How do we know what Jesus said when no one was there, anyway?

[Learner]

It is surprising that its lasted so long considering Christians were not quite chums with the convention back then...Judaic (pharisees) and Roman ideologies which would be quite threatening for them; losing people to Christian conversion.

Would people honestly think it unlikely that sabotage,persecutions and distortions i.e. enemies of the theology would not exist around and against the churches for centuries?

 

[ruby sparks]

'Spirit paraclete'. Iow, a ghostie filled the writers in on the missing bits. Lol.

Some say the ghostie may have had elf assistance, though that of course is obviously more speculative.

 

[Juma]

It is surprising that its lasted so long considering Christians were not quite chums with the convention back then...Judaic (pharisees) and Roman ideologies which would be quite threatening for them; losing people to Christian conversion.

Would people honestly think it unlikely that sabotage,persecutions and distortions i.e. enemies of the theology would not exist around and against the churches for centuries?

On the contrary, both jews and Rome was rather open to other religions/cultures.
The persecution of christians at is a myth.
The great persecutions was by christians on other christians... and on everyone else...

 

[DBT]

Yep. That's what I think too.
It's not an opinion that there are contradictions in the bible if the contradictions are there for anyone to see, and if they are logically incompatible.

...meanwhile, talk is cheap.

Some folk may not want to acknowledge the existence of contradictions in the bible where contradictions exist - and are there for all to see - because contradictions in the bible may put their faith to question.

 

[whollygoats]

'Spirit paraclete'. Iow, a ghostie filled the writers in on the missing bits. Lol.

Some say the ghostie may have had elf assistance, though that of course is obviously more speculative.

Cheeses....They might have even had unicorns for editors and gollum for proofreaders.

 

[whollygoats]

Yep. That's what I think too.
It's not an opinion that there are contradictions in the bible if the contradictions are there for anyone to see, and if they are logically incompatible.

...meanwhile, talk is cheap.

LOL....Brings to mind Touchstone in 'As You Like It' (Act 5, Scene iv)

I durst go no further than the Lie Circumstantial,
nor he durst not give me the Lie Direct; and so we
measured swords and parted.

...

O sir, we quarrel in print, by the book; as you have
books for good manners: I will name you the degrees.
The first, the Retort Courteous; the second, the
Quip Modest; the third, the Reply Churlish; the
fourth, the Reproof Valiant; the fifth, the
Countercheque Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie with
Circumstance; the seventh, the Lie Direct. All
these you may avoid but the Lie Direct; and you may
avoid that too, with an If. I knew when seven
justices could not take up a quarrel, but when the
parties were met themselves, one of them thought but
of an If, as, 'If you said so, then I said so;' and
they shook hands and swore brothers. Your If is the
only peacemaker; much virtue in If.

I guess it is time we measured swords and parted....

Fool!

 

[Lion IRC]

Yep. That's what I think too.
It's not an opinion that there are contradictions in the bible if the contradictions are there for anyone to see, and if they are logically incompatible.

...meanwhile, talk is cheap.

Some folk may not want to acknowledge the existence of contradictions in the bible where contradictions exist - and are there for all to see - because contradictions in the bible may put their faith to question.

I agree that if there were contradictions in the bible it could be a challenge to faith.

 

[Lion IRC]

The problem for you is that Christians have their Great Commission to preach their religion to all the world- and that's hard to do when you can't agree among yourselves just what that religion means.

I don't accept that Christianity is such an opaque, fragmented concept that Christians lack a central message.
...it's not like we don't all have access to the exact same words as they appear in the Gospel.

Also, consider Augustine's words:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

Here's another quote often used by Augustine.

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.

I'd say that also applies when Christians deny contradictions in their holy book that are plain for anyone to see.

When Christians deny that there are contradictions it's because they aren't as plain to see as you claim.

 

[bilby]

Yep. That's what I think too.
It's not an opinion that there are contradictions in the bible if the contradictions are there for anyone to see, and if they are logically incompatible.

...meanwhile, talk is cheap.

Some folk may not want to acknowledge the existence of contradictions in the bible where contradictions exist - and are there for all to see - because contradictions in the bible may put their faith to question.

I agree that if there were contradictions in the bible it could be a challenge to faith.

Would you also agree that if the world were not flat, it could be a challenge to faith?

 

[Lion IRC]

You would have to ask someone who thinks the world is flat.
I don't.

Hey - cool fact. Did you know that the bible described the earth as a sphere?
(3,000 years before the invention of the telescope.)

 

[bilby]

You would have to ask someone who thinks the world is flat.
I don't.

Well, I don't think the Bible contains no contradictions; and for basically the same reasons that I don't think the world is flat.

Hey - cool fact. Did you know that the bible described the earth as a sphere?
(3,000 years before the invention of the telescope.)

It's not particularly 'cool', and I don't think it's a fact either - can you give me the chapter and verse please?

 

[Lion IRC]

Isaiah 40:22

 

[bilby]

Isaiah 40:22

Oh dear.

You seem to think that a 'circle' is a three dimensional object. That's so sad.

And, of course, many Christians DO think that Isiah 40:22 implies a FLAT earth:

he typical Christian response was to point out that the word circle here is, in fact, proving that the earth was a ball. I remembered even then thinking that didn't seem right to me. We all know what a circle is and it is not a ball. In fact, the Hebrew word used in this verse is "khoog" (pronounced chug). The word literally means, circle, circuit, and compass. In all of these words, none of them conjure up a picture of a ball. Furthermore if the earth were a ball, and God wished to communicate that here, then it would have required using the Hebrew word "dure" (pronounced dur). The Hebrew definition for dure is, a circle, pile, or ball. Isn't that interesting? If the shape of the earth was intended to be conveyed as a "ball" then the Hebrew word "dure" would have been the word used as found in Isaiah 22:18, "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house." It wasn't used there.

http://www.philipstallings.com/2015/06/the-biblical-flat-earth-teaching-from.html

Of course, we can be charitable and accept your fudge; particularly as we probably both view people like the guy quoted above as crackpots. Let us assume ad argumentum that Isiah 40:22 means 'sphere', when it says 'circle'. That implies, either way, that the shape of the Earth has no corners.

So it is a contradiction of Ezekiel 7:2; Acts 10:11; and Revalation 7:1, to name but a few.

Unless you know of any circles with four corners; Or you are going to ignore what the Bible actually says, when assessing whether or not it contradicts itself (which would be pretty unreasonable), you really have to accept that your earlier assertion

...
I would go even further and assert that there are no contradictions in the bible.
...

Is in fact false.

 

[whollygoats]

I don't accept that Christianity is such an opaque, fragmented concept that Christians lack a central message.
...it's not like we don't all have access to the exact same words as they appear in the Gospel.

Really?

You are going to claim that all of the various translations and versions of the Holy Bible are all exactly the same?

Why is it that there are so many versions?

Then, why is it that there are so many denominations in that pool of nominal 'Christians'? If the message is so damned clear, why is it that the 'Christian' community has a history of centuries of ongoing inter-denominational violence over minor doctrinal differences of interpretation? That includes the very reason for imperial intercession in Christian affairs; internecine violence.

So, Lion, I agree with others here that you are in serious error. You are wrong.

I suspect that you have never read much of the Holy Bible at all. Or, if you have, you have been blinded by errant interpretations and I'll bet I could form a sizeable committee of believing Christians who would agree with me once they knew the details.

You are a screaming heretic, according to a significant number of your fellow Christians.

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

~ Emo Phillips

 

[Learner]

On the contrary, both jews and Rome was rather open to other religions/cultures.
The persecution of christians at is a myth.

You mean they were OK with Jesus being more important and higher than caesar and only one God makes their gods powerless?

The great persecutions was by christians on other christians... and on everyone else...

The rhetoric is debateable as you know (to discuss further).

 

[Learner]

You are going to claim that all of the various translations and versions of the Holy Bible are all exactly the same?

Why is it that there are so many versions?

A safety measure perhaps that is easy to remember for anyone, pass on to others and very hard to corrupt or distort regardless of versions.

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


(IMO it seems to me at the mo... just in case I'm wrong, to other theists to be sure - (if thats ALL that's required to some situations)

 

[Lion IRC]

Oh dear.

You seem to think that a 'circle' is a three dimensional object. That's so sad.

Wanna debate hermeneutics/exegesis? Fine.
Think you'll change my mind?

...And, of course, many Christians DO think that Isiah 40:22 implies a FLAT earth:

Go chat with them if you wish. Or better still, buy a ventriloquist dummy and use your winning debating skills to devastating effect.

...Let us assume ad argumentum that Isiah 40:22 means 'sphere', when it says 'circle'. That implies, either way, that the shape of the Earth has no corners.

Agreed.

...So it is a contradiction of Ezekiel 7:2; Acts 10:11; and Revalation 7:1, to name but a few.
Unless you know of any circles with four corners;

I'll concede that point as soon as bible skeptics stop using the expression "sunrise".
Because the sun doesn't 'rise' does it?
And when bible skeptics come up with a useful alternative to the word 'corner' in relation to a two dimensional printed map of the world - which actually does have four corners.
And when they stop using the word "manufactured" as if robot machines have hands.
...and that feeling blue doesn't mean the color blue and soul food doesn't feed your soul etc etc

 

[whollygoats]

You are going to claim that all of the various translations and versions of the Holy Bible are all exactly the same?

Why is it that there are so many versions?

A safety measure perhaps that is easy to remember for anyone, pass on to others and very hard to corrupt or distort regardless of versions.

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

You have not answered my question.

Why is it that there are so many different interpretations of the Holy Bible? That's the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, both. In English alone.

And with so many different interpretations, why is it that there are even more denominations?

Now you have added a third, because the section you cited was obviously not being observed by those who chose to call themselves 'Christians', or there would never have been any Council of Nicea and the Christian sectaries would have continued to tear at the very social fabric of the empire with their ongoing internecine gang violence. Why is it that so many calling themselves Christians have so obviously and cravenly ignored the very core of the teachings of the master you chose to cite?

So...We're back to GMatthew 23, which I happen to think directly addresses your responses here. You are the Pharisee, and yours is a nest of vipers.

Your dodge is unacceptable.

 

[Learner]

You have not answered my question.

Why is it that there are so many different interpretations of the Holy Bible? That's the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible, both.

And with so many different interpretations, why is it that there are even more denominations?

Now you have added a third, because the section you cited was obviously not being observed by those who chose to call themselves 'Christians', or there would never have been any Council of Nicea and the Christian sectaries would have continued to tear at the very social fabric of the empire with their ongoing internecine gang violence. Why is it that so many calling themselves Christians have so obviously and cravenly ignored the very core of the teachings of the master you chose to cite?

So...We're back to GMatthew 23, which I happen to think directly addresses your responses here.

Your dodge is unacceptable.

It starts way back and to be consistent to the theology. Jesus has always had powerful enemies and their methodical attributes has to have a mention too, don't you think? Seperating the church to distort , confuse , divide , pervert and so-forth to destroy and dispel the gospel of Christ.

Which is because Jesus validates God for a lot of people.

Which is sort of how I came to believe in God of the OT and why Jesus was sent. If.... it were proven (I doubt it personally) Jesus was finally concluded to never have existed, no more debates by various scholarly circles then I would be an agnostic again! (there is a lot more to it than that to explain)

 

[bilby]

Wanna debate hermeneutics/exegesis? Fine.
Think you'll change my mind?

Fuck no. it is very clear that NOTHING - not even the actual text of the Bible - will change your mind one iota.

Go chat with them if you wish. Or better still, buy a ventriloquist dummy and use your winning debating skills to devastating effect.

...Let us assume ad argumentum that Isiah 40:22 means 'sphere', when it says 'circle'. That implies, either way, that the shape of the Earth has no corners.

Agreed.

...So it is a contradiction of Ezekiel 7:2; Acts 10:11; and Revalation 7:1, to name but a few.
Unless you know of any circles with four corners;

I'll concede that point as soon as bible skeptics stop using the expression "sunrise".
Because the sun doesn't 'rise' does it?
And when bible skeptics come up with a useful alternative to the word 'corner' in relation to a two dimensional printed map of the world - which actually does have four corners.
And when they stop using the word "manufactured" as if robot machines have hands.
...and that feeling blue doesn't mean the color blue and soul food doesn't feed your soul etc etc

But a moment ago, you were confident that the use of 'circle' implied 'sphere' and was a description of reality. Now, all of a sudden, the word 'corner' is NOT a description of reality, it is just a figure of speech. So how do you determine which parts of the bible describe reality, and which are to be dismissed as mere poetic language?

It seems to me that you can eliminate all the contradictions only by also eliminating any ability to rely upon what the text actually says - so what's the point of having a Bible at all?

If your position is that the Bible is not contradictory because what it says is not what it means, then that's fine, but it is a position that contradicts your earlier position that Isiah 40:22 is of any value in determining what shape the Earth might be.

In short, the Bible is useless as a guide to anything, because all that really matters is your interpretation of it, which is infinitely flexible - it means what it says if (and ONLY if) it agrees with your position. So it clearly cannot inform your position at all, and is a pointless document.