There are hundreds of examples, but let's try a simple one; can anybody square these verses?
Matthew 26:34 (King James Version)
34Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Mark 14:30 (King James Version)
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.
Mark 14:66-72 (King James Version)
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.
Granted the details are not that important unless you try to claim that EVERY WORD OF THIS BOOK IS 100% ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
It can't be. Anyone?
6 comments:
You mention two authorities; 1) those you grew up with, and 2) the Bible and what It says about itself. The confusion is evident in your reference to what the bible says about itself. The actual quote ( translation dependent) is “… jot or tittle will in no wise pass away…” Then there is the historical church, the guys who decided which of the manuscripts and reports would be considered to compose the “jots and tittles”. There is actually a wide range of differing opinions regarding what is "The Word of God" even within the established churches. A Catholic Theologian pointed out to me that ( what I thought was axiomatic) the concept of “solo Scriptura” was found nowhere in the Bible!
Then you mentioned the young man, and the candidates who were more responding to the authorities, than actually making a statement. Religion has reared its ugly head all over the place in this race. At another point in the debate, a reference to what would Jesus do scored big points for Huckabee when he pointed out Jesus would not have been there. This makes me wonder: How would Jesus have responded to that You tube Question? He was famous for not giving straight answers to politically and religiously charged questions. Would he have said “Yes…that book you are holding in your hand is word for word as I dictated it.”? I think not. He said again and again ( In the potentially corrupted versions we have at our disposal) that that was not the point. “The Kingdom of God is within you” “…Those who worship God will worship Him in Spirit and in truth”
That young man is the Christian version of the Religious Police of Saudi Arabia...more a pain in the ass to their fellow believers, who are afraid of the consequenses of standing up to the sound bite mentality. And who chose to have that particular question asked? CNN isn't a bastion of that thought, and it just might be that they saw a chance to embarass and watch the candidate squirm.
But back to us. If you want to stay hung up on other people’s hang ups, you might miss His points. Paul referred to that sad phenomenon in Romans 2:13-24.
Again, it boils down to each individual asking “What can I know about what we call the Bible as far as a reference for what I believe, and do?” If that young man’s view of the Bible stops you from considering whether it is something for you to pursue for yourself, then that is problematic. IF you are saying that even though you would be OK with not needing every word to be inspired, but still, there are enough errors, that Biblical consistency stops you from considering it a valid part of the “Word of God”, then there is validity in looking at the points that hang you personally up. ( re inerrancy, are we talking the KJV here? I can promise you there are some clear errors in the translation…but not in the intent of the original author!)
Do you really want an explanation of the apparent differences in the passages you have cited? You might have used more “sophisticated” apparent differences. But NOT being a person who thinks that God's hand controlled each stroke of the pens of the writers of the Bible that we have today, I really appreciate the fact that we have such a distinct quartet of gospels ... suggesting the "tamperers" you worried about over the last 2000 years were either blind, or not good copy editors. Only 2 of the 4 Gospels were by actual eye witnesses, Luke and Mark were friends of friends, or 1st century researchers. There have been honest debates about which books are or are not valid, as evidenced by the different Catholic and Protestant bibles.
One of the Bible's strong points, I feel, is that it wasn't sanitized from the very beginning, and so not only modern Presidential candidates are not killed for adultery...BUT right away, in the book of Judges, the Hebrew people totally ignored EVERYTHING written in the Pentateuch. Don’t even mention King David!
This then bleeds back to your previous post, but it all ties together. Much of the Old testament can legitimately be analyzed according to the words of Jesus. He had a profound effect on understanding the Law and the prophets. Jesus pointed out to anyone who (proudly and judgmentally) thought they were actually living by the LAW OF GOD...
Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This is incredibly important to understand ... and should, it seems, extend to Gays also. He was removing the focus from the jots and tittles in some people's minds ( and they wanted to kill him for it) and I think, proving he did not mean what you sort of quoted. The miniscule examination and argument of the texts often have caused many to miss the point of The Word. You are right that the modern (yet timeless) tendency to pick and choose is WRONG WRONG WRONG. And I think you are complaining about the muddied waters that the "Christian leaders" have created ( see God's thoughts on that in Ezekial 34:18-21) BUT you are more, I think, frustrated at the way the Bible is used as a "literally inspired" club to whack "unbelievers". Yet it is not so cut and dry, plainly in the various "levels" of literalnous [sic]", as the clubbers make it out to be. Again, i agree with you, and suggest that your argument is with a fairly narrow group of folks who call themselves Christians, but you might be surprised at the wide range of folks who also call themselves Christians who do not trust the historical or present day "Pharisees". I suggest, that Jesus, as is pretty well presented in the words we all have available today ( in 1000's of translations and many English language translations and paraphrases) also is not in agreement with the people who taught you what Christianity was.
I had actually thought about learning Greek and Hebrew, to protect myself from the guardians of the word. But then i realized that "New testament Greek" is completely different than the Greek that Sophocles, for example, wrote. Why? Who says? Who says "H'amartia" means sin in Romans, but means "Fatal Flaw" in Euripides? I realized that the whole academic establishment is not to be trusted. So I figured I could save time and scholastic effort, (and learn Spanish instead), and read several translations in English when I try to understand something, and have as good a chance as a Greek scholar to know what the original author was trying to say. And then count on His Spirit to show me what the Primal Author of Life, was saying through that author.
So, you can use other people’s idiocy and nefariousness in discounting it, or discount it for yourself. But before you discount it for yourself, try to give Jesus an opportunity to be what he claimed to be. He said to the Jews that they searched the scriptures to find life, but didn’t they see that the scriptures pointed to Him? Ask Him: “If you are who you say you are, I have a few questions I need answered before I can give you the due you would then deserve. Will you honestly talk with me? Show yourself if you aren’t a myth.” Then keep your eyes open.
Oh yeah, the specific story you have chosen...I don't see any discrepancies! 3 denials in each instance. Unknown quantity of crowing in one, then 2 crows in the other...where is there a disagreement?
as nothing that the supposed jesus ever said was written during his lifetime, and none of it by anyone who could have actually known him (if he ever existed), anything that christians claim to be "gospel truth" is simply an act of faith. faith is the belief in that which you cannot see, according to st. paul (but it might be some other religious guy, i get them mixed up in my mind).
there is no historical proof that "jesus" ever existed, or that, if he did, he was anything other than a wandering essene rabbi. therefore, anything anyone who chooses to identify himself as a "christian" believes, is entirely subjective and based on faith. so, believe it or not, but lay off judging others based on your need to believe.
this is my christmas message to the world, and a very "christian" one, i think...
Hey Rick;
I appreciate your fear of "historical veracity". but the criteria you have ;aid out to whether or not Jesus existed can be applied to say no one existed before the advent of video, as all "evidence" id someone's relation of such. Therefore, William Shakespeare, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln all may be someone's imagination...a composit of an altruistic "leader". There is no actual proof that any of them existed.
The people who wrote about Jesus originally, wrote to other folks who were curious about him, in the 1st century, and these manuscripts have been pretty much authenticated, so far as historical documents can be.
So you can choose to ignore all that went before us. Or you can accept that things occured, and the best chance at understanding them are reading the written record, and judging for yourself. BUT please don't tell me youbelieve josephus, or sophocles or aristotle, or even Walt Whitman, but refurse to believe John, and matthew, who both knew jesus quite intimately.
If I was ever convicted of murder on evidence so thin, never mind the basis of a global religion, I'd have the ACLU on speed dial.
Merry Christmas! The day all over the world, people celebrate the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity...or maybe not.
As Joshua reminds me, the date is all wrong, and even the halos in mideval portraits of the little baby in the manger are symbols of the Sun God ( whose celebration was the original December 25th party) But the biggest bone in anyone's throat should probably be the idea of the virgin Birth...I mean this story is very irrational!
You are right, jeff, that it is not the substance of proofs for a trial type verdict. And unfortunately, many have tried to do just that.
C.S. Lewis' book "Til We Have Faces" treats the acceptance or rejection of who Jesus is in an oblique manner, which is possibly the way to treat it.
having spent the past week wandering around paris, doing what i always do in paris - which is to say, meandering from church to church - i would never in a million years doubt the power of the idea of jesus to kindle a fire in the human spirit. it had to have taken more than royal decree or outright servitude to get a st. chapelle or a notre-dame built.
but, for every cathedral in the world, a million or more people have been killed in the name of the very same jesus, so something's wrong with the picture, and my theory is this:
the story of jesus, confusing and illogical and historically specious and supernatural as it is, is literally true (or mostly so), and it was spread by the writers of the gospels in an effort to see just how far the human psyche would stretch to embrace such wonderment, knowing that if they bought it, and you could claim a lineage to that wondrous time, you'd be able to set yourself up in the righteousness business for a good long time, and power and wealth would accrue accordingly (see the history of the catholic church, the only "official" form of christianity for 1500 years).
or,
some literary-minded guys wrote what turns out to be a great metaphor for the way life should be, with all apologies to the state of maine.
i mean, wouldn't it be great if every birth were celebrated by gifts from wise men (how about lifelong health care and a college education, you can keep the frankincense and myrrh)and every child was considered a child of god?; shouldn't we all want to share water with people from other tribes, comfort the sick and throw the money-lenders out of the temple?; and what greater gift could we give our fellow human beings than the willingness to lay down our lives for them if it eased their troubles and brought them peace?
not being cynical by nature, i vote for the metaphor and not the supernatural thriller cum mass manipulation. by the time eusebius made up the story of constantine's conversion in the 4th century, it was clear that certain people had figured out that this christianity thing had legs and could make them a whole lot of sheckels and numismas, but i don't think the poets who embellished the stories they'd heard about a nazarene rabbi imagined it would get this serious.
and, boy has it gotten serious. for every good-hearted samaritan like steve, there seems to be dozens of bitter, bigoted, violent "christians" who sound as if they'd be perfectly happy executing all the faggots, kikes, ragheads, abortionists, unionists, chinks, dopers and commies in the world. unless, of course, they all fall down on their knees and accept (or pretend to accept, because who can tell, really)the lord jesus christ as explained by jimmy swaggart, as their personal saviors. then, everything is cool, no problemo.
you can see why some of us have a problem with "the story," i'm sure.
Post a Comment