That, as I said, there are at least five distinct versions of Jesus in the NT, and three entirely different models: Jesus adopted (and not of the line of David) , Jesus pre-existing in heaven and creating the universe, and Jesus born of divine insemination.
I mean that that the author of Mark never thinks it relevant to name Jesus' parents. Mary by name and the specification of her virginity appear only in Matthew and Luke, not in Paul, Mark or John.
In Mark, his mother is no different (Mark 3:31), from which we see she too is taken by surprise ─ which she would not have been had Jesus' birth been subject to divine annunciations and wonders. (This touches on the curious fact, that in all four gospels, Jesus speaks of his mother only in harsh terms (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3) the sole exception being John 19:26-27.)
Because it's an accurate summary of the gospels ─ the Jesuses of Paul, Matthew, Luke and John are said to be of the line of David, but the Jesus of Mark is said not to be of the line of David ─ I gave you the reference.
I'm saying it's obvious: Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus (as a plain reading of it in its context makes clear); that 'almah' in Hebrew does not mean 'virgin' but 'young woman' (whether a virgin or not); that the translators of the LXX rendered 'almah into Greek as parthenos, 'virgin'; that this caused the authors of Matthew and of Luke to rewrite Mark so as to claim Mary was a virgin; and the author of Matthew to invent the unhistorical "census" and the unhistorical "massacre of the innocents" ─ and so on.
What I see though are the arguments of one who does not believe what is written in the Bible to be truthful, or authentic, and that has no relation at all to the thread, It is quite related though to a thread which considers the question, "Can the Bible be trusted?" "Why trust the Bible?" or something along those lines.
Would you agree?
This conversation arose from the question of how to read ancient documents. I was illustrating the point with biblical examples. If you start another thread on that topic, please let me know.
Thanks for clarifying.
Baptism in symbol of repentance of sins - not a washing away of sins. Jehovah is the one who forgives, or washes away sins, according to the scriptures.
Did the scriptures say Jesus got baptized to wash away his sins, or to repent of his sins? No. The scriptures do not say that. However, it does say this...
"He himself bore our sins in his own body on the stake, so that we might die to sins and live to righteousness. And “by his wounds you were healed.” (1 Peter 2:24) The one who did not know sin, he made to be sin for us, so that by means of him we might become God’s righteousness. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Compare Leviticus 16:21, and Isaiah 53 - Specifically verses 10-12)
He carried the sin of many people, And he interceded for the transgressors.
Bearing the sins of many, he gave his life as a corresponding ransom in exchange for many, to set us free from sin and death. For no man could pay the ransom, but the sinless man, Christ.
(Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6; Titus 2:13, 14; Hebrews 9:28)
Yes, the scriptures speak for themselves, don't they.
That, as I said, there are at least five distinct versions of Jesus in the NT, and three entirely different models: Jesus adopted (and not of the line of David) , Jesus pre-existing in heaven and creating the universe, and Jesus born of divine insemination.
You'll need to be more specific, because I can't read what you have in mind, and I don't see what you are seeing. So please explain each of the differences with the use of scripture.
As far as scripture goes, Jesus took on various roles, but I fail to see any point in what you are saying.
A father of a household takes on different roles. How does that make him a different person? It does not. Does it.
I mean that that the author of Mark never thinks it relevant to name Jesus' parents. Mary by name and the specification of her virginity appear only in Matthew and Luke, not in Paul, Mark or John.
Uhmm... So?
Mark 6:1-4 . . . and most who heard him were astounded and said... This is the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, is it not?
As I said, I don't make this stuff up, That's the point of setting out the texts.
In Mark, his mother is no different (Mark 3:31), from which we see she too is taken by surprise ─ which she would not have been had Jesus' birth been subject to divine annunciations and wonders. (This touches on the curious fact, that in all four gospels, Jesus speaks of his mother only in harsh terms (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3) the sole exception being John 19:26-27.)
Did you just say his mother was not exercising faith in him?
The scriptures do not say that, but one may come to the conclusion that Mary might have been grieved at the loss of her husband, and wanted her older son's support, and was not as spiritually focused as she used to be.
However, that is pure speculation, and since you are a man that claims to believe in reality, and not fantasy, I am going to overlook the fact that you are doing quite a bit of speculating, and fantasizing, in order to believe something.
Let's move on from make beliefs then, shall we.
Because it's an accurate summary of the gospels ─ the Jesuses of Paul, Matthew, Luke and John are said to be of the line of David, but the Jesus of Mark is said not to be of the line of David ─ I gave you the reference.
I'm saying it's obvious: Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus (as a plain reading of it in its context makes clear); that 'almah' in Hebrew does not mean 'virgin' but 'young woman' (whether a virgin or not); that the translators of the LXX rendered 'almah into Greek as parthenos, 'virgin'; that this caused the authors of Matthew and of Luke to rewrite Mark so as to claim Mary was a virgin; and the author of Matthew to invent the unhistorical "census" and the unhistorical "massacre of the innocents" ─ and so on.
This conversation arose from the question of how to read ancient documents. I was illustrating the point with biblical examples. If you start another thread on that topic, please let me know.
How to read ancient documents?
Yes. From the very beginning of the thread that was demonstrated.
In fact, it was clearly demonstrated by way of actual examples, both in post #28, and the beginning of this post.
Both show, that a complete use of scripture should be executed, rather than picking one, part, to argue an idea.
When one takes an overall look at the scriptures, the scriptures speak for themselves by contradicting, and showing to be false, any ideas created in opposition to it, but supporting truths found throughout its writings.
That does not mean that skeptics will change their position, and submit to the truth, but the truths in the Bible do not depend on the approval of any man - far less, skeptics.
Thanks for clarifying.
Baptism in symbol of repentance of sins - not a washing away of sins. Jehovah is the one who forgives, or washes away sins, according to the scriptures.
We're talking about the author of Mark's take on this matter. I haven't checked the others on baptism, but they disagree on many things, and possibly that's one of them.
In my opinion, that's exactly what they say. Mark is the first purported biography of Jesus (whereas Paul's earthly bio of Jesus can be set out in one or two lines). Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew before God adopts him, not even a Jewish king as David was. He didn't pre-exist in heaven and wasn't the result of divine insemination; why would he not have the same concerns as any other human in that culture, at least up to the time of his adoption?
I think Mark does. Not until the authors of Matthew and of Luke rewrite the scene is Jesus portrayed as sinless. (A similar sequence of improvements can be seen across the four crucifixion scenes, where Mark's Jesus is a despairing and defeated man, Matthew's is a little less gloomy, Luke's is more confident and drops the 'Why have you forsaken me?' line, and John's Jesus is more like the MC of the crucifixion than the victim.)
However, it does say this... "He himself bore our sins in his own body on the stake, so that we might die to sins and live to righteousness. And “by his wounds you were healed.” (1 Peter 2:24)
Well, the unknown author of Peter says that, but Mark doesn't. As I say, there are at least five versions of Jesus in the NT. I can see no basis for insisting the different authors must be read as agreeing with each other, when plainly they often don't.
Model 1. Mark's version: Jesus is an ordinary Jew until his baptism at which point he becomes the son of God by adoption.
Model 2: Matthew's version: Jesus has to be born of a virgin because of the use of 'parthenos' in LXX Isaiah 7:14. Jesus is thus the result of the divine insemination of Mary. Luke agrees.
Model 3. Paul's and John's version: Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God from the start, created the material universe, came to earth and was born but with no particulars of his birth or early days (though saying he was of the line of David). This model fits the gnostic view, with Jesus as the demiurge.
Is that clear enough? The relevant passages are all cited in my previous posts, but if you need them again, just ask.
Mark 6:1-4 . . . and most who heard him were astounded and said... This is the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, is it not?
In Mark she's wondering what her son's got up to. She has no idea he was destined to become God's messiah. And Jesus is rude about her and his family. And as the passages I mentioned show, every time he mentions her it's in aggressive language, with the sole exception of John's crucifixion scene.
35 [...] "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
36 David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.' 37 David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?"
How do you figure that's a claim by Jesus to be descended from David?
You put the versions side by side, you see what they agree on, and what they disagree on. You don't alter or misread, or avoid mentioning disagreements ─ they're how you learn what each author thought.
To take a usual example, there are six accounts of the resurrection in the NT, if we include Paul's brief mentions and the verse or two in Acts 1. None is by an eyewitness, none is by an independent witness, Paul's brief mentions are at least 20 years, and Mark's (the earliest of the rest) at least 40 years after the purported event. Each of the six accounts contradicts the other five ─ the point being that if you try to turn that into a single account, instead of having six incompatible accounts you now have seven.
I believe saying the scriptures are their own interpreatation does not guarantee God's point of view. That is why I rely on the Holy Spirit for God's point of view.
That's an interesting way to start a discussion.
I suppose there must be depth of meaning to the question though.
So to answer, one does not need to be God, in order to know what God communicates to us.
Do you believe that to be the case... Why?
Do you believe God lives... Why?
You don't think we have to be God, in order to know if he lives, do you?
We're talking about the author of Mark's take on this matter. I haven't checked the others on baptism, but they disagree on many things, and possibly that's one of them.
In my opinion, that's exactly what they say. Mark is the first purported biography of Jesus (whereas Paul's earthly bio of Jesus can be set out in one or two lines). Mark's Jesus is an ordinary Jew before God adopts him, not even a Jewish king as David was. He didn't pre-exist in heaven and wasn't the result of divine insemination; why would he not have the same concerns as any other human in that culture, at least up to the time of his adoption?
I think Mark does. Not until the authors of Matthew and of Luke rewrite the scene is Jesus portrayed as sinless. (A similar sequence of improvements can be seen across the four crucifixion scenes, where Mark's Jesus is a despairing and defeated man, Matthew's is a little less gloomy, Luke's is more confident and drops the 'Why have you forsaken me?' line, and John's Jesus is more like the MC of the crucifixion than the victim.)
Well, the unknown author of Peter says that, but Mark doesn't. As I say, there are at least five versions of Jesus in the NT. I can see no basis for insisting the different authors must be read as agreeing with each other, when plainly they often don't.
No, we're concerned with what Mark, the first version, says.
Here it is again.
Model 1. Mark's version: Jesus is an ordinary Jew until his baptism at which point he becomes the son of God by adoption.
Model 2: Matthew's version: Jesus has to be born of a virgin because of the use of 'parthenos' in LXX Isaiah 7:14. Jesus is thus the result of the divine insemination of Mary. Luke agrees.
Model 3. Paul's and John's version: Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God from the start, created the material universe, came to earth and was born but with no particulars of his birth or early days (though saying he was of the line of David). This model fits the gnostic view, with Jesus as the demiurge.
Is that clear enough? The relevant passages are all cited in my previous posts, but if you need them again, just ask.
Ouch! Ya got me! I've given myself an hour's extra homework.
In Mark she's wondering what her son's got up to. She has no idea he was destined to become God's messiah. And Jesus is rude about her and his family. And as the passages I mentioned show, every time he mentions her it's in aggressive language, with the sole exception of John's crucifixion scene.
That's the passage I cited, yes:
35 [...] "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
36 David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.' 37 David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?"
How do you figure that's a claim by Jesus to be descended from David?
No, that's not how you do it.
You put the versions side by side, you see what they agree on, and what they disagree on. You don't alter or misread, or avoid mentioning disagreements ─ they're how you learn what each author thought.
To take a usual example, there are six accounts of the resurrection in the NT, if we include Paul's brief mentions and the verse or two in Acts 1. None is by an eyewitness, none is by an independent witness, Paul's brief mentions are at least 20 years, and Mark's (the earliest of the rest) at least 40 years after the purported event. Each of the six accounts contradicts the other five ─ the point being that if you try to turn that into a single account, instead of having six incompatible accounts you now have seven.
I'm sorry. If you are not willing to consider all scripture, you have already closed the door on your foot. That will only cause excruciating pain. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17
You can't pick and choose one part of the Bible, or one book, and ignore the rest.
That's equivalent to a magistrate siting in court and saying, "I do not want to hear what the others have to say, I only want to hear this."
He obviously is not interested in facts or truth... just what he wants to hear, so that he can judge unfairly.
Let me know when you are serious about facts. Then we can talk.
I'm sorry. If you are not willing to consider all scripture, you have already closed the door on your foot. That will only cause excruciating pain. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17
You can't pick and choose one part of the Bible, or one book, and ignore the rest.
That's equivalent to a magistrate siting in court and saying, "I do not want to hear what the others have to say, I only want to hear this."
He obviously is not interested in facts or truth... just what he wants to hear, so that he can judge unfairly.
Let me know when you are serious about facts. Then we can talk.
The method you propose is designed to serve a purpose other than the understanding of history.
The bible is not a single work. It's a set of books each written by one or more humans, further edited by one or more humans, collected by humans (at the expense of other books not collected), and all done at different times and places by different people for different purposes.
The bible can inform us about ancient thought, ancient politics, sometimes some authentic history, sometimes just glimpses of it, sometimes just story. It can help us roughly trace the history of Yahweh from one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon c.1500 BCE to the Christian schism.
But if we insist that a set of ancient documents must say what we want them to say, instead of what their respective authors intended to convey, and why, then we pervert our own understanding of our past. And we are the losers in that process.
I have often heard it said, when it comes to the Bible, "it's just a matter of interpretation." Is that true though?
I would say, there are some things in the Bible, we cannot be dogmatic about, and just have to leave alone, where arguments are concerned,
However, for the vast majority of scripture, is clear enough that one can get God's view, rather than the idea of interpretation.
In this case, one is really applying the truth as explained by the words of Joseph. “Do not interpretations belong to God? Genesis 40:8
Yes. To me, interpretation belongs to God, when it come to his sayings. In other words, he reveals the truth. How does he do that? In two way, according to scripture.
One is through his written word.
For example, Suppose we asked a question...
We may get a variety of opinions, each claiming that their interpretation is just as valid as another person's interpretation.
I believe by doing this, they leave God out. They do not value his interpretation.
I believe that God's word provides the correct interpretation, so I let the word interpret the scripture I am considering, and adjust my understanding to fit God's interpretation. This is the stance of JWs.
So let's ask a question - "How does God view Religious People and other People of the Nations?"
The Bibles says God chooses those whom will represent him... through whom he would reach others. Going way back (1513 - 1473 B.C.E... *
Moses and Aaron ... and Joshua
Exodus 4:14-16)
Jehovah said to Moses, “What about your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he can speak very well. So you must speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with you and him as you speak, and I will teach you men what to do. He will speak for you to the people, and he will be your spokesman, and you will serve as God to him.
(Joshua 1:1-9) After the death of Moses the servant of Jehovah, Jehovah said to Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses: “Moses my servant is dead. Now get up... I will give you every place on which you set your foot, just as I promised Moses. No one will be able to take a stand against you as long as you live. Just as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.
(Joshua 6:27) Jehovah was with Joshua, and his fame spread through all the earth.
Some listened to God's representatives. Some refused to listen.
(Exodus 4:21-23; Exodus 5:1, 2) Afterward, Moses and Aaron went in and said to Pharaoh: “This is what Jehovah the God of Israel says, ‘Send my people away so that they may celebrate a festival to me in the wilderness.’” But Pharaoh said: “Who is Jehovah, that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all, and what is more, I will not send Israel away.”
... as well as some others.
However, the people of Israel did listen... at least initially.
(Exodus 4:30, 31) Aaron told them all the words that Jehovah had spoken to Moses, and he performed the signs before the eyes of the people. At this the people believed. When they heard that Jehovah had turned his attention to the Israelites and that he had seen their affliction, they bowed down and prostrated themselves.
Those who acknowledged and listened to God's representatives benefited.
The Gibeonites (Joshua 9:8-11)
Rahab - a harlot, with her entire family. (Joshua 2:1-13)
Rahab demonstrated that she knew whom God's representatives were.
But the woman took the two men and hid them.
Before the men lay down to sleep, she came up to them on the roof. She said to the men: “I do know that Jehovah will give you the land and that the fear of you has fallen upon us. All the inhabitants of the land are disheartened because of you, for we heard how Jehovah dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you left Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites, Siʹhon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction on the other side of the Jordan. When we heard about it, we lost heart, and no one has any courage because of you, for Jehovah your God is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. Now, please, swear to me by Jehovah that, because I showed loyal love to you, you will also show loyal love to my father’s household; and you must give me a sign of good faith. You must spare the lives of my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them, and you must save us from death.”
There were no benefits to those who did not acknowledge God's representatives, They were cursed, rejected, and destroyed.
(Exodus 14:26-31)
The Egyptians fled, but Jehovah shook the Egyptians off into the midst of the sea.
But the Israelites walked on dry ground in the midst of the seabed, and the waters formed a wall on their right hand and on their left. Thus Jehovah saved Israel on that day from the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. Israel also saw the great power that Jehovah wielded against the Egyptians, and the people began to fear Jehovah and to put faith in Jehovah and in his servant Moses.
(Joshua 10:20, 21) After Joshua and the Israelites had finished inflicting a very great slaughter on them, to the point of wiping them out except for some survivors who escaped and entered into the fortified cities, all the people returned safely to Joshua at the camp at Makkedah. Not a man dared to utter a word against the Israelites.
Noteworthy, is the fact that those who did not acknowledge God's representative, and listen to them, came to that realization, but it was too late for them.
The era that followed, is especially important because, this is the Cristian congregation, made up of Jesus followers, of whom he made this promise to, before leaving the earth... "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Matthew 28:19, 20) Jesus also said, "And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:14)
So this is vitally important.
First Century Christian Era - 33 - 70 C.E. God chose his representatives, and made it plain for all to see. (Acts 2:1-13, 43-47)
The Christian congregation was his means of reaching people in all the world. Notice...
(Acts 8:26-40) However, Jehovah’s angel spoke to Philip, saying: “Get up and go to the south to the road that runs down from Jerusalem to Gaza.”
With that he got up and went, and look! an Ethiopian eunuch, a man who had authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, and who was in charge of all her treasure. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and he was returning and was sitting in his chariot, reading aloud the prophet Isaiah. So the spirit said to Philip: “Go over and approach this chariot.” Philip ran alongside and heard him reading aloud Isaiah the prophet, and he said: “Do you actually know what you are reading?” He said: “Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” So he urged Philip to get on and sit down with him.
Now as they were going along the road, they came to a body of water, and the eunuch said: “Look! Here is water; what prevents me from getting baptized?” With that he commanded the chariot to halt, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
Acts 10 Now there was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, an army officer in what was called the Italian unit. He was a devout man who feared God together with all his household, and he made many gifts of mercy to the people and made supplication to God continually. About the ninth hour of the day, he saw plainly in a vision an angel of God come in to him and say: “Cornelius! ... Your prayers and gifts of mercy have ascended as a remembrance before God. So now send men to Joppa and summon a man named Simon who is called Peter. This man is staying as a guest with Simon, a tanner who has a house by the sea.” As soon as the angel who spoke to him left, he called two of his servants and a devout soldier from among those who were his attendants, and he related everything to them and sent them to Joppa.
*For brevity, I compressed the texts.
When we consider these scriptures, what is the Bible's answer - not our interpretation.
God chooses his representatives, and uses them to reach others.
God directs, even people who believe in him, or have a spiritual inclination, to those representatives, or he sends his representative to those persons.. as we saw in the case of Cornelius, and the Ethiopian.
We notice that even though Cornelius and the Eunuch were both god fearing, they still were directed to the Christian congregation, where they were helped to understand things clearly, and do things in line with God's arrangement. They did not hesitate to act, just as Paul did, when blinded on the road.
We also have the example with the prophets and Jesus, and his apostles.
So God's view then, according to the Bible (Thanks @Tambourine) , is that he has a people, whom he chose, and uses to help others gain blessing and salvation. Those who do not accept those representatives, lose out on those blessings.
Anyone can be saved, by submitting to the way God chooses to do things. to do otherwise, results in no blessings at all.
Do you disagree?
Please say why, let's discuss it together. Please let me know if the font is easy to read, or if I you would prefer change.
There is no such thing as getting "God's view" except through the lens of our own interpretation, or the interpretations of others which we take for ourselves.
Don't groan.
How would you like to be on a witness stand, where your life depends on being proved innocent. Ten people know you are innocent, and can prove it, but the only ones allowed to testify, are your accusers, and they make up anything they want to, against you.
That's exactly what you are doing here.
What you are claiming, is not corroborated by the other writers, and they are just things you make up, really.
The method you propose is designed to serve a purpose other than the understanding of history.
The bible is not a single work. It's a set of books each written by one or more humans, further edited by one or more humans, collected by humans (at the expense of other books not collected), and all done at different times and places by different people for different purposes.
The bible can inform us about ancient thought, ancient politics, sometimes some authentic history, sometimes just glimpses of it, sometimes just story. It can help us roughly trace the history of Yahweh from one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon c.1500 BCE to the Christian schism.
But if we insist that a set of ancient documents must say what we want them to say, instead of what their respective authors intended to convey, and why, then we pervert our own understanding of our past. And we are the losers in that process.
How would you like to be on a witness stand, where your life depends on being proved innocent. Ten people know you are innocent, and can prove it, but the only ones allowed to testify, are your accusers, and they make up anything they want to, against you.
That's exactly what you are doing here.
Not quite. I'm not the source of the evidence here ─ the books of the bible are the evidence.
And they don't agree with each other, don't tell a single story, offer at least five different Jesuses on three totally different models, invent censuses and massacres of children so as to play out scenes in the Tanakh they like, have Jesus make the material universe and who cares what Genesis says, adopt the idea of original sin notwithstanding there's not a hint of it in the Garden story and the idea that sin can be inherited is expressly rejected in Ezekiel 18 (throughout, but not least verse 20). And so on.
Not quite. I'm not the source of the evidence here ─ the books of the bible are the evidence.
And they don't agree with each other, don't tell a single story, offer at least five different Jesuses on three totally different models, invent censuses and massacres of children so as to play out scenes in the Tanakh they like, have Jesus make the material universe and who cares what Genesis says, adopt the idea of original sin notwithstanding there's not a hint of it in the Garden story and the idea that sin can be inherited is expressly rejected in Ezekiel 18 (throughout, but not least verse 20). And so on.
No, they do. You are the one claiming they don't by making up things that are not there.
For example, you claimed Mark did not mention the name of any of Jesus parent. Yet, that is not true.
why you mentioned it, was to concoct a claim to support an argument that does not even have any basic. In other word, it was such a meaningless argument, one wonders why you brought it up.
However, seeing the format, it becomes clear, it is a "let's argue for the sake of argument" argument.
Is that not like a balloon that's blown up, and then released.
The 'all the world should be taxed' census is not found in history. The 'massacre of the innocents' is not found in history. Why do they appear? To maneuver the hero through what the author has deemed to be messianic prophecies. And there are many many more such examples which raise well-founded doubts about the historicity of the stories, and of Jesus as an historical figure.
why you mentioned it, was to concoct a claim to support an argument that does not even have any basic. In other word, it was such a meaningless argument, one wonders why you brought it up.
But you haven't acknowledged that the five versions of Jesus in the NT are built on three incompatible models ─ Mark's ordinary human who becomes the son of God by adoption, Matthew's and Luke's magical human, the son of God by divine insemination, and Paul's and John's gnostic demiurge who is son of God in the sense that he was early created by God, pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe. I've given you the references (but if you want them again, just ask) and I've pointed out that to pretend there's only one version there is, in terms of history, to wish corrupt readings onto the text.
If that's what you want to do regardless, just say so.
The 'all the world should be taxed' census is not found in history. The 'massacre of the innocents' is not found in history. Why do they appear? To maneuver the hero through what the author has deemed to be messianic prophecies. And there are many many more such examples which raise well-founded doubts about the historicity of the stories, and of Jesus as an historical figure.
I recall someone - in fact, more than one person - saying to me, about this post, that just because, some facts are true, does not mean the other 'stories' are.
Are you here claiming that because one does not have evidence outside the Bible, confirming ever detail, then the confirmed history is wrong?
Do you see that as reasonable? I don't.
It seems evident to me, that it is more reasonable to accept the internal evidence to be reliable evidence, when the external evidence support the history. This list is incomplete
After all, are you not yet tired of having to bite the bullet every time the evidence surfaces to close the 'absence of evidence' claim?
It always follows the same pattern, repeatedly.
Critic : There is no evidence of... Archaeological findings confirm evidence of... Critic :
35 [...] "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.' 37 David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?" How do you figure that's a claim by Jesus to be descended from David?
How does one take a question, and make it a claim? What do you call that?
But you haven't acknowledged that the five versions of Jesus in the NT are built on three incompatible models ─ Mark's ordinary human who becomes the son of God by adoption, Matthew's and Luke's magical human, the son of God by divine insemination, and Paul's and John's gnostic demiurge who is son of God in the sense that he was early created by God, pre-existed in heaven with God and created the material universe. I've given you the references (but if you want them again, just ask) and I've pointed out that to pretend there's only one version there is, in terms of history, to wish corrupt readings onto the text.
If that's what you want to do regardless, just say so.
I recall someone - in fact, more than one person - saying to me, about this post, that just because, some facts are true, does not mean the other 'stories' are.
Are you here claiming that because one does not have evidence outside the Bible, confirming ever detail, then the confirmed history is wrong?
That's something of a change of topic. The point I'm making, and have been making from the start, is that the NT within itself presents three incompatible versions of Jesus ─ Mark's human Jesus who becomes son of God by adoption, Matthew and Luke's Jesus who becomes son of God from divine insemination, and Paul's and John's demiurge who is more vaguely 'son of God' for having pre-existed in heaven with God and who created the material universe.
I take it you agree that's the case, or substantially the case, since you've offered no counter to the texts I cited.
That is both a difficult and easy question to answer.
On the one hand the explanation is emotional; like knowing that you are happy or sad ...and relational; like knowing that you love someone and understanding why, based on a story having developed over time. It is a personal answer that makes no sense to others but yourself. Others can easily say you are mistaken ...which is okay but nonetheless, irrelevant to you.
On the other hand the explanation is result-based; like knowing when you have understood a problem correctly because its solution works (e.g. if you have solved an equation correctly, you’ve used the right variables, but also -let’s not forget- vise versa). It is a trial based answer that can be tested by others, if they so wish.
Above all however, it is a faith-based answer and as such, a paradox; like being unable to know unless you believe in what you experience. This seldom serves as answer to anyone but yourself.
That's something of a change of topic. The point I'm making, and have been making from the start, is that the NT within itself presents three incompatible versions of Jesus ─ Mark's human Jesus who becomes son of God by adoption, Matthew and Luke's Jesus who becomes son of God from divine insemination, and Paul's and John's demiurge who is more vaguely 'son of God' for having pre-existed in heaven with God and who created the material universe.
I take it you agree that's the case, or substantially the case, since you've offered no counter to the texts I cited.
I have already addressed that.
You have not answered as to how a father who is also a fireman (or other), and is also a son of a father suggests incompatibility.
Likewise, how do you determine that Jesus' roles suggest incompatibility?
That is both a difficult and easy question to answer.
On the one hand the explanation is emotional; like knowing that you are happy or sad ...and relational; like knowing that you love someone and understanding why, based on a story having developed over time. It is a personal answer that makes no sense to others but yourself. Others can easily say you are mistaken ...which is okay but nonetheless, irrelevant to you.
On the other hand the explanation is result-based; like knowing when you have understood a problem correctly because its solution works (e.g. if you have solved an equation correctly, you’ve used the right variables, but also -let’s not forget- vise versa). It is a trial based answer that can be tested by others, if they so wish.
Above all however, it is a faith-based answer and as such, a paradox; like being unable to know unless you believe in what you experience. This seldom serves as answer to anyone but yourself.
I can understand the whole emotional, and feeling thing, but having the feeling that someone is standing behind you, does not tell you if the person is Hispanic, or African; green or yellow; happy or sad; wants you to play soccer, or cricket.
My question really is, how do you know "God speaks in concepts, not in words."? Did he talk to you?
When you say 'faith', can you explain what you mean?
