Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[sojourner]

The Catholic "church" was apostate from its inception but it was all there was as far as "Christianity was concerned at the time.

The final canon as we have it today was finalized about the year 450. There was no Roman Catholic Church until 1054, when the Great Schism finally split the two great power bases of Christianity. So, I don't see what "the Catholic Church" has to do with this particular argument. If you're referring to Constantine (which most JWs hold up to vilify), there are two facts you need to know: 1) the Council of Nicea in 325 had nothing to do with the biblical canon. 2) Constantine legitimized Christianity as the state religion, but he patently did not start the denomination of the Catholic Church.

In 1559, Pope Paul IV published the first index of books prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church. It forbade possession of Bible translations in Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish, as well as some in Latin. Any who wanted to read the Bible were told to obtain written permission from bishops or inquisitors—not an appealing prospect for those who wanted to remain above suspicion of heresy....we know where that led.

This and all that follows has nothing to do with the bible as part of the Tradition of Christianity, as we were discussing it.

So anything you can't prove is dismissed as myth and it's a waste of time presenting you with any evidence because your view is the only one scholastically sound?

Wrong. It is largely myth, with a little historical fact sprinkled in to give the stories legitimacy where the myths' place in history is concerned. It has nothing to do with "stuff we can't prove." It has everything to do with the textual continuity in the practice of what we know to be myth. These are facts and plausible hypotheses worked out by the best literary scholars long, long ago. That's called "scholarship," and it is sound. Presenting biased half-truths whose motivation is apologetics and not discovery is a waste of everyone's time.

What happened to faith, hope and love? They don't exist in the mind of cynics apparently.

"Faith, hope, and love" are instruments of apologetics, not textual and historical criticism.

 

[sojourner]

It's a shame that you don't investigate things a little more sojourner. When Jesus said this he was not dismissing what was "written". He was dismissing the Pharisees rather rigid interpretation of the law. He actually said..."you heard it was said (by the Pharisees)...but I say to you".....correcting the Pharisees is what he did on a regular basis.

He also refuted what was written.

Yes we do.....we have the first hand accounts in the scriptures......are we to take your word over theirs?

There's no evidence or reason to assume that any of the textual accounts are "firsthand." There's every evidence to suggest that they are not. You'd be wise to take the word of established biblical scholarship over the word of biased apologetics.

Matthew and John were constant companions of Jesus as his apostles.

Matthew and John the apostles didn't write Matthew and John. The biblical Matthew and John were likely illiterate, and the books were written too late for the authors to have known Jesus.

They may not have written their accounts till later, but then scripture is not the work of men....it is inspired by God.

If a man put pen to sheepskin and performed the act of writing, using his own imagination, memories, information, and organizational and linguistic skills, then men wrote the texts. "Inspiration" =/= "dictation."

It matter little to God if you believe that or not.

None of this "matters to God." But it does matter to people who read, use, believe, interpret, and exegete the texts.

Who is disputing that?

Apparently, you are, when you insist that their belief was shaped by the biblical texts (which weren't extant until long after the beliefs therein were established). You see, it's the belief that drove the texts, not the texts that shaped belief.

The designation “Hebrew” was already familiar to the Egyptians in the 18th century B.C.E. This would seem to indicate that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had become quite well known over a wide area, thus making the appellative “Hebrew” a recognizable one. When Joseph spoke of “the land of the Hebrews” (Ge 40:15) to two of Pharaoh’s servants, he doubtless referred to the region around Hebron that his father and forefathers had long made a sort of base of operations.

First of all, there's no evidence to suggest that Joseph existed -- or, in fact, that there was ever a large contingent of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Or, in fact, that there was ever a mass invasion of Hebrews into Canaan. Second, even if these stories are historical (and that's a HUGE "if"), they happened long before the year 650 b.c.e., when the writings appeared.

What has that got to do with anything?

It's got to do with dispelling the myth you're propagating, that the Jews, somehow, have always followed the written law.

God's name YHWH never meant "I Am".

We've been debating how YHWH is God's legitimate name, as presented by the term "Jehovah." You said that God gave Moses that name to give to all the people, so there's no reason why it should be "unpronounceable." My point was to show that YHWH and, hence, "Jehovah," was patently not the name that was given to all the people by Moses, but rather "I AM." So, your argument that, thereby, YHWH was to meant to be pronounced by all the people is wrong.

YHWH (Je·hoʹvah) the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wahʹ(become); meaning “He Causes to Become”

"I AM" is in the causative, and "I AM" has nothing to do with YHWH that must not be be pronounced. You're woefully confused.

Or this definition....."A name of the Hebrew God, represented in Hebrew by the tetragrammaton ("four letters") יהוה (Yod Heh Vav Heh), transliterated into Roman script Y H W H. Because it was considered blasphemous to utter the name of God it was only written and never spoken. This resulted in the original pronunciation being lost. The name may have originally been derived from the old Semitic root הוה (hawah) meaning "to be" or "to become"."

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Yahweh

Really?? Srrsly?? "Behind the Name" is the best source you've got? Wow. I... just... wow. Too bad for you, the information on this site actually works against your argument.

 

[kepha31]

The Catholic "church" was apostate from its inception but it was all there was as far as "Christianity was concerned at the time. The weeds were foretold after all. God can use anyone he wishes to accomplish his will...even his enemies. The church was the custodian of the scriptures (not the author of them) and they tried very hard to keep the scriptures out of the hands of the common man. Perhaps afraid that their views might be challenged by someone with more knowledge. Knowledge is power and they had it all.

The "inception" of the Catholic Church is well documented. If it went apostate from the beginning then you must call Jesus a liar as He promised to be with us always. See Matthew 28:20. "I shall be with you always". NOT I shall be with you went I get back from my vacation in 1931. History of the Jehovah's Witnesses | Catholic Answers
Also, there is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE of such a massive apostasy. And if you claim there were "true Christians" apart from the Catholic/Orthodox Church in the early centuries, why can't you name one? The theory that the Church destroyed all the evidence doesn't hold water; somebody would have made note of it somewhere, not dream it up 1900 years later.

"they tried very hard to keep the scriptures out of the hands of the common mam" is a flat out lie. Latin was the universal language of the time. Few people could read, and those that did knew Latin. Copies of the Bible were hand written and priceless, and chained at the back of the churches so everyone could read them. The Bibles that were forbidden to read were so full of heresies that not even Protestants today would accept them, so please get your facts straight. .

Your organization should spend it's resources on improving the community instead of attacking Catholicism with falsehoods .

 

[truthofscripture]

The "inception" of the Catholic Church is well documented. If it went apostate from the beginning then you must call Jesus a liar as He promised to be with us always. See Matthew 28:20. "I shall be with you always". NOT I shall be with you went I get back from my vacation in 1931. History of the Jehovah's Witnesses | Catholic Answers
Also, there is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE of such a massive apostasy. And if you claim there were "true Christians" apart from the Catholic/Orthodox Church in the early centuries, why can't you name one? The theory that the Church destroyed all the evidence doesn't hold water; somebody would have made note of it somewhere, not dream it up 1900 years later.

"they tried very hard to keep the scriptures out of the hands of the common mam" is a flat out lie. Latin was the universal language of the time. Few people could read, and those that did knew Latin. Copies of the Bible were hand written and priceless, and chained at the back of the churches so everyone could read them. The Bibles that were forbidden to read were so full of heresies that not even Protestants today would accept them, so please get your facts straight. .

Your organization should spend it's resources on improving the community instead of attacking Catholicism with falsehoods .

The Catholic church began in 325 a.d. at the hands of Pontifus Maximus (head of pagan religions) Constantine, who was Rome's emperor at the time. He melded pagan and Christian writings and traditions to create his "state religion", the Roman Church, soon to be the Roman Catholic Church. It was not begun in Jesus' day.

 

[JoStories]

The problem is that when interpreting ancient religious texts it all comes down to opinion, scholarly or otherwise. There aren't really any "facts" to consider.

Exactly Norman. And the bottom line is that those scholarly opinions are based on the most accurate and current verified knowledge we have right now. No one can say with 100% certianty that this was written by whomever and when. But we use the best scientific methods we have to extrapolate the best answers to this. Blindly saying that this is all my opinion is ludicrous. And furthermore, the bloody font size had nothing to do with this save its my GD eye sight, which has been told here repeatedly.

 

[sojourner]

The Catholic church began in 325 a.d. at the hands of Pontifus Maximus (head of pagan religions) Constantine, who was Rome's emperor at the time.

No, it wasn't. All Constantine did was to legitimize a church that was already in existence. Get your facts straight.

He melded pagan and Christian writings and traditions to create his "state religion", the Roman Church, soon to be the Roman Catholic Church.

There's plenty of evidence that Paul melded Pagan and Judaic concepts in the very scriptural writings that you revere as being "from God." We have writings from pre-Constantine. They are no different from those post-Constantine.

It was not begun in Jesus' day.

Of course, you're right. The denomination wasn't begun until 1054, with the Great Schism. But the church had begun with the Jesus Movement, and coalesced into centers of political and monetary power -- namely Rome and Byzantium.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The designation “Hebrew” was already familiar to the Egyptians in the 18th century B.C.E. This would seem to indicate that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had become quite well known over a wide area, thus making the appellative “Hebrew” a recognizable one. When Joseph spoke of “the land of the Hebrews” (Ge 40:15) to two of Pharaoh’s servants, he doubtless referred to the region around Hebron that his father and forefathers had long made a sort of base of operations.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mythic figures, not historical ones. Our only account of them is by Hebrews who are actively constructing their own cultural identity by projecting their present sense of self backwards in time. If they were literally real and well known over a wide geographic area one would expect some mention of them.

As for the Egyptians, it may be that the Shasu Yehu (of the 15th century BCE) are the Hebrews, or a group of Moabite and/or Edomite tribes that would later move into the area and become the Hebrews. And Moab and Edom are two of the places where worship of Yahweh is thought to originate. Still, we don't get first-hand references to Hebrews as distinct from other Canaanites until the early iron age, which is when Hebrew literature appears to have begun as a phenomenon. It's also when the founding myths start to take shape.

Six centuries later the Philistines still spoke of the Israelites as “Hebrews.” During the time of King Saul “Hebrews” and “Israel” were equivalent terms. (1Sa 13:3-7; 14:11; 29:3)

We have no record of what the Philistines called them. We only have a record of what later Jewish authors said that they called them, which is rather like looking at the Iliad as evidence of what words actual Trojans used.

... the book of Jeremiah (in the seventh century B.C.E.) shows the term “Hebrew” to be then the equivalent of “Jew.”—Jer 34:8, 9, 13, 14.

Jews often used them as roughly synonymous, since they regarded themselves as the true inheritors of Hebrew culture. However, Samaritans have equal claim to that designation. And various non-Jewish Hebrew peoples who might have existed but didn't survive as such.

It's also worth noting that the use of "Hebrew" could be rather cavalier by the Roman period. For example, they often referred to the Aramaic language as "Hebrew," since it's what Jews spoke, not because it's even particularly closely related to Hebrew, as Semitic languages go.

 

[JayJayDee]

The final canon as we have it today was finalized about the year 450. There was no Roman Catholic Church until 1054, when the Great Schism finally split the two great power bases of Christianity. So, I don't see what "the Catholic Church" has to do with this particular argument. If you're referring to Constantine (which most JWs hold up to vilify), there are two facts you need to know: 1) the Council of Nicea in 325 had nothing to do with the biblical canon. 2) Constantine legitimized Christianity as the state religion, but he patently did not start the denomination of the Catholic Church.

This and all that follows has nothing to do with the bible as part of the Tradition of Christianity, as we were discussing it.

Since "Christianity" has everything to do with belief in the Bible...it is very much a part of the discussion. Jesus himself foretold that Christianity would be infiltrated by imposters who would look for all the world like the real thing initially. Small beginnings led to monumental changes, but gradually introduced over time as the weeds grew. Gradualism works as we all know. Since what we have today is the only Christianity that people have ever known, they are not aware of just how far they are removed from the Christianity that Jesus taught.

In the first-century Christian congregation, there were no class distinctions. (Matt 23:8-12)
By the second century, a hierarchy of bishops and presbyters had come into existence, resulting in a separation of clergy and laity.
Next, such pagan doctrines as the Trinity, the immortality of the soul, and hellfire came to be accepted by those who claimed to be Christians. (2 Cor 6:14-18)
Then, in 313 C.E., Roman Emperor Constantine ordered that this apostate form of Christianity be recognized as a lawful religion.
By the end of the fourth century, the “Christian” Church, which was actively meddling in politics, was promoted to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, and it became known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Those I believe are the facts, no matter what the church says.

Wrong. It is largely myth, with a little historical fact sprinkled in to give the stories legitimacy where the myths' place in history is concerned. It has nothing to do with "stuff we can't prove." It has everything to do with the textual continuity in the practice of what we know to be myth.

What is "myth" is a matter of opinion. Many myths have a basis in fact, but somewhat embellished by human imagination over time. Just because something was relegated to a myth doesn't mean there was not some truth in its essence.
The Genesis account of the flood is very likely the basis for Greek mythology with its gods and demi-gods. Their licentious and violent activities are also reflected in the account.

These are facts and plausible hypotheses worked out by the best literary scholars long, long ago. That's called "scholarship," and it is sound. Presenting biased half-truths whose motivation is apologetics and not discovery is a waste of everyone's time.

That might be true except that many of those scholars were blind in their own bias towards Christendom's doctrines.
Forcing scripture to say what you want to believe is an art form for Christendom. They count on the fact that the majority of their adherents are Biblically illiterate. They can cite a verse or two that seem to support their doctrines, but knowledge of what the whole Bible teaches, soon dismisses their errors.

It has been an introduced notion over the centuries that the priest or minister knows it all for his flock, and that somehow let's them off from having to know much at all......just show up for a Bible reading that is never explained and some meaningless ritual and make sure you bring your money to pay your way into heaven.

"Faith, hope, and love" are instruments of apologetics, not textual and historical criticism.

Without those qualities, which are a by-product of God's holy spirit...you have no Christianity....no church....and therefore no relationship with God. (Heb 11:6) You can keep your textural criticism for what its worth at the end of the day......whatever you envision that to be.

 

[gnostic]

Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

Plenty.

Just to name a few, in the NT gospels:

• Different versions to Jesus' birth.
• Different genealogies in 2 gospel.
• Was Mary Magdalene alone with other woman/women?
• John's tell a different version to Mark's and Matthew's of what happened in the Bethany supper episode.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Since "Christianity" has everything to do with belief in the Bible...it is very much a part of the discussion.

Christianity is older than the Christian scriptures. If it weren't, then they would never have been written in the first place. To say that there can't be Christians until after there are Christian writings for them to believe in is to posit a time paradox that even Doctor Who couldn't make sense of.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus himself foretold that Christianity would be infiltrated by imposters

NO

Only an author claimed that who never met Jesus.

In the first-century Christian congregation, there were no class distinctions.

Not true

There was no orthodoxy at all.

By the second century, a hierarchy of bishops and presbyters had come into existence, resulting in a separation of clergy and laity.

No there was not. There were many groups with diverse beliefs. Look at all the pseudepigrapha that comes out of this period.

 

[JayJayDee]

Plenty.

Just to name a few, in the NT gospels

• Different versions to Jesus' birth.
• Different genealogies in 2 gospel.
• Was Mary Magdalene alone with other woman/women?
• John's tell a different version to Mark's and Matthew's of what happened in the Bethany supper episode.

Specifics please...let's address them individually......and then we will conclude how earth shattering these "differences" may be to the overall Christian message.....

 

[JayJayDee]

Christianity is older than the Christian scriptures. If it weren't, then they would never have been written in the first place. To say that there can't be Christians until after there are Christian writings for them to believe in is to posit a time paradox that even Doctor Who couldn't make sense of.

Where have I said this?

"Scripture" in the first century is not what scripture became after the Christian Bible was completed.
The Bible we have today is the sum of all scripture, not just the NT, but incorporating all we need to know from beginning to end. It takes us from creation to a thousand years into the future. It is now complete...we need nothing more. (1 Cor 13:9, 10)

Jesus and his apostles used the Hebrew Scriptures as a basis for all they taught. The Christian scriptures add weight to everything that is taught about Jesus and his role as Messiah. We have the complete word of God to show us the way to life....accept it or reject it....it's up to the individual.

 

[gnostic]

Specifics please...let's address them individually......and then we will conclude how earth shattering these "differences" may be to the overall Christian message.....

I am sure that you know each of the events I am talking about, quite well, better than I do.

But, I will play along...but please know that it is morning, and I have just woken up, so I won't give you chapter numbers and verse numbers, yet, but I am quite sure you will have no problem remembering what I am talking about.

So let's begin with the supper at Bethany.

From memory, both Mark and Matthew (gospels) say that this event in Bethany took place in the home of Simon the Leper, but in John's it took place at Lazarus'. In the former, the woman who pour perfume on Jesus was unnamed, but in the later, it is Lazarus' sister Mary Magdalene. Again, in the former, she anointed the perfume on Jesus' head, while the later say Mary poured it on Jesus' feet. Now I don't which gospel wrote what, but one say only Judas Iscariot complained about the wasted money and Jesus rebuked him, but in the other version, all of Jesus' disciples complained about the wasted expensive perfume.

Clearly both version are telling of same event in Bethany, but the finer details are contradictory.

How would you account for the discrepancies in the 2 versions?

Now, while awaiting your reply, I need to wash my face, and get make my morning cup of coffee. So excuse me.

 

[Vishvavajra]

"Scripture" in the first century is not what scripture became after the Christian Bible was completed.
The Bible we have today is the sum of all scripture, not just the NT, but incorporating all we need to know from beginning to end. It takes us from creation to a thousand years into the future. It is now complete...we need nothing more. (1 Cor 13:9, 10)

First of all, that passage in 1 Corinthians you cite has nothing to do with what you're talking about here.

Secondly, there's nothing about a thousand years in the future in the Bible. That belief comes from not knowing how to read apocalyptic literature and thinking that Revelation is a set of predictions about the future, when in fact it's all about the present (from the perspective of the author).

And that's a good example of how you do need more. In this case you need some outside knowledge in order to know how to read this stuff and not come to erroneous conclusions because you don't know the context.

No good has ever come from people's reading the Bible as if it were the sole guidebook to life, the universe, and everything. A whole lot of monstrosity has resulted from that view, however.

 

[JayJayDee]

I am sure that you know each of the events I am talking about, quite well, better than I do.

But, I will play along...but please know that it is morning, and I have just woken up, so I won't give you chapter numbers and verse numbers, yet, but I am quite sure you will have no problem remembering what I am talking about.

Are you in Aus? I am enjoying a beautiful Sunday morning here.

So let's begin with the supper at Bethany.

From memory, both Mark and Matthew (gospels) say that this event in Bethany took place in the home of Simon the Leper, but in John's it took place at Lazarus'. In the former, the woman who pour perfume on Jesus was unnamed, but in the later, it is Lazarus' sister Mary Magdalene. Again, in the former, she anointed the perfume on Jesus' head, while the later say Mary poured it on Jesus' feet. Now I don't which gospel wrote what, but one say only Judas Iscariot complained about the wasted money and Jesus rebuked him, but in the other version, all of Jesus' disciples complained about the wasted expensive perfume.

Clearly both version are telling of same event in Bethany, but the finer details are contradictory.

From Matthew's account....

6 While Jesus was in Bethʹa·ny in the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil approached him, and she began pouring it on his head as he was dining. 8 On seeing this, the disciples became indignant and said: “Why this waste? 9 For this could have been sold for a great deal of money and given to the poor.”10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them: “Why do you try to make trouble for the woman? She did a fine deed toward me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 12 When she put this perfumed oil on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.13 Truly I say to you, wherever this good news is preached in all the world, what this woman did will also be told in memory of her.”

Mark's account....

"And while he was at Bethʹa·ny dining in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil, genuine nard, very expensive. She broke open the alabaster jar and began pouring it on his head. 4 At this some said to one another indignantly: “Why has this perfumed oil been wasted? 5 For this perfumed oil could have been sold for more than 300 de·narʹi·i and the money given to the poor!” And they were greatly annoyed with her. 6 But Jesus said: “Let her alone. Why do you try to make trouble for her? She did a fine deed toward me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and you can do them good whenever you want to, but you will not always have me. 8 She did what she could; she poured perfumed oil on my body beforehand, in view of the burial. 9 Truly I say to you, wherever the good news is preached in all the world,+ what this woman did will also be told in memory of her.”

John's account.....

"12 Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethʹa·ny, where Lazʹa·rus was, whom Jesus had raised up from the dead. 2 So they spread an evening meal for him there, and Martha was serving them, but Lazʹa·rus was one of those dining with him. 3 Then Mary took a pound* of perfumed oil, genuine nard, very costly, and she poured it on the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet dry with her hair. The house became filled with the scent of the perfumed oil. 4 But Judas Is·carʹi·ot, one of his disciples, who was about to betray him, said: 5 “Why was this perfumed oil not sold for 300 de·narʹi·i and given to the poor?” 6 He said this, though, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief and had the money box and used to steal the money put in it. 7 Then Jesus said: “Let her alone, so that she may keep this observance in view of the day of my burial. 8 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.”

How would you account for the discrepancies in the 2 versions?

Now compare the accounts.....Bethany was where Lazarus and his sisters, Mary and Martha lived. Since it was a meal shared by Christ's and his apostles, perhaps the meal was shared also with other Christians, though Lazarus himself was not present. It appears as if they are gathered at the home of Simon the leper though John does not mention him by name.

The "Mary" who anointed Jesus for death was apparently Lazarus' sister, not Mary Magdalene.

Do you see anything in the accounts that would destroy any teaching of Jesus?

Now, while awaiting your reply, I need to wash my face, and get make my morning cup of coffee. So excuse me.

Hope you enjoyed your coffee.....

 

[gnostic]

Are you in Aus? I am enjoying a beautiful Sunday morning here.

Yes.

I forgot to put my clock back one hour, last night.

 

[gnostic]

The "Mary" who anointed Jesus for death was apparently Lazarus' sister, not Mary Magdalene.

You're right. Like I said before, I had just got up, and I really meant Mary of Bethany, not Mary Magdalene. Sorry.

But you still haven't account for the discrepancies of why they are different.

Simon is never mentioned at all in John's. While Lazarus (and his sisters) were never mentioned in Mark's and Matthew's.

And more importantly, Mark and Matthew say it was Jesus' head that got anointed, not his feet in John's. Two gospels are saying one thing, the 3rd gospel saying something else. Isn't that contradiction?

There is a 4th account, in which the host Simon the Pharisee, complained about the pertinent woman, who washed his feet with perfume and tears, and this seemed to have taken place in Galilee, not Bethany in Judaea. Different towns, different hosts, different people complaining about different women wasting expensive perfume, but the similarities are the same.

Hope you enjoyed your coffee.....

Danke.

 

[JayJayDee]

First of all, that passage in 1 Corinthians you cite has nothing to do with what you're talking about here.

It has a lot to do with it actually. You don't seem to take God into account in anything. I take him into account in everything.

Secondly, there's nothing about a thousand years in the future in the Bible. That belief comes from not knowing how to read apocalyptic literature and thinking that Revelation is a set of predictions about the future, when in fact it's all about the present (from the perspective of the author).

Yes there is. Christ reigns for a thousand years after his return. That is a thousand years into the future not a thousand years of the present.....unless of course you believe that Christ's kingdom is ruling the world at present. The kingdom does not rule except by taking the reigns off the devil by force. He will not relinquish his rulership without a fight. (Dan 2:44; 1John 5:19)

And that's a good example of how you do need more. In this case you need some outside knowledge in order to know how to read this stuff and not come to erroneous conclusions because you don't know the context.

On the contrary...we need inside knowledge. There are only two tables at which to feed, according to scripture....."the table of Jehovah or the table of demons". Most people have no idea which is which, since the food looks about the same, but one is death dealing. (1 Cor 10:20, 21) We are told to accept our food from only one source.....a "faithful slave" who was appointed by Jesus himself to "feed" his household of fellow slaves, their "food at the proper time". (Matt 24:45, 46)

We are not told to feed ourselves or to eat "food" from any other table.

No good has ever come from people's reading the Bible as if it were the sole guidebook to life, the universe, and everything. A whole lot of monstrosity has resulted from that view, however.

You are right...no good comes from reading the Bible without guidance from the slave that Jesus appointed. That is why no one outside of that household has a clue. Spiritual malnutrition is seen everywhere.

I know you will dispute this vigorously and rely on Christendom's learned scholars to sort through the maze, but look at the divided state of Christendom!.....it is proof positive that they are hopelessly lost because of feeding at the wrong table.

 

[JayJayDee]

But you still haven't account for the discrepancies of why they are different.

Simon is never mentioned at all in John's. While Lazarus (and his sisters) were never mentioned in Mark's and Matthew's.

Can you imagine the size of the Bible if every detail of what happened to Jesus was recorded? They could all have happened, but one records one detail while another records a different aspect. Only about 10% of Jesus life and ministry is recorded in the gospels....that leaves a lot of detail unrecorded....90% of what he did and said and what happened in the detail is unknown....so anything is possible.

And more importantly, Mark and Matthew say it was Jesus' head that got anointed, not his feet in John's. Two gospels are saying one thing, the 3rd gospel saying something else. Isn't that contradiction?

Again, it's about detail and what was included and what wasn't. The Bible is not a dictation....it was inspired by God not dictated by him word for word. (2 Tim 3:16, 17)

There is a 4th account, in which the host Simon the Pharisee, complained about the pertinent woman, who washed his feet with perfume and tears, and this seemed to have taken place in Galilee, not Bethany in Judaea. Different towns, different hosts, different people complaining about different women wasting expensive perfume, but the similarities are the same.

Luke's account...

36 Now a certain one of the Pharisees kept asking him to dine with him. Accordingly he entered into the house of the Pharisee and reclined at the table. 37 And, look! a woman who was known in the city to be a sinner learned that he was reclining at a meal in the house of the Pharisee, and she brought an alabaster case of perfumed oil, 38 and, taking a position behind at his feet, she wept and started to wet his feet with her tears and she would wipe them off with the hair of her head. Also, she tenderly kissed his feet and greased them with the perfumed oil. 39 At the sight the Pharisee that invited him said within himself: “This man, if he were a prophet, would know who and what kind of woman it is that is touching him, that she is a sinner.”

The people in this scenario are not named. The story is similar but there is nothing to connect them really. The woman in this story is a sinner, not named. Mary, in the other account is not a sinner. The Pharisee is not named either so nothing to connect him to Simon the leper. And the rebuke is given by the Pharisee, not by Judas. Nothing is mentioned about the apostles in this account.

Anointing Jesus for death was a symbolic gesture perhaps performed by two women on two different occasions?

Read the account and see for yourself. You will find what you are looking for......it's "what" you are looking for that determines what that is.

Danke.

I can't drink coffee any more.... Gives me reflux really bad.......I miss it. Have one for me.