spices inside because no one would be near the body anymore.
Mark, Matthew and Luke tell of Joseph wrapping Jesus’ body and placing it in the sepulchre without the spices and the women saw this. Luke, written last of the 3 gospels, adds the women going and preparing the spices.
These gospels then tell of the women going to the tomb 3 days later to anoint Jesus with the spices when in reality, it was no longer necessary and therefore made no sense for them to do so. The point of the video is to show that this story was completely made up so the writers could have them discovering an empty tomb where an angel told them of a resurrected Jesus - an event which also never happened.
John corrects this first nonsensical event by adding Nicodemus who took care of the spices before the burial. Then, only Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb the next morning without any mention of spices and sees the stone rolled away.
I find the above to be valid points. Any comments?
discovering an empty tomb where an angel told them of a resurrected Jesus
Well, it depends on which gospel you read.
Mark - a young man
Matthew - an angel
Luke - two men
John - two angels
For me, these differences are interesting, not problematic, but for inerrantists…well, there’s work to do!
Victor paul wierwille would have you cross out the words and verses with the strongest manuscript attestation, perform lexical magic tricks by inventing brand new Greek grammar and definitions, and, ultimately, rewrite it all according to “the original.” And along the way he would conjure figgers of speech where none exist just for the mmmph factor.
See, kids? Fits like a palsied hand in a bloody glove.
For me, these differences are interesting, not problematic, but for inerrantists…well, there’s work to do!
Victor paul wierwille would have you cross out the words and verses with the strongest manuscript attestation, perform lexical magic tricks by inventing brand new Greek grammar and definitions, and, ultimately, rewrite it all according to “the original.” And along the way he would conjure figgers of speech where none exist just for the mmmph factor.
See, kids? Fits like a palsied hand in a bloody glove.
Just tremendous!!
Right, along with many other differences contradictions occurring between the 4 stories of the death and resurrection of Jesus. You really have to wonder what the perfect interpretation is according to "the Comforter [who] is come to lead us into all truth (since Jesus is still alive and well, and leading and guiding us in perfect harmony w/ the Holy Spirit)."
What I have found important to understand is the history behind the gospels like how they were written decades after Paul wrote 8 of his epistles; how Mark is now considered to have been written first between 65–73 CE, then Matthew/Luke 80–90 CE and finally John 90–110 CE (which shows each one that followed had the previous one(s) to embellish upon), and that the authors were actually anonymous and most likely were not even eye-witnesses (still looking into this).
Without the historical facts surrounding the creation of the bible, one is only left with what the bible claims about itself. Not only that, it requires faith to believe it is the actual word of God since there is no evidence that proves it is.
t's difficult to believe in the resurrection if the Comforter inspired the writers to record events that don't make sense.
Maybe it’s virtually impossible to believe in the resurrection if a soul doesn’t first recognize or in some way acknowledge that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, and concede to the need to be saved. That provides an understandable reason for the resurrection, which continues on to makes sense out of a whole lot of other things written in the scriptures. At least, know that it did for me.
There’s a tremendous difference between reading or hearing someone else’s opinion or “logical reasoning” (even if or when any of it is more honestly deemed debatable) and then agreeing that something (the context here being things that are written in scripture) doesn’t make sense, when compared to thinking or asking yourself “how might it make sense.” And evidently there are some people (some of them being very intelligent and clever people) that either don’t think like that, or at least, won’t or don’t present anything on that side of the picture.
Personally, if I didn’t already know this to be true, I would find it rather perplexing why someone wouldn’t just think that the 3 women who went to the tomb with spices simply hadn’t been told and didn’t know that it had already been done. And as for the other point that no one would go to the tomb after 3 days… well then, how stupid was Rome for posting guards at the tomb if no one was going to go there? Which makes that entire statement of no one going there make absolutely no sense.
Personally, if I didn’t already know this to be true, I would find it rather perplexing why someone wouldn’t just think that the 3 women who went to the tomb with spices simply hadn’t been told and didn’t know that it had already been done. And as for the other point that no one would go to the tomb after 3 days… well then, how stupid was Rome for posting guards at the tomb if no one was going to go there? Which makes that entire statement of no one going there make absolutely no sense.
TLC
When it comes to the specific contradictions between John's account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus and the 3 synoptic gospels, I find it perplexing that your head isn't spinning.
John has Joseph and Nicodemus binding the body in linen with a ton of spices before they lay him in the sepulcher. If true, the women in Mathew-Luke would have seen this but that is not what those gospels say. Luke even has them leaving the tomb to specifically go and prepare the spices and ointments. John writes about Mary Magdalene coming alone to the tomb (without spices and without giving any other reason) which again contradicts the other 3 gospels. How do you explain this?
Guards were placed at Jesus' tomb for a specific reason (Matt 27:62-66) - it was not a common practice for all burials. If mourners came, they would have stood outside the tomb, not go inside and mourn the body there.
The point of the video was that the common Jewish practice of preparing a body for burial was to use ointments to both wash the body and to keep the smell of decomposition away. Once the body was buried, there was no longer a need for such an anointing. Whether one Mary or 3 women came to the tomb (with the latter group wanting to wash a badly beaten body that had been decomposing for 3 days and 3 nights), the outcome was that the supposed resurrection of Jesus' body was made known (by one or two men or angels). It's a very convenient and necessary event in the plot of a story comprised decades after the death of Jesus.
Maybe it’s virtually impossible to believe in the resurrection if a soul doesn’t first recognize or in some way acknowledge that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, and concede to the need to be saved. That provides an understandable reason for the resurrection, which continues on to makes sense out of a whole lot of other things written in the scriptures. At least, know that it did for me.
Paul wrote in Romans 5 about all men being sinners and falling short of the glory of God and therefore in need of salvation specifically as a result of what happened with Adam in Genesis 3. What evidence is there that these two people ever existed in a garden called Eden other than the Bible saying so?
Do you really believe there was a talking serpent that tempted them, that the experiences of painful childbirth, women becoming subjected to men and the existence of thorns and thistles were really the consequences of their disobedience to God, that blood sacrifice became God's preferred choice of how to clothe them, and the deal of there being a tree of life which enabled them to live forever?
Maybe it’s virtually impossible to believe in the resurrection if a soul doesn’t first recognize or in some way acknowledge that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, and concede to the need to be saved. That provides an understandable reason for the resurrection, which continues on to makes sense out of a whole lot of other things written in the scriptures. At least, know that it did for me.
TLC
TLC, your post has brought up a curious concern I've come to realize over the last few months but rather than discuss it here, I am starting a new thread in the sub-forum of Matters of Faith: Atheism, non theism, skepticism: Questioning Faith. It's called "Sin and the Need for Perfect Love." I will be quoting your paragraph above in my opening post, and I'm hoping you will share more of your thoughts there.
his wrath was kindled; thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble; my wrath shall wax hot; the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath; God shall cast the fury of his wrath upon him; rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure;
and In the NT:
he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him; But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasure up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath; But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath; For which things' sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience
and In Revelation:
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand; seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God; and he treads the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of almighty God
Excuse my frustration, but giving a tyrannical, vengeful, threatening, pseudo-powerful "being" a pass or thumbs up (as many Christians give Yahweh) merely because HE claims his opponents are "evil" is - what shall you call it – sickening, insane, self-destructive, an incentive to oppress others, etc.
Thanks, Charity, for answering my question. Saved from the wrath. Got it!
Were all those passages (without exception or distinction) written to me, or are they merely for my learning?
48 minutes ago, Charity said:
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath;
Would you please cite chapter and verse? I'd like to look at the context and examine the Greek from which the phrase "obey the truth" is rendered. Such a curious phrase, obey the truth. I suspect it's an awkward translation or else a figger of speech.
Thanks, Charity, for answering my question. Saved from the wrath. Got it!
Were all those passages (without exception or distinction) written to me, or are they merely for my learning?
Would you please cite chapter and verse? I'd like to look at the context and examine the Greek from which the phrase "obey the truth" is rendered. Such a curious phrase, obey the truth. I suspect it's an awkward translation or else a figger of speech.
My apologies Nathan, I decided not to add the scripture references in order to keep the post shorter - each of the phrases are directly from the KJV and can be googled and the chapter and verse will come up immediately. The one you asked about is Romans 2:8. Please post what you learn about it - it'd be interesting to know.
The phrases were simply about describing and/or declaring God's wrath in the past, present and future. Sometimes they were against the pagan nations and unbelievers and sometimes they were against God's chosen ones who disobeyed him.
My apologies Nathan, I decided not to add the scripture references in order to keep the post shorter - each of the phrases are directly from the KJV and can be googled and the chapter and verse will come up immediately. The one you asked about is Romans 2:8. Please post what you learn about it - it'd be interesting to know.
The phrases were simply about describing and/or declaring God's wrath in the past, present and future. Sometimes they were against the pagan nations and unbelievers and sometimes they were against God's chosen ones who disobeyed him.
Reading through Romans chapter 2 again - it's been awhile - and all I can say is, Wow!
I wonder if victor paul wierwille, NaRd., ever read this chapter? I wonder if he had, could he have been persuaded to start obeying truth and stop defecating in its mouth?
Recommended Posts
Charity
It's difficult to believe in the resurrection if the Comforter inspired the writers to record events that don't make sense. The short video link below brings up such an event. Here's a summary of it.
Jewish custom was that when washing a corpse and during the funeral and burial processions, specific spices strong enough to mask the smell of decomposition were present in order to cover up the odour. Once the body was buried, there would be no need to return 3 days later to put spices inside because no one would be near the body anymore.
Mark, Matthew and Luke tell of Joseph wrapping Jesus’ body and placing it in the sepulchre without the spices and the women saw this. Luke, written last of the 3 gospels, adds the women going and preparing the spices.
These gospels then tell of the women going to the tomb 3 days later to anoint Jesus with the spices when in reality, it was no longer necessary and therefore made no sense for them to do so. The point of the video is to show that this story was completely made up so the writers could have them discovering an empty tomb where an angel told them of a resurrected Jesus - an event which also never happened.
John corrects this first nonsensical event by adding Nicodemus who took care of the spices before the burial. Then, only Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb the next morning without any mention of spices and sees the stone rolled away.
I find the above to be valid points. Any comments?
There was No Empty TombꟷGospel’s Resurrection Accounts Never Happened! -Rabbi Tovia Singer
Edited by CharityClarify use of spices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Well, it depends on which gospel you read.
Mark - a young man
Matthew - an angel
Luke - two men
John - two angels
For me, these differences are interesting, not problematic, but for inerrantists…well, there’s work to do!
Victor paul wierwille would have you cross out the words and verses with the strongest manuscript attestation, perform lexical magic tricks by inventing brand new Greek grammar and definitions, and, ultimately, rewrite it all according to “the original.” And along the way he would conjure figgers of speech where none exist just for the mmmph factor.
See, kids? Fits like a palsied hand in a bloody glove.
Just tremendous!!
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Right, along with many other
differencescontradictions occurring between the 4 stories of the death and resurrection of Jesus. You really have to wonder what the perfect interpretation is according to "the Comforter [who] is come to lead us into all truth (since Jesus is still alive and well, and leading and guiding us in perfect harmony w/ the Holy Spirit)."What I have found important to understand is the history behind the gospels like how they were written decades after Paul wrote 8 of his epistles; how Mark is now considered to have been written first between 65–73 CE, then Matthew/Luke 80–90 CE and finally John 90–110 CE (which shows each one that followed had the previous one(s) to embellish upon), and that the authors were actually anonymous and most likely were not even eye-witnesses (still looking into this).
Without the historical facts surrounding the creation of the bible, one is only left with what the bible claims about itself. Not only that, it requires faith to believe it is the actual word of God since there is no evidence that proves it is.
Dating the Bible
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Maybe it’s virtually impossible to believe in the resurrection if a soul doesn’t first recognize or in some way acknowledge that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, and concede to the need to be saved. That provides an understandable reason for the resurrection, which continues on to makes sense out of a whole lot of other things written in the scriptures. At least, know that it did for me.
There’s a tremendous difference between reading or hearing someone else’s opinion or “logical reasoning” (even if or when any of it is more honestly deemed debatable) and then agreeing that something (the context here being things that are written in scripture) doesn’t make sense, when compared to thinking or asking yourself “how might it make sense.” And evidently there are some people (some of them being very intelligent and clever people) that either don’t think like that, or at least, won’t or don’t present anything on that side of the picture.
Personally, if I didn’t already know this to be true, I would find it rather perplexing why someone wouldn’t just think that the 3 women who went to the tomb with spices simply hadn’t been told and didn’t know that it had already been done. And as for the other point that no one would go to the tomb after 3 days… well then, how stupid was Rome for posting guards at the tomb if no one was going to go there? Which makes that entire statement of no one going there make absolutely no sense.
TLC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Saved from what?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Fair question. It goes to the heart (or core) of what we understand, and unquestioningly accept as the essence of Christianity.
It may have been more apparent centuries ago that humankind (and humans individually) needed saving from the fallen nature of the "old man."
There are so many more people on Earth now as a result of advances in agriculture and science, that it may not seem as universally true these days.
Then again, maybe people will post cogent arguments to answer your question here soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
When it comes to the specific contradictions between John's account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus and the 3 synoptic gospels, I find it perplexing that your head isn't spinning.
John has Joseph and Nicodemus binding the body in linen with a ton of spices before they lay him in the sepulcher. If true, the women in Mathew-Luke would have seen this but that is not what those gospels say. Luke even has them leaving the tomb to specifically go and prepare the spices and ointments. John writes about Mary Magdalene coming alone to the tomb (without spices and without giving any other reason) which again contradicts the other 3 gospels. How do you explain this?
Guards were placed at Jesus' tomb for a specific reason (Matt 27:62-66) - it was not a common practice for all burials. If mourners came, they would have stood outside the tomb, not go inside and mourn the body there.
The point of the video was that the common Jewish practice of preparing a body for burial was to use ointments to both wash the body and to keep the smell of decomposition away. Once the body was buried, there was no longer a need for such an anointing. Whether one Mary or 3 women came to the tomb (with the latter group wanting to wash a badly beaten body that had been decomposing for 3 days and 3 nights), the outcome was that the supposed resurrection of Jesus' body was made known (by one or two men or angels). It's a very convenient and necessary event in the plot of a story comprised decades after the death of Jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
“If it doesn’t fit, ya just gotta MAKE it fit.”
— victor paul wierwille, NaRd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Paul wrote in Romans 5 about all men being sinners and falling short of the glory of God and therefore in need of salvation specifically as a result of what happened with Adam in Genesis 3. What evidence is there that these two people ever existed in a garden called Eden other than the Bible saying so?
Do you really believe there was a talking serpent that tempted them, that the experiences of painful childbirth, women becoming subjected to men and the existence of thorns and thistles were really the consequences of their disobedience to God, that blood sacrifice became God's preferred choice of how to clothe them, and the deal of there being a tree of life which enabled them to live forever?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
NaRd? So true when it comes to men writing historical accounts - not so when Jesus is leading and guiding us in perfect harmony w/ the Holy Spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Not a Real doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
TLC, your post has brought up a curious concern I've come to realize over the last few months but rather than discuss it here, I am starting a new thread in the sub-forum of Matters of Faith: Atheism, non theism, skepticism: Questioning Faith. It's called "Sin and the Need for Perfect Love." I will be quoting your paragraph above in my opening post, and I'm hoping you will share more of your thoughts there.
Charity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
God's wrath
- you know like
In the OT:
his wrath was kindled; thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble; my wrath shall wax hot; the LORD turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath; God shall cast the fury of his wrath upon him; rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure;
and In the NT:
he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him; But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasure up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath; But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath; For which things' sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience
and In Revelation:
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand; seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God; and he treads the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of almighty God
Excuse my frustration, but giving a tyrannical, vengeful, threatening, pseudo-powerful "being" a pass or thumbs up (as many Christians give Yahweh) merely because HE claims his opponents are "evil" is - what shall you call it – sickening, insane, self-destructive, an incentive to oppress others, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks, Charity, for answering my question. Saved from the wrath. Got it!
Were all those passages (without exception or distinction) written to me, or are they merely for my learning?
Would you please cite chapter and verse? I'd like to look at the context and examine the Greek from which the phrase "obey the truth" is rendered. Such a curious phrase, obey the truth. I suspect it's an awkward translation or else a figger of speech.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
My apologies Nathan, I decided not to add the scripture references in order to keep the post shorter - each of the phrases are directly from the KJV and can be googled and the chapter and verse will come up immediately. The one you asked about is Romans 2:8. Please post what you learn about it - it'd be interesting to know.
The phrases were simply about describing and/or declaring God's wrath in the past, present and future. Sometimes they were against the pagan nations and unbelievers and sometimes they were against God's chosen ones who disobeyed him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Reading through Romans chapter 2 again - it's been awhile - and all I can say is, Wow!
I wonder if victor paul wierwille, NaRd., ever read this chapter? I wonder if he had, could he have been persuaded to start obeying truth and stop defecating in its mouth?
Edited by Nathan_JrAll nine gloves all the time
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.