Sorry to revive a long-dead thread but I have a question...
Initially, I was here to question Way doctrine.
Then I discovered that many of the Way's teachings were derived, competently/correctly or not, from E.W. Bullinger.
So I go and I read about Bullinger. And I start to read the Companion Bible. (Amazing document. I love it.) But how credible is this Bullinger guy? He makes some assertions that I question.
It was reading notes in The Companion Bible that made the Bible begin to have meaning for me - in Leviticus, of all places!!
Although many Way folk had copies of the CB, Bullinger's notes in the CB were often presented as "research" by TWI.
Juanita Carey, referred to in the footnotes of the first link above, author of the second book, is (I believe) an ex-Wayfer but her book seems to be the biography available.
Hey, SS, you don't need to worry about reviving "long-dead threads," either. They can be really interesting.
Excellent question. In my opinion Bullinger was at his best as a "statistician" and a "linguist". I think he did a good job pointing out inconsistencies between the English translation and the Greek or Hebrew text and was a whiz at digging up quotes of other books of the bible in scripture, figures of speech, etc. I believe that he tried to hard to make everything fit into an outline or structure that wasn't necessarily there, bending his interpretation to fit with a preconceived idea. That being said, it's apparent that he put a lot more work into his research than Wierwille ever did
Regarding threads being "long dead", I think the examples that I give in the initial post show how Wierwille certainly didn't come up with some of his stuff independently of Bullinger, if he did he wouldn't have come to conclusions that were unsupported by his premises.
I'm sure Bullinger put a lot of effort into his work. That's pretty much self-evident. What's also pretty obvious is that he worked overtime trying to make sense of stuff that doesn't necessarily make any sense. "Numbers in Scripture" comes to mind...
Sorry to revive a long-dead thread but I have a question...
Initially, I was here to question Way doctrine.
Then I discovered that many of the Way's teachings were derived, competently/correctly or not, from E.W. Bullinger.
So I go and I read about Bullinger. And I start to read the Companion Bible. (Amazing document. I love it.) But how credible is this Bullinger guy? He makes some assertions that I question.
I'll just hit on a couple points of interest.
It was from Bullinger that Wierwille got his concept of "administrations". In a nut shell, Wierwille promoted the Bullinger concept that, if it was not part of this administration, it didn't really apply to us. For example, Wierwillee said The Ten Commandments didn't apply to us directly because they were given to another "administration". (Bullinger used the term "dispensation" to mean the same thing.) This is the thinking VPW used to rationalize and excuse his sexual predation, chronic drunkenness, psychological abuse and misappropriation of ministry funds.
Another doctrine VPW took from Bullinger was the concept of "soul sleep". According to this doctrine, the dead are in a sort of suspended animation, devoid of consciousness, until the second coming of Christ. Wierwille "borrowed" heavily from the work in THIS link.
I believe he also got the idea for the "four crucified with Christ" teaching from Bullinger, as well. (This particular idea, incidently, has been shown to be academically incorrect.) Then, in order to obviate skeptics, he made it appear that he and Bullinger had arrived at the same conclusion, totally independent of each other. (Bullinger, by the way, died in 1913, long before Wierwille ever taught "4 crucified".)
Wierwille "borrowed" a good many of Bullinger's ideas without fully comprehending them.
It's funny. When I think of Wierwille trying to use Bullinger's material, it reminds me of a kid in 4th grade trying to retell an off-color joke he overheard his parents share at a cocktail party. He doesn't grasp the key elements that give it some semblance of coherency.
In appendix 164 of his Companion Bible, EWB states that;
"Mislead by tradition and the ignorance of Scripture on the part of medieval painters, it is the general belief that only two were crucified with the Lord. But Scripture does not say so."
The explanation that follows doesn't hold water and is somewhat contrived in my view. Not to mention that it is inconsistent with what we are told by Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Then, in appendix 160 he arrives at the dubious conclusion that there were six denials from Peter (as if it even mattered). A conclusion which is not only inconsistent with the narrative but contradicts what JC himself said, i.e., that Peter would deny him three times. (The business about a cock crewing twice is not problematic for me.)
Where did EWB get his information from and why has he been largely unchallenged on it?
Why would God have required us to essentially "re-divide the Word" in order to arrive at an understanding of the events as they occured?
Bullinger wanted to make all aspects of the bible fit together, he often compared sections of scripture that appeared to be referring to the same event and picked out what he saw as inconsistencies or contradictions. For instance, regarding the number of men crucified with Jesus, he pointed out that that in one gospel one of the two reviled him, while in another, both did. That, along with other details, were contradictions that a biblical literalist would want to reconcile so that scriptures would fit together.
The same with his view that there were six denials; there are enough differences in the circumstances in each gospel, that the literalist is confronted with inconsistencies that must be resolved. Someone who is not so concerned with making it all fit together wouldn't be concerned about the contradictions; I am unaware how biblical literalists other than Bullinger reconcile these sections of the bible.
But common sense would indicate that since each mention of the crucifixion only mentions two and each mention of the betrayals only mentions three, then there were two others crucified and three denials. I have a hard time seeing an omnipotent god who authored the scriptures playing those kind of numbers games.
Other apparently parallel sections he just decides are talking about different events altogether.
Where did Bullinger "get it from? I don't think he got it from anywhere other than his own desire to make sense of the many contradictions. Even though he was a clergyman in a major denomination (Church of England) he came to conclusions very different from mainstream Christianity.
Personally I don't think you can eliminate all contradictions and inconsistencies because the bible was written by men and not God. Different viewpoints, theologies, opinions and agendas go into the bible, trying to make them fit together is like trying to harmonize different secular authors writing on the same subject.
Bullinger wanted to make all aspects of the bible fit together, he often compared sections of scripture that appeared to be referring to the same event and picked out what he saw as inconsistencies or contradictions. For instance, regarding the number of men crucified with Jesus, he pointed out that that in one gospel one of the two reviled him, while in another, both did. That, along with other details, were contradictions that a biblical literalist would want to reconcile so that scriptures would fit together.
The same with his view that there were six denials; there are enough differences in the circumstances in each gospel, that the literalist is confronted with inconsistencies that must be resolved. Someone who is not so concerned with making it all fit together wouldn't be concerned about the contradictions; I am unaware how biblical literalists other than Bullinger reconcile these sections of the bible.
But common sense would indicate that since each mention of the crucifixion only mentions two and each mention of the betrayals only mentions three, then there were two others crucified and three denials. I have a hard time seeing an omnipotent god who authored the scriptures playing those kind of numbers games.
Other apparently parallel sections he just decides are talking about different events altogether.
Where did Bullinger "get it from? I don't think he got it from anywhere other than his own desire to make sense of the many contradictions. Even though he was a clergyman in a major denomination (Church of England) he came to conclusions very different from mainstream Christianity.
Personally I don't think you can eliminate all contradictions and inconsistencies because the bible was written by men and not God. Different viewpoints, theologies, opinions and agendas go into the bible, trying to make them fit together is like trying to harmonize different secular authors writing on the same subject.
To me, you have spelled out what was the matter with VP's theology taken in large part from Bullinger - the frantic chase to explain away "contradictions."
My question is what exactly is the problem with simply letting go of the idea that God authored the Bible and admit these are men's writings, men who may have been considered by other men to have been inspired in what they wrote, but still men with viewpoints and vocabularies all their own? I think that in so doing we can still value these writings but in a more realistic way.
EWB goes to great lengths to try and reconcile sections of the gospels where he sees a contradiction or inconsistency. But here's something that jumps out at me, and as far as I can tell EWB doesn't address it.
Here are the four accounts of when they took Jesus away to be crucified...(all quotes from the NIV):
Matthew 27:32
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Mark 15:21
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Luke 23:26
As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
John 19:17
Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one that sees a contradiction?
This doesn't strike me as being a translation issue. The words are pretty clear.
EWB goes to great lengths to try and reconcile sections of the gospels where he sees a contradiction or inconsistency. But here's something that jumps out at me, and as far as I can tell EWB doesn't address it.
Here are the four accounts of when they took Jesus away to be crucified...(all quotes from the NIV):
Matthew 27:32
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Mark 15:21
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Luke 23:26
As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
John 19:17
Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one that sees a contradiction?
This doesn't strike me as being a translation issue. The words are pretty clear.
You may not like my answer, but IMO it's because there are 4 different writers with 4 different interpretations of what happened.
When you look at the history of when these gospels were written, Mark was first and is said to be the basis for Matthew and Luke. John was written much later. Some scholars say John had reasons for touting Jesus as God, not the son of God, and for writing his gospel account in certain ways so as to fend off other types of ideas regarding who or what Jesus was, i.e. the Gnostics, etc. I'm not a scholar or historian but there are plenty of books out there where you can read more about this...
In my view, the "default" position about "the truth" as you expressed it, is that we have lots of these documents that are considered sacred.
IMO men came along and made the claim that all of the documents in a certain canon are God-breathed, using a verse out of context in II Peter to "prove" this. I find that "proof" inappropriate as far as applying it to the canon "they" chose. There's a very long history of the texts and on top of that, a complex history of all the translations made of those texts and more translations continue to this day. I've read some books about all this, but don't have the kind of time to put into it that I think would be needed to come up with a "final" answer, although I don't really think there is one.
Keep in mind that new MSS have been discovered within the last 100 years and they probably affect some of what's been already accepted as "the truth," so it seems to me that we will never know for sure...and that's okay with me but I realize it is unsettling for many others. So I say it's just my opinion and leave it at that.
in the words of paul simon, american singer/songwriter, my opinions regarding the veracity of the various canons, texts, manuscripts, interpolations, and interpretations of ALL so-called "holy writ", is, ................"one man's ceiling is another man's floor"................
imho, actions always speak so loudly i can't hear a, or the, word you're preaching, teaching, or making a living off of............perhaps a tad cynical, but my thoughts as of this moment............peace.
actions always speak so loudly i can't hear a, or the, word you're preaching, teaching, or making a living off of............perhaps a tad cynical, but my thoughts as of this moment.
I dont think that is cynical at all -just realistic--It never matters where the "the" goes if you havent got the brains to figure out that your not supposed to rape the teen girls in your care.
No matter what Weirwilles pseudo scholarship was, what he 'taught' and modeled was a lifestyle of self indulgence and extreme narcissism.
He could mess around with commas, greek, administrations etc, and tickle people all day long with his charisma but in the most fundamental points, which even a child can see, he "wrongly divided the word".
Wierwille didn't think through much at all of what he wrote or taught, leading to many contradictions.
Regarding alledged contraditions in the NT.... Many things that are seen as contradictions (by VP, EWB and others) are supplemental material, not contradictions. If people read the Gospels like they read newspapers, instead of trying to pick them apart, most of the "contradictions" go away by themselves. Let's say you hear 3 accounts of a football game which read this way:
#1 - "Kurt Warner ran for the first touchdown of the game. Larry Fitgerald caught a pass for a second"
#2 - "The Cardinals won by a three touchdown margin. The coach said "the defense played poorly but well enough to win."
#3 - Larry Fitgerald scored three touchdowns and Kurt Warner scored another. The coach said "the defense played poorly"
What really happened in the game, and in what order? You could say they contradict because #1 mentions Warner's touchdown first, and #3 says it happened last. #1 mentions only 2 touchdowns, but #3 mentions four. #2 says the defense played well enough, while #3 just says it played poorly. In fact, the accounts are not contradictory and each is accurate as far as it goes.
Both EWB and VP mess up the understanding of stories like 2 crucified by insisting that all details in the Gospel accounts 1) must be chronological 2)always mention the whole, exact wording of the sign on the cross and quotes of people (never paraphrases), 3) you can't accept the plain meaning of the text. They were right in seeing seeing some details as supplemental, but wrong in that they insisted the texts say more than they do.
In the Bible, as in ordinary conversation and story-telling, we don't give utterly compplete, utterly chronological accounts every time, but we do get the basic story across. Instead, we give partial acocunts, incomplete quotations, and may choose to tell the most important or meaningful things first even if they aren't chronologial.
If you wonder about (or believe) the idea of 4 crucified, please take a look at my article on it at www.abouttheway.org
EWB goes to great lengths to try and reconcile sections of the gospels where he sees a contradiction or inconsistency. But here's something that jumps out at me, and as far as I can tell EWB doesn't address it.
Here are the four accounts of when they took Jesus away to be crucified...(all quotes from the NIV):
Matthew 27:32
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Mark 15:21
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Luke 23:26
As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
John 19:17
Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one that sees a contradiction?
This doesn't strike me as being a translation issue. The words are pretty clear.
I'm not sure what Bullinger wrote on this, but it probably was what vpw taught
on the subject. It has the same feel as other things Bullinger said that vpw later
laid claim to.
As they see it, Simon of Cyrene carried the wooden cross to Calvary/Golgotha.
Jesus carried a "cross" that was METAPHORICAL- our burden of sins.
Bullinger's key here is that the many clear verses set the stage, and any exceptions
have to be understood in relation to the many clear.
So, 3 Gospels say Simon carried the cross.
1 Gospel says otherwise.
Therefore, begin with the 3 and then see how the 1 fits in to their account.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
12
6
8
Popular Days
Nov 25
10
Nov 23
10
Feb 3
8
Nov 26
6
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 6 posts
Oakspear 12 posts
waysider 6 posts
soul searcher 8 posts
Popular Days
Nov 25 2009
10 posts
Nov 23 2009
10 posts
Feb 3 2005
8 posts
Nov 26 2009
6 posts
Oakspear
Yup, and interpretation means to let moose...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
squirrelly...
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Sorry to revive a long-dead thread but I have a question...
Initially, I was here to question Way doctrine.
Then I discovered that many of the Way's teachings were derived, competently/correctly or not, from E.W. Bullinger.
So I go and I read about Bullinger. And I start to read the Companion Bible. (Amazing document. I love it.) But how credible is this Bullinger guy? He makes some assertions that I question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Soul searcher, you might find these links interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethelbert_William_Bullinger
http://books.google.com/books?id=2tAAOvvCgTwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0825423724#v=onepage&q=&f=false
It was reading notes in The Companion Bible that made the Bible begin to have meaning for me - in Leviticus, of all places!!
Although many Way folk had copies of the CB, Bullinger's notes in the CB were often presented as "research" by TWI.
Juanita Carey, referred to in the footnotes of the first link above, author of the second book, is (I believe) an ex-Wayfer but her book seems to be the biography available.
Hey, SS, you don't need to worry about reviving "long-dead threads," either. They can be really interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Excellent question. In my opinion Bullinger was at his best as a "statistician" and a "linguist". I think he did a good job pointing out inconsistencies between the English translation and the Greek or Hebrew text and was a whiz at digging up quotes of other books of the bible in scripture, figures of speech, etc. I believe that he tried to hard to make everything fit into an outline or structure that wasn't necessarily there, bending his interpretation to fit with a preconceived idea. That being said, it's apparent that he put a lot more work into his research than Wierwille ever did
Regarding threads being "long dead", I think the examples that I give in the initial post show how Wierwille certainly didn't come up with some of his stuff independently of Bullinger, if he did he wouldn't have come to conclusions that were unsupported by his premises.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I'm sure Bullinger put a lot of effort into his work. That's pretty much self-evident. What's also pretty obvious is that he worked overtime trying to make sense of stuff that doesn't necessarily make any sense. "Numbers in Scripture" comes to mind...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'll just hit on a couple points of interest.
It was from Bullinger that Wierwille got his concept of "administrations". In a nut shell, Wierwille promoted the Bullinger concept that, if it was not part of this administration, it didn't really apply to us. For example, Wierwillee said The Ten Commandments didn't apply to us directly because they were given to another "administration". (Bullinger used the term "dispensation" to mean the same thing.) This is the thinking VPW used to rationalize and excuse his sexual predation, chronic drunkenness, psychological abuse and misappropriation of ministry funds.
Another doctrine VPW took from Bullinger was the concept of "soul sleep". According to this doctrine, the dead are in a sort of suspended animation, devoid of consciousness, until the second coming of Christ. Wierwille "borrowed" heavily from the work in THIS link.
I believe he also got the idea for the "four crucified with Christ" teaching from Bullinger, as well. (This particular idea, incidently, has been shown to be academically incorrect.) Then, in order to obviate skeptics, he made it appear that he and Bullinger had arrived at the same conclusion, totally independent of each other. (Bullinger, by the way, died in 1913, long before Wierwille ever taught "4 crucified".)
Wierwille "borrowed" a good many of Bullinger's ideas without fully comprehending them.
The list goes on and on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's funny. When I think of Wierwille trying to use Bullinger's material, it reminds me of a kid in 4th grade trying to retell an off-color joke he overheard his parents share at a cocktail party. He doesn't grasp the key elements that give it some semblance of coherency.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
In appendix 164 of his Companion Bible, EWB states that;
The explanation that follows doesn't hold water and is somewhat contrived in my view. Not to mention that it is inconsistent with what we are told by Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Then, in appendix 160 he arrives at the dubious conclusion that there were six denials from Peter (as if it even mattered). A conclusion which is not only inconsistent with the narrative but contradicts what JC himself said, i.e., that Peter would deny him three times. (The business about a cock crewing twice is not problematic for me.)
Where did EWB get his information from and why has he been largely unchallenged on it?
Why would God have required us to essentially "re-divide the Word" in order to arrive at an understanding of the events as they occured?
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Soul Searcher:
Bullinger wanted to make all aspects of the bible fit together, he often compared sections of scripture that appeared to be referring to the same event and picked out what he saw as inconsistencies or contradictions. For instance, regarding the number of men crucified with Jesus, he pointed out that that in one gospel one of the two reviled him, while in another, both did. That, along with other details, were contradictions that a biblical literalist would want to reconcile so that scriptures would fit together.
The same with his view that there were six denials; there are enough differences in the circumstances in each gospel, that the literalist is confronted with inconsistencies that must be resolved. Someone who is not so concerned with making it all fit together wouldn't be concerned about the contradictions; I am unaware how biblical literalists other than Bullinger reconcile these sections of the bible.
But common sense would indicate that since each mention of the crucifixion only mentions two and each mention of the betrayals only mentions three, then there were two others crucified and three denials. I have a hard time seeing an omnipotent god who authored the scriptures playing those kind of numbers games.
Other apparently parallel sections he just decides are talking about different events altogether.
Where did Bullinger "get it from? I don't think he got it from anywhere other than his own desire to make sense of the many contradictions. Even though he was a clergyman in a major denomination (Church of England) he came to conclusions very different from mainstream Christianity.
Personally I don't think you can eliminate all contradictions and inconsistencies because the bible was written by men and not God. Different viewpoints, theologies, opinions and agendas go into the bible, trying to make them fit together is like trying to harmonize different secular authors writing on the same subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If you're convinced vpw was right all the time, then Bullinger
is going to impress you a lot- vpw used a lot of Bullinger's stuff.
IMHO, Bullinger was often great in separating tradition from Scripture
(the word "purgatory" appears zero times in Scripture), but sometimes
flubbed it in his pursuit of a better explanation.
Example 1: Bullinger believed we were chosen before the "overthrow" of
the world, not the "foundation" of the world, believing that the Greek
word was a "casting down" in the sense of an overthrow and not in the
sense of casting down a building's foundation. ("Katabole".)
When he made his explanation, he actually noted the verse where this
would be an impossible translation of "katabole", but promptly ignores
it and pursues his explanation.
Example 2: Bullinger came up with a beautiful explanation of the difference
between "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God", noting that if God meant
the same thing, He would have used the same word each time.
The problem was Bullinger was completely WRONG-the terms are used
INTERCHANGEABLY to refer to exactly the same things, just in different
Gospels. Great theory-but it failed to accurately predict the results.
BTW, vpw followed him on it and taught they were 2 different things in pfal.
If you want to know where vpw got "Are the Dead Alive Now?", it helps to know
that book covers the same material as Bullinger did in
"The Rich Man and Lazarus:an Intermediate State?"
and "Saul and the Witch at Endor: did the dead rise at her bidding?"
I find it interesting Bullinger titled both books with questions, and vpw's
book which ripped them off is the only book he titled with a question.
If one wants to know where pfal came from, the initial material was a clone
of BG Leonard's "Gifts of the Spirit" class in every detail. vpw took that
class twice, then 3 months later taught "his" first class on
"Receiving the Holy Spirit Today."
The Bible interpretation classes are all Bullinger stuff. The believing stuff
was from EW Kenyon. The holy spirit material was partly Leonard,
mostly JE Stiles' book "The Gift of the Holy Spirit", and partly
Bullinger here and there. (Bullinger's book "Word Studies in the Holy Spirit"
is the 385 verses mentioning holy spirit vpw claimed to work.)
vpw DID rip off the "administrations" from Bullinger's "dispensations",
but he numbered them differently.
Both counted 9.
1. Original paradise (Garden of Eden)
2. Patriarch
3. Law (time of the Mosaic Law)
Then comes the difference.
vpw said
4. Christ administration, the 1 year JC was here personally & in charge.)
Bullinger counted that as part of the Law.
That makes sense to me-JC spoke as if the Law was in full effect,
and said it would be fulfilled (future tense when he said it)
so that's still the Law.
The only reason I can see to change is to make the next one "5",
and even Bullinger, who invented the Number in Scripture concept as we
see it, didn't try to squeeze it like that.
Bullinger counts the next one as 4, vpw counts it as 5.
Grace. That's the one we're in now.
The next one is 5 for Bullinger, 6 for vpw.
Revealing. The Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse, the end-times, all that.
Bullinger then counts the MILLENIAL REIGN OF CHRIST in Revelation 20,
where Christ is here in person as King of Kings,
as 6.
vpw doesn't count it as anything other than part of the previous one.
To vpw, one year of Christ is an "administration change"
but 1000 years where he rules openly and completely- becoming the very
meaning of "administration" doesn't count at all.
vpw, as I see it, skipped over Revelation a lot. I think he was nervous
of how much of it he didn't understand.
Anyway, both counted the events from Revelation 21:1 on as the final
one, 7.
Please note I didn't use any of Bullinger's terms except "Millenial",
since the concepts were comparable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
My question is what exactly is the problem with simply letting go of the idea that God authored the Bible and admit these are men's writings, men who may have been considered by other men to have been inspired in what they wrote, but still men with viewpoints and vocabularies all their own? I think that in so doing we can still value these writings but in a more realistic way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Okay, here's something I don't get...
EWB goes to great lengths to try and reconcile sections of the gospels where he sees a contradiction or inconsistency. But here's something that jumps out at me, and as far as I can tell EWB doesn't address it.
Here are the four accounts of when they took Jesus away to be crucified...(all quotes from the NIV):
Matthew 27:32
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Mark 15:21
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross.
Luke 23:26
As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.
John 19:17
Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one that sees a contradiction?
This doesn't strike me as being a translation issue. The words are pretty clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
You may not like my answer, but IMO it's because there are 4 different writers with 4 different interpretations of what happened.
When you look at the history of when these gospels were written, Mark was first and is said to be the basis for Matthew and Luke. John was written much later. Some scholars say John had reasons for touting Jesus as God, not the son of God, and for writing his gospel account in certain ways so as to fend off other types of ideas regarding who or what Jesus was, i.e. the Gnostics, etc. I'm not a scholar or historian but there are plenty of books out there where you can read more about this...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Thanks, Pen. Actually, I do like your answer since it's what I believe. But it's not about me liking the answer. It's about trying to learn the truth.
I just wonder why EWB didn't concern himself with such an obvious contradiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Contradictions mess horribly with the concept of God-breathed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
In my view, the "default" position about "the truth" as you expressed it, is that we have lots of these documents that are considered sacred.
IMO men came along and made the claim that all of the documents in a certain canon are God-breathed, using a verse out of context in II Peter to "prove" this. I find that "proof" inappropriate as far as applying it to the canon "they" chose. There's a very long history of the texts and on top of that, a complex history of all the translations made of those texts and more translations continue to this day. I've read some books about all this, but don't have the kind of time to put into it that I think would be needed to come up with a "final" answer, although I don't really think there is one.
Keep in mind that new MSS have been discovered within the last 100 years and they probably affect some of what's been already accepted as "the truth," so it seems to me that we will never know for sure...and that's okay with me but I realize it is unsettling for many others. So I say it's just my opinion and leave it at that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
in the words of paul simon, american singer/songwriter, my opinions regarding the veracity of the various canons, texts, manuscripts, interpolations, and interpretations of ALL so-called "holy writ", is, ................"one man's ceiling is another man's floor"................
imho, actions always speak so loudly i can't hear a, or the, word you're preaching, teaching, or making a living off of............perhaps a tad cynical, but my thoughts as of this moment............peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I dont think that is cynical at all -just realistic--It never matters where the "the" goes if you havent got the brains to figure out that your not supposed to rape the teen girls in your care.
No matter what Weirwilles pseudo scholarship was, what he 'taught' and modeled was a lifestyle of self indulgence and extreme narcissism.
He could mess around with commas, greek, administrations etc, and tickle people all day long with his charisma but in the most fundamental points, which even a child can see, he "wrongly divided the word".
Excruciatingly so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Weell, one big difference that sticks out to me is that Bullinger seemed to come up with his research and conclusions on his own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
Wierwille didn't think through much at all of what he wrote or taught, leading to many contradictions.
Regarding alledged contraditions in the NT.... Many things that are seen as contradictions (by VP, EWB and others) are supplemental material, not contradictions. If people read the Gospels like they read newspapers, instead of trying to pick them apart, most of the "contradictions" go away by themselves. Let's say you hear 3 accounts of a football game which read this way:
#1 - "Kurt Warner ran for the first touchdown of the game. Larry Fitgerald caught a pass for a second"
#2 - "The Cardinals won by a three touchdown margin. The coach said "the defense played poorly but well enough to win."
#3 - Larry Fitgerald scored three touchdowns and Kurt Warner scored another. The coach said "the defense played poorly"
What really happened in the game, and in what order? You could say they contradict because #1 mentions Warner's touchdown first, and #3 says it happened last. #1 mentions only 2 touchdowns, but #3 mentions four. #2 says the defense played well enough, while #3 just says it played poorly. In fact, the accounts are not contradictory and each is accurate as far as it goes.
Both EWB and VP mess up the understanding of stories like 2 crucified by insisting that all details in the Gospel accounts 1) must be chronological 2)always mention the whole, exact wording of the sign on the cross and quotes of people (never paraphrases), 3) you can't accept the plain meaning of the text. They were right in seeing seeing some details as supplemental, but wrong in that they insisted the texts say more than they do.
In the Bible, as in ordinary conversation and story-telling, we don't give utterly compplete, utterly chronological accounts every time, but we do get the basic story across. Instead, we give partial acocunts, incomplete quotations, and may choose to tell the most important or meaningful things first even if they aren't chronologial.
If you wonder about (or believe) the idea of 4 crucified, please take a look at my article on it at www.abouttheway.org
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Thank you. I've seen your web site and read your article. Excellent work!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm not sure what Bullinger wrote on this, but it probably was what vpw taught
on the subject. It has the same feel as other things Bullinger said that vpw later
laid claim to.
As they see it, Simon of Cyrene carried the wooden cross to Calvary/Golgotha.
Jesus carried a "cross" that was METAPHORICAL- our burden of sins.
Bullinger's key here is that the many clear verses set the stage, and any exceptions
have to be understood in relation to the many clear.
So, 3 Gospels say Simon carried the cross.
1 Gospel says otherwise.
Therefore, begin with the 3 and then see how the 1 fits in to their account.
Make of that what you will.
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.