Historical Jesus: The unchanging reality of the New Testament record.

[Iceweasel]

The Septuaginta was not written for the sake of greek speaking jews----
it was commissioned by the egyptian king for the great library in Alexandria---

Septuagint
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

you got a source for that essay?? WIKKI ? hint----widely used amongst
Hellenistic jews? for what purpose?

never mind----I traced it back----quoting a Christian missionary source for the
origin of the Septuaginta is not entirely smart. The motivation of the translation
was not------so that KOINE speaking jews could read it. The OT was not translated even into Aramaic (a few parts are already in Aramaic} during the time
that just about all jews spoke Aramaic.

I quoted a source, you quoted your opinion. Not smart!

 

[irosie91]

who ever said it----it was lifted from a Christian web-site-----don't get all bent
out of shape------it's no biggie-----just incorrect. The Septuaginta is kinda important---
sorta. to lots of people. It was used to create later stuff-----Did you know that the
word "synagogue" is greek? -----It is not used by Hebrew speakers at all. It may
have been invented by the writers of the Septuaginta-----I am not sure---but likely

It is a big deal to me when something is attributed to me that I didn't say, most especially when it is something I would never say. So whether that is interpreted as 'bent out of shape' or not, I would like for the misrepresentation to be corrected. Thanks.

oh gee----I have to back track and FIX it-----oh gee-----oh ok---I will STRUGGLE thru it

 

[Foxfyre]

who ever said it----it was lifted from a Christian web-site-----don't get all bent
out of shape------it's no biggie-----just incorrect. The Septuaginta is kinda important---
sorta. to lots of people. It was used to create later stuff-----Did you know that the
word "synagogue" is greek? -----It is not used by Hebrew speakers at all. It may
have been invented by the writers of the Septuaginta-----I am not sure---but likely

It is a big deal to me when something is attributed to me that I didn't say, most especially when it is something I would never say. So whether that is interpreted as 'bent out of shape' or not, I would like for the misrepresentation to be corrected. Thanks.

oh gee----I have to back track and FIX it-----oh gee-----oh ok---I will STRUGGLE thru it

Thank you friend. A simple acknowledgement that you inadvertently misquoted me would suffice, however.

 

[irosie91]

who ever said it----it was lifted from a Christian web-site-----don't get all bent
out of shape------it's no biggie-----just incorrect. The Septuaginta is kinda important---
sorta. to lots of people. It was used to create later stuff-----Did you know that the
word "synagogue" is greek? -----It is not used by Hebrew speakers at all. It may
have been invented by the writers of the Septuaginta-----I am not sure---but likely

It is a big deal to me when something is attributed to me that I didn't say, most especially when it is something I would never say. So whether that is interpreted as 'bent out of shape' or not, I would like for the misrepresentation to be corrected. Thanks.

oh gee----I have to back track and FIX it-----oh gee-----oh ok---I will STRUGGLE thru it

OH---that was easy----it was ICEWEASEL who done it-----he complained too.
SHEEEESH you guys are touchy

Here goes-----FELLOW POSTERS------FOXFYRE---did NOT post the statement that the SEPTUAGINTA was done to provide the jews of Alexandria with a bible they
could read---------ICEWEASEL did it -----citing as his source----a Christian missionizing
site. I disagreed stating that the historic purpose for the translation was based
on the PURPOSE for which the city of ALEXANDRIA was built (by alexander) ---
as a respository for KNOWLEGE----hence the great library of ALEXANDRIA----
the King of Egypt wanted a copy of the OT in that Library-------is everyone ok now?

 

[irosie91]

The Septuaginta was not written for the sake of greek speaking jews----
it was commissioned by the egyptian king for the great library in Alexandria---

Septuagint
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

you got a source for that essay?? WIKKI ? hint----widely used amongst
Hellenistic jews? for what purpose?

never mind----I traced it back----quoting a Christian missionary source for the
origin of the Septuaginta is not entirely smart. The motivation of the translation
was not------so that KOINE speaking jews could read it. The OT was not translated even into Aramaic (a few parts are already in Aramaic} during the time
that just about all jews spoke Aramaic.

I quoted a source, you quoted your opinion. Not smart!

some of my best Egyptian jewish friends are from Alexandria

 

[Iceweasel]

Certainly all that encompasses a person's experience and culture colors his/her perception and understanding of what is happening around him. There have been great thinkers throughout history. The ancient ones of the Old Testament had profound thoughts and struggled to comprehend as is evident in all of the Old Testament writings. I think those err who try to put any concept related to the Scriptures or Judaism or Christianity into a box and say here: THIS is the way it is.

Consider Socrates who is credited with being the Father of Philosophy. He left no writings of any kind, so all we know of him and his thoughts are via writings of his students, the most famous of course being Plato. Diogenes, who inspired Stoicism that greatly influenced Hellenistic thought, left no writings of his own but inspired a great school of thought. Nor did Buddha or Pyrrho or even Alexander the Great himself without whom the Hellenistic 'revival' likely would never have happened. Nor did Cyrus of Persia who, enlightened himself, opened the door for new philosophies and schools of thought to develop paving the way for an Alexander the Great to gain a foothold.

All of these great men contributed to the whole of the times and cultures to follow, but what we know of them is through the eyes of those who followed them. And those who followed were not always of a single mind or unity of thought.

I think maybe Jesus wanted no writings of his own or even copies of the original manuscripts of scripture to divert the people's attention from the relationship with Jesus Himself and the teachings of the Holy Spirit available to all who will receive it. People being people, they would tend to worship and make 'gods' of the objects themselves given opportunity to do so.

We have no extant biblical texts preserved through history, how would we have something from Socrates 450-500 years earlier? Where's the evidence he never wrote anything down? That said, many disagree on what exactly he did say and some claim Plato used his name to further his own philosophy.

To say Jesus didn't want accurate information so people could receive the Holy Spirit is mind boggling. It makes no sense but that's the kind of things one must do to hold onto their faith. The more one learns and thinks the greater the challenge.

 

[Iceweasel]

who ever said it----it was lifted from a Christian web-site-----don't get all bent
out of shape------it's no biggie-----just incorrect. The Septuaginta is kinda important---
sorta. to lots of people. It was used to create later stuff-----Did you know that the
word "synagogue" is greek? -----It is not used by Hebrew speakers at all. It may
have been invented by the writers of the Septuaginta-----I am not sure---but likely

It is a big deal to me when something is attributed to me that I didn't say, most especially when it is something I would never say. So whether that is interpreted as 'bent out of shape' or not, I would like for the misrepresentation to be corrected. Thanks.

oh gee----I have to back track and FIX it-----oh gee-----oh ok---I will STRUGGLE thru it

OH---that was easy----it was ICEWEASEL who done it-----he complained too.
SHEEEESH you guys are touchy

Here goes-----FELLOW POSTERS------FOXFYRE---did NOT post the statement that the SEPTUAGINTA was done to provide the jews of Alexandria with a bible they
could read---------ICEWEASEL did it -----citing as his source----a Christian missionizing
site. I disagreed stating that the historic purpose for the translation was based
on the PURPOSE for which the city of ALEXANDRIA was build (by alexander) ---
as a respository for KNOWLEGE----hence the great library of ALEXANDRIA----
the King of Egypt wanted a copy of the OT in that Library-------is everyone ok now?

What are you talking about? I complained about what? I don't recall complaining about anything, just your dismissal of a source without merit and asserting your opinion as gospel. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Septuaginta was not written for the sake of greek speaking jews----
it was commissioned by the egyptian king for the great library in Alexandria---

Septuagint
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

you got a source for that essay?? WIKKI ? hint----widely used amongst
Hellenistic jews? for what purpose?

never mind----I traced it back----quoting a Christian missionary source for the
origin of the Septuaginta is not entirely smart. The motivation of the translation
was not------so that KOINE speaking jews could read it. The OT was not translated even into Aramaic (a few parts are already in Aramaic} during the time
that just about all jews spoke Aramaic.

I quoted a source, you quoted your opinion. Not smart!

some of my best Egyptian jewish friends are from Alexandria

...and they are 2,500 years old?

 

[irosie91]

who ever said it----it was lifted from a Christian web-site-----don't get all bent
out of shape------it's no biggie-----just incorrect. The Septuaginta is kinda important---
sorta. to lots of people. It was used to create later stuff-----Did you know that the
word "synagogue" is greek? -----It is not used by Hebrew speakers at all. It may
have been invented by the writers of the Septuaginta-----I am not sure---but likely

It is a big deal to me when something is attributed to me that I didn't say, most especially when it is something I would never say. So whether that is interpreted as 'bent out of shape' or not, I would like for the misrepresentation to be corrected. Thanks.

oh gee----I have to back track and FIX it-----oh gee-----oh ok---I will STRUGGLE thru it

OH---that was easy----it was ICEWEASEL who done it-----he complained too.
SHEEEESH you guys are touchy

Here goes-----FELLOW POSTERS------FOXFYRE---did NOT post the statement that the SEPTUAGINTA was done to provide the jews of Alexandria with a bible they
could read---------ICEWEASEL did it -----citing as his source----a Christian missionizing
site. I disagreed stating that the historic purpose for the translation was based
on the PURPOSE for which the city of ALEXANDRIA was build (by alexander) ---
as a respository for KNOWLEGE----hence the great library of ALEXANDRIA----
the King of Egypt wanted a copy of the OT in that Library-------is everyone ok now?

What are you talking about? I complained about what? I don't recall complaining about anything, just your dismissal of a source without merit and asserting your opinion as gospel. It doesn't work that way.

your source is wrong. The Septuaginta is not an old copy of the reader's digest.
Historically it is important. There is an extensive history about it -----well known.
When researching the actual event-----a glance at a Christian missionizing site is not
the way to go-----the thing was not written by Christians----it was written by rabbis---
ask some "rabbi site"

 

[irosie91]

Septuagint
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

you got a source for that essay?? WIKKI ? hint----widely used amongst
Hellenistic jews? for what purpose?

never mind----I traced it back----quoting a Christian missionary source for the
origin of the Septuaginta is not entirely smart. The motivation of the translation
was not------so that KOINE speaking jews could read it. The OT was not translated even into Aramaic (a few parts are already in Aramaic} during the time
that just about all jews spoke Aramaic.

I quoted a source, you quoted your opinion. Not smart!

some of my best Egyptian jewish friends are from Alexandria

...and they are 2,500 years old?

the septuaginta is not 2,500 years old------it was done something like 17 -1800
years ago. Are you referring to the time that ALEXANDER founded ALEXANDRIA?--------Alexandria still exists in Egypt-----they say there are still some jews there.
The libraries did suffer a few blazes since

 

[AudeSapere]

I do think a site that is so obviously anti-Christian and that is designed to discredit Christianity is not a reliable source for honest interpretation of scripture.

I get the feeling that any website that would show the contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history of the NT would be labeled "anti-Christian" and summarily dismissed by you.

Please explain what your "interpretation" of the following is...
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra_res.htm

What is there to interpret here?

Dear, I write curriculum and TEACH the development of Christian thought along with all the contradictions and inconsistencies found in both the Old and New Testaments. I certainly don't pretend they aren't there.

But yes. I will hold suspect any site that was created specifically for the purpose of exalting Islam and discrediting Christianity as being an authority on Christianity. You can count on that.

Good, then you should know what logical fallacies are because you're using one in trying to make your argument, but first you haven't explained what the correct "interpretation" would be in your eyes of the three examples of the contradictions I cited.

You stated "...is not a reliable source for honest interpretation of scripture."

What is an honest source for interpretation, as opposed to a dishonest source for interpretation? What's not being interpreted correctly? Did the Muslim author misquote what was in the gospels? Please explain teacher.

Onto the logical fallacy which is special pleading

"Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption."
Fallacy Special Pleading

You dismiss the contradictions pointed out by the Muslim author as being "anti-Christian" and at the same time you acknowledge that " I certainly don't pretend they aren't there." Why would it be "anti-Christian" for a non-believer to point it out, but, not "anti-christian" for a teacher of the development of Christian thought to acknowledge and point out the contradictions? You're engaging in an appeal to authority also.

 

[Foxfyre]

Certainly all that encompasses a person's experience and culture colors his/her perception and understanding of what is happening around him. There have been great thinkers throughout history. The ancient ones of the Old Testament had profound thoughts and struggled to comprehend as is evident in all of the Old Testament writings. I think those err who try to put any concept related to the Scriptures or Judaism or Christianity into a box and say here: THIS is the way it is.

Consider Socrates who is credited with being the Father of Philosophy. He left no writings of any kind, so all we know of him and his thoughts are via writings of his students, the most famous of course being Plato. Diogenes, who inspired Stoicism that greatly influenced Hellenistic thought, left no writings of his own but inspired a great school of thought. Nor did Buddha or Pyrrho or even Alexander the Great himself without whom the Hellenistic 'revival' likely would never have happened. Nor did Cyrus of Persia who, enlightened himself, opened the door for new philosophies and schools of thought to develop paving the way for an Alexander the Great to gain a foothold.

All of these great men contributed to the whole of the times and cultures to follow, but what we know of them is through the eyes of those who followed them. And those who followed were not always of a single mind or unity of thought.

I think maybe Jesus wanted no writings of his own or even copies of the original manuscripts of scripture to divert the people's attention from the relationship with Jesus Himself and the teachings of the Holy Spirit available to all who will receive it. People being people, they would tend to worship and make 'gods' of the objects themselves given opportunity to do so.

We have no extant biblical texts preserved through history, how would we have something from Socrates 450-500 years earlier? Where's the evidence he never wrote anything down? That said, many disagree on what exactly he did say and some claim Plato used his name to further his own philosophy.

To say Jesus didn't want accurate information so people could receive the Holy Spirit is mind boggling. It makes no sense but that's the kind of things one must do to hold onto their faith. The more one learns and thinks the greater the challenge.

??? The evidence that we have no writings from Socrates is that we have no writings or copied writings from Socrates. Nobody claims to have had any writings from Socrates. Nobody who has written about Socrates has referred to any writings of Socrates. Just as nobody who has written about Jesus has referred to any writings of Jesus. Ditto for Buddha and the others. Given all that, it is reasonably safe to say these people left us no writings. What some theorize about all that is irrelevent to the fact that there is no record of any kind of any writings provided from certain historical figures.

Now speaking of people not reading people's posts carefully, I will again object to my posts being mischaracterized or misrepresented. I said nothing even remotely close to your statement: "To say Jesus didn't want accurate information so people could receive the Holy Spirit is mind boggling." So again I would appreciate your correcting that by acknowledging that I did not say it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do think a site that is so obviously anti-Christian and that is designed to discredit Christianity is not a reliable source for honest interpretation of scripture.

I get the feeling that any website that would show the contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history of the NT would be labeled "anti-Christian" and summarily dismissed by you.

Please explain what your "interpretation" of the following is...
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra_res.htm

What is there to interpret here?

Dear, I write curriculum and TEACH the development of Christian thought along with all the contradictions and inconsistencies found in both the Old and New Testaments. I certainly don't pretend they aren't there.

But yes. I will hold suspect any site that was created specifically for the purpose of exalting Islam and discrediting Christianity as being an authority on Christianity. You can count on that.

Good, then you should know what logical fallacies are because you're using one in trying to make your argument, but first you haven't explained what the correct "interpretation" would be in your eyes of the three examples of the contradictions I cited.

You stated "...is not a reliable source for honest interpretation of scripture."

What is an honest interpretation, as opposed to a dishonest interpretation of the cited compilations I used? Did the Muslim author misquote what was in the gospels? Please explain teacher.

Onto the logical fallacy which is special pleading

"Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption."
Fallacy Special Pleading

You dismiss the contradictions pointed out by the Muslim author as being "anti-Christian" and at the same time you acknowledge that " I certainly don't pretend they aren't there." Why would it be "anti-Christian" for a non-believer to point it out, but, not "anti-christian" for a teacher of the development of Christian thought to acknowledge and point out the contradictions? You're engaging in an appeal to authority also.

I see the site you are defending as clearly pro-Islam and anti-Christian. There is absolutely nothing at that site to even hint that it is anything else. If you can find some way to defend it, go for it, but I don't think you can do that.

And trust me that when I analyze the evidence of Christianity provided to us, it is in no way anti-Christian to acknowledge all the different perspectives, and yes inconsistencies, in the perceptions of those who provide that evidence to us. That evidence includes both bits and pieces of the life and times of the historical Jesus and the perceptions of his followers. New perspectives and theories and interpretations are being developed all the time by some who study and investigate the historical record and by some who I believe are counseled by the Holy Spirit. Some are probably spot on and others will continue to be revised and amended as new evidence becomes available.

 

[AudeSapere]

I do think a site that is so obviously anti-Christian and that is designed to discredit Christianity is not a reliable source for honest interpretation of scripture.

I get the feeling that any website that would show the contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history of the NT would be labeled "anti-Christian" and summarily dismissed by you.

Please explain what your "interpretation" of the following is...
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra_res.htm

What is there to interpret here?

Dear, I write curriculum and TEACH the development of Christian thought along with all the contradictions and inconsistencies found in both the Old and New Testaments. I certainly don't pretend they aren't there.

But yes. I will hold suspect any site that was created specifically for the purpose of exalting Islam and discrediting Christianity as being an authority on Christianity. You can count on that.

Good, then you should know what logical fallacies are because you're using one in trying to make your argument, but first you haven't explained what the correct "interpretation" would be in your eyes of the three examples of the contradictions I cited.

You stated "...is not a reliable source for honest interpretation of scripture."

What is an honest interpretation, as opposed to a dishonest interpretation of the cited compilations I used? Did the Muslim author misquote what was in the gospels? Please explain teacher.

Onto the logical fallacy which is special pleading

"Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption."
Fallacy Special Pleading

You dismiss the contradictions pointed out by the Muslim author as being "anti-Christian" and at the same time you acknowledge that " I certainly don't pretend they aren't there." Why would it be "anti-Christian" for a non-believer to point it out, but, not "anti-christian" for a teacher of the development of Christian thought to acknowledge and point out the contradictions? You're engaging in an appeal to authority also.

I see the site you are defending as clearly pro-Islam and anti-Christian. There is absolutely nothing at that site to even hint that it is anything else. If you can find some way to defend it, go for it, but I don't think you can do that.

And trust me that when I analyze the evidence of Christianity provided to us, it is in no way anti-Christian to acknowledge all the different perspectives, and yes inconsistencies, in the perceptions of those who provide that evidence to us. That evidence includes both bits and pieces of the life and times of the historical Jesus and the perceptions of his followers. New perspectives and theories and interpretations are being developed all the time by some who study and investigate the historical record and by some who I believe are counseled by the Holy Spirit. Some are probably spot on and others will continue to be revised and amended as new evidence becomes available.

There goes that special pleading again...

 

[Foxfyre]

I do think a site that is so obviously anti-Christian and that is designed to discredit Christianity is not a reliable source for honest interpretation of scripture.

I get the feeling that any website that would show the contradictions, inconsistencies and anachronistic history of the NT would be labeled "anti-Christian" and summarily dismissed by you.

Please explain what your "interpretation" of the following is...
1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra_res.htm

What is there to interpret here?

Dear, I write curriculum and TEACH the development of Christian thought along with all the contradictions and inconsistencies found in both the Old and New Testaments. I certainly don't pretend they aren't there.

But yes. I will hold suspect any site that was created specifically for the purpose of exalting Islam and discrediting Christianity as being an authority on Christianity. You can count on that.

Good, then you should know what logical fallacies are because you're using one in trying to make your argument, but first you haven't explained what the correct "interpretation" would be in your eyes of the three examples of the contradictions I cited.

You stated "...is not a reliable source for honest interpretation of scripture."

What is an honest interpretation, as opposed to a dishonest interpretation of the cited compilations I used? Did the Muslim author misquote what was in the gospels? Please explain teacher.

Onto the logical fallacy which is special pleading

"Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption."
Fallacy Special Pleading

You dismiss the contradictions pointed out by the Muslim author as being "anti-Christian" and at the same time you acknowledge that " I certainly don't pretend they aren't there." Why would it be "anti-Christian" for a non-believer to point it out, but, not "anti-christian" for a teacher of the development of Christian thought to acknowledge and point out the contradictions? You're engaging in an appeal to authority also.

I see the site you are defending as clearly pro-Islam and anti-Christian. There is absolutely nothing at that site to even hint that it is anything else. If you can find some way to defend it, go for it, but I don't think you can do that.

And trust me that when I analyze the evidence of Christianity provided to us, it is in no way anti-Christian to acknowledge all the different perspectives, and yes inconsistencies, in the perceptions of those who provide that evidence to us. That evidence includes both bits and pieces of the life and times of the historical Jesus and the perceptions of his followers. New perspectives and theories and interpretations are being developed all the time by some who study and investigate the historical record and by some who I believe are counseled by the Holy Spirit. Some are probably spot on and others will continue to be revised and amended as new evidence becomes available.

There goes that special pleading again...

Whatever floats your boat. Why don't you try making an argument instead of bitching about how I make mine?

 

[Iceweasel]

Certainly all that encompasses a person's experience and culture colors his/her perception and understanding of what is happening around him. There have been great thinkers throughout history. The ancient ones of the Old Testament had profound thoughts and struggled to comprehend as is evident in all of the Old Testament writings. I think those err who try to put any concept related to the Scriptures or Judaism or Christianity into a box and say here: THIS is the way it is.

Consider Socrates who is credited with being the Father of Philosophy. He left no writings of any kind, so all we know of him and his thoughts are via writings of his students, the most famous of course being Plato. Diogenes, who inspired Stoicism that greatly influenced Hellenistic thought, left no writings of his own but inspired a great school of thought. Nor did Buddha or Pyrrho or even Alexander the Great himself without whom the Hellenistic 'revival' likely would never have happened. Nor did Cyrus of Persia who, enlightened himself, opened the door for new philosophies and schools of thought to develop paving the way for an Alexander the Great to gain a foothold.

All of these great men contributed to the whole of the times and cultures to follow, but what we know of them is through the eyes of those who followed them. And those who followed were not always of a single mind or unity of thought.

I think maybe Jesus wanted no writings of his own or even copies of the original manuscripts of scripture to divert the people's attention from the relationship with Jesus Himself and the teachings of the Holy Spirit available to all who will receive it. People being people, they would tend to worship and make 'gods' of the objects themselves given opportunity to do so.

We have no extant biblical texts preserved through history, how would we have something from Socrates 450-500 years earlier? Where's the evidence he never wrote anything down? That said, many disagree on what exactly he did say and some claim Plato used his name to further his own philosophy.

To say Jesus didn't want accurate information so people could receive the Holy Spirit is mind boggling. It makes no sense but that's the kind of things one must do to hold onto their faith. The more one learns and thinks the greater the challenge.

??? The evidence that we have no writings from Socrates is that we have no writings or copied writings from Socrates. Nobody claims to have had any writings from Socrates. Nobody who has written about Socrates has referred to any writings of Socrates. Just as nobody who has written about Jesus has referred to any writings of Jesus. Ditto for Buddha and the others. Given all that, it is reasonably safe to say these people left us no writings. What some theorize about all that is irrelevent to the fact that there is no record of any kind of any writings provided from certain historical figures.

Now speaking of people not reading people's posts carefully, I will again object to my posts being mischaracterized or misrepresented. I said nothing even remotely close to your statement: "To say Jesus didn't want accurate information so people could receive the Holy Spirit is mind boggling." So again I would appreciate your correcting that by acknowledging that I did not say it.

The only reason Christian and Jewish writings occurred is due to religious devotion and were copied from one generation to the next. Most certainly the words of Jesus would be preserved. You are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

I would appreciate a little less drama and a little more honesty from you. You said

"I think maybe Jesus wanted no writings of his own or even copies of the original manuscripts of scripture to divert the people's attention from the relationship with Jesus Himself and the teachings of the Holy Spirit available to all who will receive it."

Which is what I paraphrased. No rational thinking could hold that view. The fact that we are talking about the salvation of eternal souls and not just philosophical mutterings makes it all the more unreasonable.

The fact that the early church was divided on something as major as salvation for the Jews or all of man shows just how important it would have been.

But it didn't happen because the Jesus story was cobbled together from anecdotal accounts, philosophy and Hebrew application of OT in contemporary life, which is still done today. The earlier writings of Philo demonstrate it quite well, ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

 

[Foxfyre]

Certainly all that encompasses a person's experience and culture colors his/her perception and understanding of what is happening around him. There have been great thinkers throughout history. The ancient ones of the Old Testament had profound thoughts and struggled to comprehend as is evident in all of the Old Testament writings. I think those err who try to put any concept related to the Scriptures or Judaism or Christianity into a box and say here: THIS is the way it is.

Consider Socrates who is credited with being the Father of Philosophy. He left no writings of any kind, so all we know of him and his thoughts are via writings of his students, the most famous of course being Plato. Diogenes, who inspired Stoicism that greatly influenced Hellenistic thought, left no writings of his own but inspired a great school of thought. Nor did Buddha or Pyrrho or even Alexander the Great himself without whom the Hellenistic 'revival' likely would never have happened. Nor did Cyrus of Persia who, enlightened himself, opened the door for new philosophies and schools of thought to develop paving the way for an Alexander the Great to gain a foothold.

All of these great men contributed to the whole of the times and cultures to follow, but what we know of them is through the eyes of those who followed them. And those who followed were not always of a single mind or unity of thought.

I think maybe Jesus wanted no writings of his own or even copies of the original manuscripts of scripture to divert the people's attention from the relationship with Jesus Himself and the teachings of the Holy Spirit available to all who will receive it. People being people, they would tend to worship and make 'gods' of the objects themselves given opportunity to do so.

We have no extant biblical texts preserved through history, how would we have something from Socrates 450-500 years earlier? Where's the evidence he never wrote anything down? That said, many disagree on what exactly he did say and some claim Plato used his name to further his own philosophy.

To say Jesus didn't want accurate information so people could receive the Holy Spirit is mind boggling. It makes no sense but that's the kind of things one must do to hold onto their faith. The more one learns and thinks the greater the challenge.

??? The evidence that we have no writings from Socrates is that we have no writings or copied writings from Socrates. Nobody claims to have had any writings from Socrates. Nobody who has written about Socrates has referred to any writings of Socrates. Just as nobody who has written about Jesus has referred to any writings of Jesus. Ditto for Buddha and the others. Given all that, it is reasonably safe to say these people left us no writings. What some theorize about all that is irrelevent to the fact that there is no record of any kind of any writings provided from certain historical figures.

Now speaking of people not reading people's posts carefully, I will again object to my posts being mischaracterized or misrepresented. I said nothing even remotely close to your statement: "To say Jesus didn't want accurate information so people could receive the Holy Spirit is mind boggling." So again I would appreciate your correcting that by acknowledging that I did not say it.

The only reason Christian and Jewish writings occurred is due to religious devotion and were copied from one generation to the next. Most certainly the words of Jesus would be preserved. You are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

I would appreciate a little less drama and a little more honesty from you. You said

"I think maybe Jesus wanted no writings of his own or even copies of the original manuscripts of scripture to divert the people's attention from the relationship with Jesus Himself and the teachings of the Holy Spirit available to all who will receive it."

Which is what I paraphrased. No rational thinking could hold that view. The fact that we are talking about the salvation of eternal souls and not just philosophical mutterings makes it all the more unreasonable.

The fact that the early church was divided on something as major as salvation for the Jews or all of man shows just how important it would have been.

But it didn't happen because the Jesus story was cobbled together from anecdotal accounts, philosophy and Hebrew application of OT in contemporary life, which is still done today. The earlier writings of Philo demonstrate it quite well, ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, I am sorry, but I have read your post three times now and have no idea what you are saying here or how you are in any way rebutting what I said. And sorry if you think I'm being too dramatic. I argue the way I argue and I suggest those who find it displeasing can easily avoid it by not reading or responding to my posts. Deal?

 

[AudeSapere]

Whatever floats your boat. Why don't you try making an argument instead of bitching about how I make mine?

You're in denial. I made my argument and then I pointed out the flaws in your argument. You failed to adequately make your argument without the logical fallacy of special pleading with an added appeal to authority. It appears that I have triggered an abnormal ego defense mechanism in you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whatever floats your boat. Why don't you try making an argument instead of bitching about how I make mine?

You're in denial. I made my argument by pointing out the flaws in your argument. You failed to adequately make your argument without the logical fallacy of special pleading with an added appeal to authority. It appears that I have triggered an abnormal ego defense mechanism in you.

Sorry but I haven't seen any arguments against my arguments, only a lot of unspporting speculation plus evaluation of my posting style and mental state. I suggest the latter is not the topic of this thread, though I am sure it would be fascinating to do in an appropriate thread.

 

[AudeSapere]

Whatever floats your boat. Why don't you try making an argument instead of bitching about how I make mine?

You're in denial. I made my argument by pointing out the flaws in your argument. You failed to adequately make your argument without the logical fallacy of special pleading with an added appeal to authority. It appears that I have triggered an abnormal ego defense mechanism in you.

Sorry but I haven't seen any arguments against my arguments, only a lot of unspporting speculation plus evaluation of my posting style and mental state. I suggest the latter is not the topic of this thread, though I am sure it would be fascinating to do in an appropriate thread.

I rest my case, later...