# Question



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 20, 2011)

Who came to arrest Jesus? How many? I have heard it said that, I can't remember what you call them, detachment maybe????


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 20, 2011)

Forgive me for being skeptical if this is a legit question.  But it's hard for me to believe that someone who takes the time to listen to 24 lectures by Ehrman....twice...doesn't know the answer to that question.

Is there a question behind the question?


----------



## formula1 (Oct 20, 2011)

*Re:*

Wisdom, HF, wisdom!


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 20, 2011)

I'll bet he misplaced his Bible.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 20, 2011)

I'm trying to figure out where the idea came from that a large group of Roman soliders came to arrest Jesus. I've often heard it said that there were hundreds. This is very strange seeing how Jesus was taken to the religious leaders first. Meaning that it was not Roman soldiers. One gospel points to the fact that it may have been temple gaurds under the command of the chief priest. But no way was it a Roman dispatch. I've seen it many times, the discussion of this large Roman troop coming to arrest Jesus. I thought someone might give hint of where this came from or actually verify my point by flushing them out. Just pondering some things


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 20, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm trying to figure out where the idea came from that a large group of Roman soliders came to arrest Jesus. I've often heard it said that there were hundreds. This is very strange seeing how Jesus was taken to the religious leaders first. Meaning that it was not Roman soldiers. One gospel points to the fact that it may have been temple gaurds under the command of the chief priest. But no way was it a Roman dispatch. I've seen it many times, the discussion of this large Roman troop coming to arrest Jesus. I thought someone might give hint of where this came from or actually verify my point by flushing them out. Just pondering some things



Matthew 26


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 20, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm trying to figure out where the idea came from that a large group of Roman soliders came to arrest Jesus. I've often heard it said that there were hundreds. This is very strange seeing how Jesus was taken to the religious leaders first. Meaning that it was not Roman soldiers. One gospel points to the fact that it may have been temple gaurds under the command of the chief priest. But no way was it a Roman dispatch. I've seen it many times, the discussion of this large Roman troop coming to arrest Jesus. I thought someone might give hint of where this came from or actually verify my point by flushing them out. Just pondering some things





Comes from John's Gospel.


John 18:3-11 (NASB)
3 Judas then, having received the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and *said to them, “Whom do you seek?” 5 They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He *said to them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. 6 So when He said to them, “I am He,”

Roman cohort:   A battalion...................... normally about 600 soldiers.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 21, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Comes from John's Gospel.
> 
> 
> John 18:3-11 (NASB)
> ...


This is what puzzles me. At this time, he had not been handed over yet. Why would Rome dispatch 600 soldiers and then deliver Jesus to the chief priest. If Roman soldiers were involved, he would have went straight to pilate. Also, the real reason behind my thinking, I think it very strange that Peter would cut off someone's ear, and then Jesus fixes it, and all the soldiers see and hear about it, and then they still mock and beat him. I think the story has gotten all messed up with the oral handing down. Luke says "officers of the temple guard".Mark and Matthew says a "crowd armed with swords".  John's version is wrong, has to be


----------



## gtparts (Oct 21, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> This is what puzzles me. At this time, he had not been handed over yet. Why would Rome dispatch 600 soldiers and then deliver Jesus to the chief priest. If Roman soldiers were involved, he would have went straight to pilate. Also, the real reason behind my thinking, I think it very strange that Peter would cut off someone's ear, and then Jesus fixes it, and all the soldiers see and hear about it, and then they still mock and beat him. I think the story has gotten all messed up with the oral handing down. Luke says "officers of the temple guard".Mark and Matthew says a "crowd armed with swords".  John's version is wrong, has to be



Since you seem to enjoy being in the "pit" and refuse any attempts to facilitate your escape, it seems only prudent, perhaps wise, to just leave you there. It would apparently serve no purpose, as I feel sure you would only do your utmost to return. 

There are simple answers to your inquiries, but I have come to understand the reference concerning "pearls" and "swine".

Have a nice day!


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 21, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Comes from John's Gospel.
> 
> 
> John 18:3-11 (NASB)
> ...



Ronnie, thank you for answering the question.  I can't understand why some of the others have been so difficult to a man who is trying to wrap his head around a confusing subjuct.

Even if it's a trap, if we believe what we stand for, we should be able to discuss our position intelligently.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 21, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> This is what puzzles me. At this time, he had not been handed over yet. Why would Rome dispatch 600 soldiers and then deliver Jesus to the chief priest. If Roman soldiers were involved, he would have went straight to pilate. Also, the real reason behind my thinking, I think it very strange that Peter would cut off someone's ear, and then Jesus fixes it, and all the soldiers see and hear about it, and then they still mock and beat him. I think the story has gotten all messed up with the oral handing down. Luke says "officers of the temple guard".Mark and Matthew says a "crowd armed with swords".  John's version is wrong, has to be



I think the confusion lies in the fact that they had two governments working simultaneously.  The Jewish government really had no "teeth," and their laws were reinforced by the Romans, which is why the Romans crucified Jesus for breaking Jewish laws, the Jews were not allowed to do so.

I don't know if cohort meant batallion or if it meant companions, but it would make sense for Jewish leaders to use Roman "muscle" under the two government system they used.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 21, 2011)

> Also, the real reason behind my thinking, I think it very strange that Peter would cut off someone's ear, and then Jesus fixes it, and all the soldiers see and hear about it, and then they still mock and beat him.



They had heard about many many things even bigger than that and didn't already believe.  Why would seeing this one make a difference?

Many people who actually saw him perform miracles throughout his ministry didn't believe.  In fact, the people who wanted him arrested in this moment were people who had seen him heal people instantly and yet chose to accuse him of breaking the Sabbath rather than acknowledge him as the son of God.

Point is that many people saw him perform miracles during his ministry and chose not to believe.

Roman soldiers are like any other soldier.  They follow orders.  And how do you know that the soldiers who arrested him (following orders) were the same soldiers who beat and mocked him?  There were 100's of thousands of them.  Odds are that the detail who arrested him was not also assigned the special duty of "excecution squad" just like the arresting officer today is not going to be the guy who oversees the lethal injection.

The guys who beat him likely were not there when he was arrested.  I have no proof either way.  Just going purely on the odds of it....it is not likely.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 21, 2011)

> I can't understand why some of the others have been so difficult to a man who is trying to wrap his head around a confusing subjuct.



Because, when someone asks a question that you are positive they know the answer to, they are typically fishing for a particular response so that they can reveal the true nature of the "question".

It's natural to be cautious in response to a question like that.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Roman soldiers are like any other soldier.  They follow orders.  And how do you know that the soldiers who arrested him (following orders) were the same soldiers who beat and mocked him?  There were 100's of thousands of them.  Odds are that the detail who arrested him was not also assigned the special duty of "excecution squad" just like the arresting officer today is not going to be the guy who oversees the lethal injection.



Good point, modern soldiers face stiff penalties for disobeying orders, I can imagine there was a much harsher penalty for the Roman soldiers.  Their culture was so different than ours, and their entire identity was one of loyalty to the state. 

Another good point you make is that many who witnessed this stuff did not believe either  (I know what the non-believer response is).

It's Friday, so I guess we can start off agreeing with each other


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It's natural to be cautious in response to a question like that.



Ok, so now we can start disagreeing......

There is a difference between cautious (view RT's response), and, well, difficult.

I tend to think nobody is ever convinced by insults.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 21, 2011)

I was just referring to why I responded the way I did initially.  I asked the reason behind the question.

I think folks like SMDH and a few others have jaded us a bit when it comes to asking questions that seemingly have obvious answers.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I was just referring to why I responded the way I did initially.  I asked the reason behind the question.
> 
> I think folks like SMDH and a few others have jaded us a bit when it comes to asking questions that seemingly have obvious answers.



That says more about you than it does about me.

Perhaps in the future, if you can't participate in the thread more meaningfully than you have this one, you should just skip it.  

Have a great weekend!


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 21, 2011)

Six, you stay classy my friend.  I'm not interested in playing with you today. 

I didn't insult or attack you and my post answering the question was a pretty good and honest answer to the OP.  Actually my answer to JB was an honest answer as well.  The truth often stings a bit, no?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I didn't insult or attack you and my post answering the question was a pretty good and honest answer to the OP.  Actually my question answer JB was an honest answer as well.  The truth often stings a bit, no?



No, these are all opinions.  At any rate I'll stay out of the thread from here on in an effort to bump it back to the subject asked by the OP.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 21, 2011)

Have a good weekend bud.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Actually my question answer JB was an honest answer as well.  The truth often stings a bit, no?



Are you saying I was "stung" by your truth?  Now you have completely confused me........


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 21, 2011)

I was talking to Ham.  He recoiled a little at my answer to you as to why people in here sometime react with skepticism to questions that seemingly have obvious answers...and I pointed out that the truth sometimes stings.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I was talking to Ham.  He recoiled a little at my answer to you as to why people in here sometime react with skepticism to questions that seemingly have obvious answers...and I pointed out that the truth sometimes stings.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 21, 2011)

As far as the mocking goes, I would think that an occupying state would not take kindly to someone walking in and declaring to be "King" of the occupied.  Romans did not think highly of the Jews anyway and so to see their "king" in front of them would naturally be something to mock.

Some king you are.  You can't even defend yourself.  Where is your army?

Like I said, I think it's logical to assume that those who saw the healing in the garden were not the same ones that beat him before execution.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> As far as the mocking goes, I would think that an occupying state would not take kindly to someone walking in and declaring to be "King" of the occupied.  Romans did not think highly of the Jews anyway and so to see their "king" in front of them would naturally be something to mock.
> 
> Some king you are.  You can't even defend yourself.  Where is your army?
> 
> Like I said, I think it's logical to assume that those who saw the healing in the garden were not the same ones that beat him before execution.




I agree.  As with current folks, if you believe, it is easier to accept.  Back then, I would assume those who did not believe thought is was all "horse apples" as well.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 21, 2011)

In the first century the Roman government and the Roman military would have been happy if all Jews and Christians would have disappeared from the face of the earch.  Eventually, they'd try to destroy them all.

They considered them a big pain.

The Romans were probably there in the garden to make sure a huge disturbance didn't materialize from this late night meeting.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 21, 2011)

Answer:

As someone already pointed out comes from
Matthew 26.

It's long and has links insided of the link so..

Go HERE:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/26/

For the answer(s) to the OP question.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 22, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> In the first century the Roman government and the Roman military would have been happy if all Jews and Christians would have disappeared from the face of the earch.  Eventually, they'd try to destroy them all.
> 
> They considered them a big pain.
> 
> The Romans were probably there in the garden to make sure a huge disturbance didn't materialize from this late night meeting.



I believe they thought the body would be stolen, so they guarded it. 
There was a slight disturbance later when 500 others arose during the power of the resurrection of Christ!!!!


----------



## StriperAddict (Oct 22, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Like I said, I think it's logical to assume that those who saw the healing in the garden were not the same ones that beat him before execution.


 
Possibly.

But can you imagine the mercy of God, that if the same soilder who was healed in the garden was forced under roman rule to aid in the exececution of Jesus?  He may have been under great torment in his soul for being asked to participate in the death of the one who offered healing mercy for no other reason than the love of the Lord!  Quite possible he could have been one to lift the hammer and drive the nails into Jesus' hands and feet.
Imagine if while Christ Himself hung on the cross, painfully awaiting death, that His loving eyes fixed on this same solider again, just to say...

"Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" !!

I'm just speculating, but knowing the deep mercy of Christ in my own life, a story such as this is certainly possible.

Thanks be to God for His pardon and mercy, 
open to _ALL_!


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 22, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> Possibly.
> 
> But can you imagine the mercy of God, that if the same soilder who was healed in the garden was forced under roman rule to aid in the exececution of Jesus?  He may have been under great torment in his soul for being asked to participate in the death of the one who offered healing mercy for no other reason than the love of the Lord!  Quite possible he could have been one to lift the hammer and drive the nails into Jesus' hands and feet.
> Imagine if while Christ Himself hung on the cross, painfully awaiting death, that His loving eyes fixed on this same solider again, just to say...
> ...



Amen!!

That's an awesome post.
Even if the soldier wasn't the same one and didn't look into Jesus eyes...we do.

I cannot wait to be in the gaze of His mercy and grace, that He has bestowed on me and He knows I don't deserve a lick of it. I just wanna thank ya Lord, thank ya Jesus, thank ya God for the cross. I will cling to the old rugged cross.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 23, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm trying to figure out where the idea came from that a large group of Roman soliders came to arrest Jesus. I've often heard it said that there were hundreds. This is very strange seeing how Jesus was taken to the religious leaders first. Meaning that it was not Roman soldiers. One gospel points to the fact that it may have been temple gaurds under the command of the chief priest. But no way was it a Roman dispatch. I've seen it many times, the discussion of this large Roman troop coming to arrest Jesus. I thought someone might give hint of where this came from or actually verify my point by flushing them out. Just pondering some things


 While reading, I thought it strange that those having witnessed Jesus's miracle of restoring the mans ear, could then mock and beat him. After looking closely, It dawned on me that Roman cohorts are not at the disposal of jealous religious leaders. So I begin to think about this; How could John possibly say this if he were present. My conclusion is the same for all the other many variances in scripture. That the gospels were written later by those having heard these stories by John or Matthew. The oral handing down of a story always has potential to suffer minor detail changes. This line of reasoning is very unpopular among those who see the scriptures as infalliable, words of God. I was in the same place 10 years ago. I still have written in my bible on the page of the "introduction to the gospels" a notation that I wrote many years ago. When I read that the "authors relied on a common source" [that being thought to be Marks Gospel], I was outraged that anyone would think such a thing. My point is that I understand  why my viewpoint spurns such attitude. I was there at one time. I realize that many bible students will in time, come to see some of these things that I find interesting.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 23, 2011)

So...John is the only one who mentions the soldiers.  


But....they are all written from a common source, right?


So...why is John the only one who mentioned the soldiers?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> So...John is the only one who mentions the soldiers.
> 
> 
> But....they are all written from a common source, right?
> ...



John is the only one who says "Roman Cohort". 

I will never know if a common source

Because the one who penned his stories later got the details wrong???


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 24, 2011)

Whether he did or didn't, the single source theory is blown out of the water.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 24, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> T John's version is wrong, has to be





1gr8bldr said:


> . This line of reasoning is very unpopular among those who see the scriptures as infalliable, words of God. I was in the same place 10 years ago. I still have written in my bible on the page of the "introduction to the gospels" a notation that I wrote many years ago. When I read that the "authors relied on a common source" [that being thought to be Marks Gospel], I was outraged that anyone would think such a thing. My point is that I understand  why my viewpoint spurns such attitude. I was there at one time. I realize that many bible students will in time, come to see some of these things that I find interesting.



What a disappointment to realize that the god you believe in, the gospel you believe in is described to you in a book that is riddled with errors and exaggerations.

Who could believe in a god from a book like that?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 24, 2011)

That's kind of where I get to as well.  It's got to be incredibly difficult to maintain any sort of faith in a God who is talked about in a book that is riddled with errors.  How do we know which things are true and which are just simply man-made imbellished errors?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> That's kind of where I get to as well.  It's got to be incredibly difficult to maintain any sort of faith in a God who is talked about in a book that is riddled with errors.  How do we know which things are true and which are just simply man-made imbellished errors?



My faith is not affected by the minor detail variances. My faith is based on the story within that they were trying to convey. What I pointed out is just more proof that these are not first hand accounts.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 25, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> My faith is not affected by the minor detail variances. My faith is based on the story within that they were trying to convey. What I pointed out is just more proof that these are not first hand accounts.



No..you pointed out your own disbelief and personal opinion.  You pointed out that you've created your own god...your own faith...your own religion based on what you deem as accurate.


----------



## Inthegarge (Oct 25, 2011)

Ever hear about the differences in Eye Witness accounts. 6 people see a wreck and give different versions of the event. One leaves out facts (or may have never saw that part) another gives facts not given by the others....Are they mistaken or giving a second (or third) hand account ??  No they have a different view of the wreck, paid more attention to one part and not another.... Fact is no 2 people will give the exact same testimony of an event.... Ever hear the phrase " To the best of your recollection" ???


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 25, 2011)

Inthegarge said:


> Ever hear about the differences in Eye Witness accounts. 6 people see a wreck and give different versions of the event. One leaves out facts (or may have never saw that part) another gives facts not given by the others....Are they mistaken or giving a second (or third) hand account ??  No they have a different view of the wreck, paid more attention to one part and not another.... Fact is no 2 people will give the exact same testimony of an event.... Ever hear the phrase " To the best of your recollection" ???



Yes, this I understand. But a careful reading of the scriptures reveals that some things are not different viewpoints of the same event but rather conflicting versions. I can point out some if you like. Most people shoot the messenger when I do this. But they are there. The only logical way to deal with them is to assume that the story was slightly changed through oral transmission by the time someone penned them. Bible students need to learn where they are and how to deal with them instead of pretending they don't exist. I've seen several instances on another forumn where a young bible student asked questions about something he saw as conflicting. He was imediately attacked for inquireing. This hurt this young mans faith because no one helped him deal with it. I have seen it many times


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 25, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> No..you pointed out your own disbelief and personal opinion.  You pointed out that you've created your own god...your own faith...your own religion based on what you deem as accurate.


It is what it is. Because I am willing to admit that some things in the bible do not agree, you conclude that I disbelieve. Which one should I believe; Marks version that says that the angel told Mary that "he is not here, he has risen, go tell Peter that he is going ahead of you into Galilee" or  should I believe John's version that has Mary running up to Peter in distress saying " They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him". I you can deny that these are conflicting accounts, not different viewpoints, then go right ahead. But I don't have to. I can afford it, because my faith is not in the bible details but rather in the story about the finished work of Christ.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 25, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> The only logical way to deal with them is to assume that the story was slightly changed through oral transmission by the time someone penned them. Bible students need to learn where they are and how to deal with them instead of pretending they don't exist.



This is a common misconception.  It has been proven false time and time again.  Manuscripts dating back to the mid second century have been found that contain the exact language and story that we have today.

Unless all of the changes happened within the first 50 years (which is highly unlikely), your story about changes through oral transmission is just plain false.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 25, 2011)

The "oral tradition" that passed stories from generation to generation back then was, quite literally, NOTHING like the telephone game that people like to compare it to in an effort to say "well, it wasn't written down for at least 100 years after Jesus' death, oral tradition eroded it".

Because there was very little written record, stories were told over and over and over again word for word until they were perfectly memorized...so that they could be passed on in perfect sync from generation to generation.  Even if it was written via oral tradition, it would be like me handing my son a CD of me telling story and asking him to transcribe it.  Not like me telling him a story and him trying to remember the details 50 years later.

It's interesting that we've gotten to this topic.  I was reading something regarding this and I thought this real-life example was compelling....and shows me very clearly that the differences in the gospels do not require me to assume that they are, at best, second hand accounts.  Read through this.  It proves the point made earlier.



> The chancellor of this author’s university died at the end of an address to the student body.
> Within an hour of the event a sociology professor had his thirty students each write down their own
> account of what had happened. Each was instructed to write as honest and detailed account as they
> could, given the limited time of the class period. When the accounts were later compared, there were
> numerous differences in detail, although all agreed that the chancellor had died at the end of his address.



http://www.millersvillebiblechurch.org/_files/What Really Happened at the Resurrection.pdf

One hour!  Only one hour had passed....and 30 people gave 30 different sets of details surrounding an event that they ALL witnessed firsthand.  The fact that there are different sets of information in each gospel does nothing to prove that the must be second hand information.


----------



## jmharris23 (Oct 25, 2011)

This place is something else


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 25, 2011)

I'm not going to continue to argue this point. No need in doing so. Especially since you have not addressed post 41's example. Your view makes either Mark or John a liar.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> _*The "oral tradition" that passed stories from generation to generation back then was, quite literally, NOTHING like the telephone game that people like to compare it to in an effort to say "well, it wasn't written down for at least 100 years after Jesus' death, oral tradition eroded it".*__*Because there was very little written record, stories were told over and over and over again word for word until they were perfectly memorized...so that they could be passed on in perfect sync from generation to generation.  Even if it was written via oral tradition, it would be like me handing my son a CD of me telling story and asking him to transcribe it.  Not like me telling him a story and him trying to remember the details 50 years later.*_It's interesting that we've gotten to this topic.  I was reading something regarding this and I thought this real-life example was compelling....and shows me very clearly that the differences in the gospels do not require me to assume that they are, at best, second hand accounts.  Read through this.  It proves the point made earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, I'm really not a trouble maker, but this is nothing but your wishful opinion. You state it as if it were fact or something.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 26, 2011)

> You state it as if it were fact or something.




We know for a fact that Jewish children began study at age 4-5 and by the time they were 15-18, most could recite the entire Torah or large sections of it.  The best went on to study further with the Rabbi.

It is very much a fact that rote memorization was of a class that we cannot imagine in this day of digitization and hard drives.  We don't "need" the memorization anymore (I would argue differently) and so it is no longer important in any society.  So can't fathom that oral stories could be passed on with perfect accuracy....but it was.

Wrote memorization was essential to passing on oral tradition.  That is a fact.  It was very important that scripture be memorized exactly and word for word.  That is also a fact.

Why would we not assume that the "new" scripture that was being written would be treated in the same manner by people who grew up in that system?

I'm sorry man, it is fact.  Not wanting to accept it doesn't make it opinion.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 26, 2011)

> Especially since you have not addressed post 41's example. Your view makes either Mark or John a liar.



It was addressed in post 43.  It doesn't make either a liar.

Again...I cannot imagine putting faith in the words of a book whose authors I would openly call "liar".  It's unfathomable.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 26, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> It is what it is. Because I am willing to admit that some things in the bible do not agree, you conclude that I disbelieve. Which one should I believe; Marks version that says that the angel told Mary that "he is not here, he has risen, go tell Peter that he is going ahead of you into Galilee" or  should I believe John's version that has Mary running up to Peter in distress saying " They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him". I(f) you can deny that these are conflicting accounts, not different viewpoints, then go right ahead. But I don't have to. I can afford it, because my faith is not in the bible details but rather in the story about the finished work of Christ.



Leaving out detail does not mean the record is untrue, but simply that it does not convey absolutely everything that happened. 

Without putting too fine a point on it, what you consider conflicting information can be explained by the highly likely scenario of Mary making two trips to the tomb that morning. 

When one is open to the Scripture having errors in fact, the question then becomes "Which things are true and which are false?" 
That leaves the entire work subject to suspicion and self-serving speculation.

Thus, the bucket of water with one hole in the bottom is soon empty. 

God did not choose to dictate His word to be recorded verbatim, but chose to use the perspectives, styles and talents of many authors, to produce the revelation of His nature and character to us and a guide for living in proper relationship with Him and our fellow men. If the entire Bible was written to the standard you hold for a "flawless" compilation with no omissions and no injection of personal perspective, then the case for faith would actually be lessened. Such expectation would render 4 of the 5 Gospels unnecessary, yet the differences (as presented) speak to the authenticity. 

Truthfully, your position seems to be an attempt to eliminate the need for faith by replacing it with logic, but such effort is futile in that God says we can be certain of the truth by faith alone. Human logic does not, can not, rise to the level of understanding all that God is and does.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 26, 2011)

> If the entire Bible was written to the standard you hold for a "flawless" compilation with no omissions and no injection of personal perspective, then the case for faith would actually be lessened.



...and "conspiracy and collusion" would be the next accusation.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 27, 2011)

So you guys see the gospels as first hand accounts? May I remind you that Mark and Luke are not disciples. And as far as we know, never met Jesus. Also, Jesus's language was aramaic. The gospels were written in greek. This is proof that these gospels were penned later. Most scholars put them at 65Ad-95AD, roughly. That means over 30 years min and 60+ years on the hi side.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> It was addressed in post 43.  It doesn't make either a liar.
> 
> Again...I cannot imagine putting faith in the words of a book _*whose authors I would openly call "liar*_".  It's unfathomable.


 Do you enjoy misrepresenting people or do you have comprehension issues.? I have not called them liars. I said that your view of scripture makes someone a liar. My view of scripture does not since it gives explanation for the variances.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 28, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> So you guys see the gospels as first hand accounts? May I remind you that Mark and Luke are not disciples. And as far as we know, never met Jesus. Also, Jesus's language was aramaic. The gospels were written in greek. This is proof that these gospels were penned later. Most scholars put them at 65Ad-95AD, roughly. That means over 30 years min and 60+ years on the hi side.



Are there any other ancient documents written so close to the actual events that we have liturally thousands (over 5,000 I think) of the original manuscripts to? Can you think of anything?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 28, 2011)

> Do you enjoy misrepresenting people




Actually?  Kinda....yeh....apparently I do.  

I get accused of it fairly consistently.  So either I enjoy misrepresenting, or I can see through the coyness of posts and get to the heart of the issue.  I'll let you decide.  Others have.



> or do you have comprehension issues.?



I don't think you'll get a lot of argument from a few around here that would agree with you that I have comprehension issues.


So perhaps I should clarify as best I can with my disabilities.  I cannot fathom putting my faith in the words of a book whose authors got the details of their stories wrong.  I would have no way of knowing what parts of that book are true and what are simply mis-representations of the truth.



> I said that your view of scripture makes someone a liar.



I suppose I should accuse you of the same misrepresentation or comprehension issues.  I've pretty clearly explained why I see none of them as liars in my view and why I fully believe that scripture confirms, not conflicts itself.  Are you trying to tell me that I HAVE to assume they are liars to believe what I believe?

Way off the mark my friend.


----------



## hawglips (Oct 28, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I think the confusion lies in the fact that they had two governments working simultaneously.  The Jewish government really had no "teeth," and their laws were reinforced by the Romans, which is why the Romans crucified Jesus for breaking Jewish laws, the Jews were not allowed to do so.
> 
> I don't know if cohort meant batallion or if it meant companions, but it would make sense for Jewish leaders to use Roman "muscle" under the two government system they used.



The King James reads:

John: _"Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons...  Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him... "_

Matthew:  _And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people...  In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

_

Mark: _And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders...  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?   I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.
_.

Luke: _And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him... Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
_

The confusion could lie in the translation.  The KJV doesn't seem to refer to anything that sounds like a battalion of Roman soldiers; but rather a band of armed men from the elite Jewish clergy.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Are there any other ancient documents written so close to the actual events that we have liturally thousands (over 5,000 I think) of the original manuscripts to? Can you think of anything?


I'm not sure I understand your point?? To clarify, we have over 5000 copies "of copies" since we have 0 originals


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Actually?  Kinda....yeh....apparently I do.
> 
> I get accused of it fairly consistently.  So either I enjoy misrepresenting, or I can see through the coyness of posts and get to the heart of the issue.  I'll let you decide.  Others have.
> 
> ...


 I don't worry about the minor details. The basic gospel message is unaffected


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 28, 2011)

> The basic gospel message is unaffected



Except for the minor detail that you have no way to know which bits of it are truthful and which are simply mistaken.



Perhaps he was never dead in the first place.  What is your measure of what is truthful in there and what is not?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Except for the minor detail that you have no way to know which bits of it are truthful and which are simply mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps he was never dead in the first place.  What is your measure of what is truthful in there and what is not?



I make a distinction between what I call minor cosmetic and context. The context tells use what happened. The story of the gospel. If Mary did or did not say or do, it does not change the central context that Jesus was raised from the dead


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 31, 2011)

How do you know that Jesus was raised from the dead?  There is no record of it ouside the Bible.  If the gospels can't agree on the details of the discovery of the empty tomb, how can we be sure that the explanation of why he wasn't there is actually true?


----------



## gtparts (Oct 31, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I make a distinction between what I call minor cosmetic and context. The context tells use what happened. The story of the gospel. If Mary did or did not say or do, it does not change the central context that Jesus was raised from the dead



This begs the question, "Where and how do you draw the line between minor cosmetic and context?" It would appear that your conclusions regarding minor cosmetic are akin to just burying your head in the sand  because your logic fails to resolve perceived issues of conflicting accounts. Perhaps some of your assumptions  are wrong because you have not thoroughly researched each issue from the perspective of many better educated individuals. Christian apologetes have left no stone unturned in addressing these supposed conflicts and have debunked them quite successfully at every point. Do a little deep, scholarly research on those things that you see as "stumbling blocks that must be ignored" and you may change your mind.... that is, if it is open to the (sometimes not so obvious) harmony of Scripture.

For your sake, I regret that the various authors failed to collaborate fully before releasing their writings. But then, would you and others of your thinking ever dig beneath the superficial?


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 31, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> While reading, I thought it strange that those having witnessed Jesus's miracle of restoring the mans ear, could then mock and beat him. After looking closely, It dawned on me that Roman cohorts are not at the disposal of jealous religious leaders. So I begin to think about this; How could John possibly say this if he were present. My conclusion is the same for all the other many variances in scripture. That the gospels were written later by those having heard these stories by John or Matthew. The oral handing down of a story always has potential to suffer minor detail changes. This line of reasoning is very unpopular among those who see the scriptures as infalliable, words of God. I was in the same place 10 years ago. I still have written in my bible on the page of the "introduction to the gospels" a notation that I wrote many years ago. When I read that the "authors relied on a common source" [that being thought to be Marks Gospel], I was outraged that anyone would think such a thing. My point is that I understand  why my viewpoint spurns such attitude. I was there at one time. I realize that many bible students will in time, come to see some of these things that I find interesting.



The writers of the gospel accounts all relied on a common source - the Holy Spirit.  The answer to "why different accounts" often is answered in the intent of the account.  Matthew was obviously intended for a Jewish audiences... it frequently presupposes historical facts about Judaism to be understood.  Mark seems to have been penned for Roman people... Luke for a Greek audience.  John was written for the purpose of creating belief in people regardless of their background.

Obviously, this is not the first time you've centered upon the idea that "Scripture doesn't agree."  However, every passage that you can cite to prove the bible contradicts itself has an answer.  Granted, maybe not the answer or conclusion you'd like to come to... but an answer which would stand up.

Regarding the alleged discrepancy you allude to, you do realize Jesus' arrest & scourging took place in less than 24 hours?  You do realize Roman soldiers often suffered death when disobeying a command?  You do realize that at major feasts of the Jews, like Passover, an additional troop population would be brought into Jerusalem so the peace could be maintained?  These facts probably don't do a lot for saying "John must be wrong"... but they do help to explain why it may have occured in this way.


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 31, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Do you enjoy misrepresenting people or do you have comprehension issues.? I have not called them liars. I said that your view of scripture makes someone a liar. My view of scripture does not since it gives explanation for the variances.



I really wonder what constitutes as "liar" in your book because in post #8, you wrote...

"I think the story has gotten all messed up with the oral handing down. Luke says "officers of the temple guard".Mark and Matthew says a "crowd armed with swords". John's version is wrong, has to be."

If I spread something that has been falsely handed down, I'm lying about the facts of what I'm saying.  If I claim the world is flat today because ancient explorers said so, I'm lying if I tell my child "the world is flat."  Telling a lie means I'm a liar.  You flat out called John "a liar."


----------



## Bama4me (Oct 31, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Do a little deep, scholarly research on those things that you see as "stumbling blocks that must be ignored" and you may change your mind.... that is, if it is open to the (sometimes not so obvious) harmony of Scripture.
> 
> For your sake, I regret that the various authors failed to collaborate fully before releasing their writings. But then, would you and others of your thinking ever dig beneath the superficial?



Seems like I recall Jesus reasoning along these lines in explaining to the disciples why He began teaching folks using parables (Matthew 13:13ff).


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 2, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> I really wonder what constitutes as "liar" in your book because in post #8, you wrote...
> 
> "I think the story has gotten all messed up with the oral handing down. Luke says "officers of the temple guard".Mark and Matthew says a "crowd armed with swords". John's version is wrong, has to be."
> 
> If I spread something that has been falsely handed down, I'm lying about the facts of what I'm saying.  If I claim the world is flat today because ancient explorers said so, I'm lying if I tell my child "the world is flat."  Telling a lie means I'm a liar.  *You flat out called John "a liar*."


You have missed my whole point, That John did not pen John. The gospel "according to John". Catch up with us


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 2, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> The writers of the gospel accounts all relied on a common source - the Holy Spirit.  The answer to "why different accounts" often is answered in the intent of the account.  Matthew was obviously intended for a Jewish audiences... it frequently presupposes historical facts about Judaism to be understood.  Mark seems to have been penned for Roman people... Luke for a Greek audience.  John was written for the purpose of creating belief in people regardless of their background.
> 
> Obviously, this is not the first time you've centered upon the idea that "Scripture doesn't agree."  _*However, every passage that you can cite to prove the bible contradicts itself has an answer.  Granted, maybe not the answer or conclusion you'd like to come to... but an answer which would stand up.*_Regarding the alleged discrepancy you allude to, you do realize Jesus' arrest & scourging took place in less than 24 hours?  You do realize Roman soldiers often suffered death when disobeying a command?  You do realize that at major feasts of the Jews, like Passover, an additional troop population would be brought into Jerusalem so the peace could be maintained?  These facts probably don't do a lot for saying "John must be wrong"... but they do help to explain why it may have occured in this way.



That is a myth. The bible is not inerrant. Matt incorrectly quoted in 27:9 as Jeremiah when it was actually Zec 11 12+13------ Mark 2:25 quotes Abiathar as high priest when it was actually Ahimelech 1 Sam 21. I could go on but no need to since 1 error makes "inerrant"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 2, 2011)

gtparts said:


> This begs the question, "Where and how do you draw the line between minor cosmetic and context?" It would appear that your conclusions regarding minor cosmetic are akin to just burying your head in the sand  because your logic fails to resolve perceived issues of conflicting accounts. Perhaps some of your assumptions  are wrong because you have *not thoroughly researched each issue from the perspective of many better educated individuals. Christian apologetes have left no stone unturned in addressing these supposed conflicts and have debunked them quite successfully at every point. Do a little deep, scholarly research on those *things that you see as "stumbling blocks that must be ignored" and you may change your mind.... that is, if it is open to the (sometimes not so obvious) harmony of Scripture.
> 
> For your sake, I regret that the various authors failed to collaborate fully before releasing their writings. But then, would you and others of your thinking ever dig beneath the superficial?


  Just because these socalled scholars have spouted many words, if you actually read them, you will see how their scholarly reputation is a joke. "Mary going to the tomb twice. What a laugh. She must be a fast runner. After telling Peter, she then takes a short cut, out runs Peter and another, gets to the tomb in time to get instructions from the angel on what to tell the others. Many words from these guys don't constitute a reasonable answer. Of course you have made up your mind on what to believe and no amount of examples, regardless of the clout, will change that. It's so interesting how people are when it comes to religion


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 3, 2011)

> I could go on but no need to since 1 error makes "inerrant"



I know you know this.  But 1 error makes "errant".

But we're not talking as to whether every quote in the Bible is perfect or whether things should be read literally in all cases or not.  

Errors arise from ignorance or deceit; and our God is neither ignorant, nor is he a deceiver. 

God is without error.  If you agree that the words contained in the Bible are God's holy Word given to us through the inspiration of those authors, then you cannot accuse it of being full of "error" in the sense that God inspired the author and then the author wrote down something that God was neither aware of or didn't approve of.  Divine providence requires it. 

How do you get around that if you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God that scripture tells us it is?


----------



## hawglips (Nov 3, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> God is without error.  If you agree that the words contained in the Bible are God's holy Word given to us through the inspiration of those authors, then you cannot accuse it of being full of "error" in the sense that God inspired the author and then the author wrote down something that God was neither aware of or didn't approve of.  Divine providence requires it.
> 
> How do you get around that if you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God that scripture tells us it is?



God is without error.  But between us and the original inspired authors, the scriptures as we have them today have passed through a whole lot of frail human hands through the centuries.  There are significant differences in meaning in some passages as translated into the KJV vs other versions.

For example, the reference in this thread to some other version of John that evidently shows "Roman cohort" instead of the "band of men and officers from the chief priests" that the King James translation shows.  There's a big difference in meaning between those.  God is not the source of those differences.  That only leaves human error to account for them.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 3, 2011)

hawglips said:


> There are significant differences in meaning in some passages as translated into the KJV vs other versions.



One big reason for that is the KJV is based on a different Greek text.  I'm not trying to start another "KJV vs. the world" debate -- just pointing it out.


----------



## hawglips (Nov 3, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> One big reason for that is the KJV is based on a different Greek text.



So, which Greek text was most accurate?  And which translation of the differing Greek texts was most accurate?

In any event, it isn't God that gave the differing meanings.  If there is an error, blame for it lies with man, not God.  That's all I'm saying.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 3, 2011)

hawglips said:


> So, which Greek text was most accurate?  And which translation of the differing Greek texts was most accurate?
> 
> In any event, it isn't God that gave the differing meanings.  If there is an error, blame for it lies with man, not God.  That's all I'm saying.



And that's what we had the golden tablets for, right?


Really, there are such small iterations between the earliest of greek texts and those we have today.  Archealogical finds have proven that God's Word has withstood the test of time.  OT/NT alike.

There is/was no need for additional writings, or additional inspirations.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 3, 2011)

> God is without error. But between us and the original inspired authors, the scriptures as we have them today have passed through a whole lot of frail human hands through the centuries. There are significant differences in meaning in some passages as translated into the KJV vs other versions.
> 
> For example, the reference in this thread to some other version of John that evidently shows "Roman cohort" instead of the "band of men and officers from the chief priests" that the King James translation shows. There's a big difference in meaning between those. God is not the source of those differences. That only leaves human error to account for them.



I did not say that our current english translations of the 'original' are without errors in both translation and "copy error" throughout the ages.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> It is what it is. Because I am willing to admit that some things in the bible do not agree, you conclude that I disbelieve. Which one should I believe; Marks version that says that the angel told Mary that "he is not here, he has risen, go tell Peter that he is going ahead of you into Galilee" or  should I believe John's version that has Mary running up to Peter in distress saying " They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him". I you can deny that these are conflicting accounts, not different viewpoints, then go right ahead. But I don't have to. I can afford it, because my faith is not in the bible details but rather in the story about the finished work of Christ.



You are ignoring the obvious.
Can you not distinguish between what the angel told Mary and what Mary told Peter, John and the others? Mary may have been skeptical of the angel's statement, being distraught concerning the body of Jesus being gone. What the angel told Mary and what Mary told the gathered disciples would not necessarily be the same thing. The point is that trusting an emotionally stressed person to deliver an important message may not result in the communication being delivered word for word or it may be that a communication with any emotionally stressed group (the disciples) might be understood differently by each or remembered differently 20 years later. It does not make their accounts fraudulent or deceitful, just different, which is what any reasonable person would expect.

The chronology of the "two trip" explanation (if true) would involve 1)Mary going to the tomb with the other women, 2)then telling the disciples that the body was missing (stolen, as recorded in Mark), 3)returning to the tomb without them(presumably to weep and mourn or find out where the body had been moved), 4)getting the message from the angel, 5) and returning to the disciples to convey the angel's message (as recorded in John). Neither including more detail nor failing to include certain detail does not make either account a lie!


----------



## gtparts (Nov 3, 2011)

hawglips said:


> God is without error.  But between us and the original inspired authors, the scriptures as we have them today have passed through a whole lot of frail human hands through the centuries.  There are significant differences in meaning in some passages as translated into the KJV vs other versions.
> 
> For example, the reference in this thread to some other version of John that evidently shows "Roman cohort" instead of the "band of men and officers from the chief priests" that the King James translation shows.  There's a big difference in meaning between those.  God is not the source of those differences.  That only leaves human perspective to account for them.



Fixed it for you. You have nothing on which to conclude that details given or omitted in the various accounts is inherently wrong.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 3, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> One big reason for that is the KJV is based on a different Greek text.  I'm not trying to start another "KJV vs. the world" debate -- just pointing it out.



Actually, the KJV was based on translating a text in Latin, which was translated from the Greek. And for the record, I'm not trying to start another "KJV vs. the world" debate, either -- just pointing it out.


----------



## Bama4me (Nov 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> That is a myth. The bible is not inerrant. Matt incorrectly quoted in 27:9 as Jeremiah when it was actually Zec 11 12+13------ Mark 2:25 quotes Abiathar as high priest when it was actually Ahimelech 1 Sam 21. I could go on but no need to since 1 error makes "inerrant"



As someone else pointed out earlier, you have not taken the time to research the claims you make.  Regarding Matthew 27:9 and the reference to Jeremiah, notice:
(1) It doesn't say Jeremiah "wrote"... it was "spoken"; you don't find Jesus' words in Acts 20:35 written in Scripture... but an inspired man (Paul) claimed Jesus said them.
(2) Rabbinical practice in Jesus' day would often show that quotes in a specific book of the OT would commonly be referred to by the name of the beginning book of the section; this seems to be the case in Mark 1:2-3 where a passage from Isaiah and Malachi are blended.
(3) Jeremiah (not Zechariah) referred to the purchase of a potter's field in his writings; verses 7-8 and 10 all refer to the purchasing of the field.

Regarding the alleged problem with Abiathar, the Greek does not support the translation "when Abiathar WAS the high priest", but it does support "during the days of Abiathar the High Priest."  I could refer to an event which took place "in the days of the apostle Paul" and be referring to something which took place prior to him becoming an apostle.  However, using the reference "the apostle" would ensure everyone knew I was referring to that specific Paul.  

As I said earlier in my post, there are credible answers to every single question you raise about the innerancy of God's word.  It may not be answers you like... or finding those possible answers may not fit your theology... but they are answers nontheless.  And yes... the Bible was penned in innerant form because it came from an innerant God.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 3, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Actually, the KJV was based on translating a text in Latin, which was translated from the Greek. And for the record, I'm not trying to start another "KJV vs. the world" debate, either -- just pointing it out.



No, they translated out of the original Hebrew and Greek.  They referred to the Vulgate just as they referred to previous English translations, but they worked from the originals.


----------



## Bama4me (Nov 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Of course you have made up your mind on what to believe and no amount of examples, regardless of the clout, will change that. It's so interesting how people are when it comes to religion



Indeed... the pot calls the kettle black.  If you were not willing to have an open mind, why start the thread?


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 3, 2011)

hawglips said:


> So, which Greek text was most accurate?



Since we don't have the originals, there's no way of knowing.  As rj mentions, the differences are very small.  




hawglips said:


> If there is an error, blame for it lies with man, not God.  That's all I'm saying.



Agreed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 6, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> As someone else pointed out earlier, you have not taken the time to research the claims you make.  Regarding Matthew 27:9 and the reference to Jeremiah, notice:
> (1) It doesn't say Jeremiah "wrote"... it was "spoken"; you don't find Jesus' words in Acts 20:35 written in Scripture... but an inspired man (Paul) claimed Jesus said them.
> (2) Rabbinical practice in Jesus' day would often show that quotes in a specific book of the OT would commonly be referred to by the name of the beginning book of the section; this seems to be the case in Mark 1:2-3 where a passage from Isaiah and Malachi are blended.
> (3) Jeremiah (not Zechariah) referred to the purchase of a potter's field in his writings; verses 7-8 and 10 all refer to the purchasing of the field.
> ...


 I have ocean front property in arizona that I will sell you cheap. I used to believe as you do but after awhile, I grew weary of bending logic to try to shore up my traditional view. I could keep giving you examples of errors/contridictions and you could keep responding but after awhile, it just becomes more apparent that you have not presented any reasonable response. By that point, the sum of the failed attempts are conclusive. Just so you know, I don't point out errors/contridictions that have reasonable answers, just the hard ones. Please don't read my responses as having any attitude in them. There is no ill intent. Like I said, I used to believe as you guys do. I do remember how this topic offended me


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 6, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I know you know this.  But 1 error makes "errant".
> 
> But we're not talking as to whether every quote in the Bible is perfect or whether things should be read literally in all cases or not.
> 
> ...


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 6, 2011)

What? is the Greek language dead or something and the Hebrew language? No one speaks those languages anymore, much less translate any of it into Englay?

No Greek or Hebrew scholars that know English either that can translate it correctly?


----------



## Bama4me (Nov 7, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I have ocean front property in arizona that I will sell you cheap. I used to believe as you do but after awhile, I grew weary of bending logic to try to shore up my traditional view. I could keep giving you examples of errors/contridictions and you could keep responding but after awhile, it just becomes more apparent that you have not presented any reasonable response. By that point, the sum of the failed attempts are conclusive. Just so you know, I don't point out errors/contridictions that have reasonable answers, just the hard ones. Please don't read my responses as having any attitude in them. There is no ill intent. Like I said, I used to believe as you guys do. I do remember how this topic offended me



I'm not offended... but I am passionate about what I believe.  I beg to disagree regarding the "reasonable answer" idea you present.  These would be answers that, if they were presented in a court of law, would be able to present a case for "reasonable doubt."

More than anything else, alleged bible contradictions are usually involving a lack of understanding of the culture of biblical times.  In our culture, three days means "72 hours."  According to the Jewish way of counting, three days meant "any portion of three days" (thus, could be 26 total time period).  In our culture when traveling, the term "down" means "to go south."  In Jewish culture, the term mean you were going down "geographically"... in terms of sea level.  The vast majority of "mistakes" people see in the Bible is a result of trying to read these details from a 21st Century perspective.  

Like you, I could go and on... but I'll let reasonable people draw their own conclusions from our exchanges.  BTW, nice of you to throw in there, "I used to believe like you guys did"... implies a sense of moral supremacy suggesting spiritual growth that others have not reached.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 7, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> I'm not offended... but I am passionate about what I believe.  I beg to disagree regarding the "reasonable answer" idea you present.  These would be answers that, if they were presented in a court of law, would be able to present a case for "reasonable doubt."
> 
> More than anything else, alleged bible contradictions are usually involving a lack of understanding of the culture of biblical times.  In our culture, three days means "72 hours."  According to the Jewish way of counting, three days meant "any portion of three days" (thus, could be 26 total time period).  In our culture when traveling, the term "down" means "to go south."  In Jewish culture, the term mean you were going down "geographically"... in terms of sea level.  The vast majority of "mistakes" people see in the Bible is a result of trying to read these details from a 21st Century perspective.
> 
> Like you, I could go and on... but I'll let reasonable people draw their own conclusions from our exchanges.  BTW, nice of you to throw in there, "I used to believe like you guys did"... implies a sense of moral supremacy suggesting spiritual growth that others have not reached.


I  regret how that sounds. Not my intentions. Differing opinions do not constitute any kind of supremacy.


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 7, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> No Greek or Hebrew scholars that know English either that can translate it correctly?


 
Both are tuff languages to learn, and I wish I did.  In a heartbeat I'd get into the numerical studies of scripture which Ivan Panin did for several years before he died.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 7, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> Both are tuff languages to learn, and I wish I did.  In a heartbeat I'd get into the numerical studies of scripture which Ivan Panin did for several years before he died.



Word! 

You good? Got the book, thanks! Haven't had a chance to even crack it open. Lib ok, too?

I speaky hillbilly and ebonics......

Jo mama!


----------



## Bama4me (Nov 8, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I  regret how that sounds. Not my intentions. Differing opinions do not constitute any kind of supremacy.



Sorry to have taken it that way then.  Sadly, I run up on that pretty often in my line of work... many folks pretty eager to remind me "I've been where you are before"... with the insuation of "you'll get to where I am one day."  More than happy to simply disagree with you and leave it at that.


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 8, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Word!
> 
> You good? Got the book, thanks! Haven't had a chance to even crack it open. Lib ok, too?
> 
> ...


 
Hey "Mama" ! 

Feeling 100% better!   My voice is nearly back, but I still from time to time, sound like Kathryn Hepburn in "On Golden Pond"  ("Normannn, you 'ol poop!")

Amazingly, my wife went along unscathed by my multiple October throat infections!  Now THAT is a miracle! We ALWAYS ketch each others' germs! (Thank you Lord! )


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 15, 2011)

> That is "circular reasoning" to say that the inspired proof lies in that of which is being questioned.



So, the implications of this statement are two-fold:

1)  We cannot necessarily trust that the Bible is true.
2)  We must rely on extra-biblical proof to tell us whether or not      we believe what the Bible says.

If we cannot trust the text to tell us the truth, it is worthless...which is pure, unadulterated hogwash.




> I say no, that he never intended his letters to live on as they do now.



If he didn't, then he didn't believe in the divine inspiration of scripture...again...you know how I feel about that.  I've shown you where even current writers of the NT were referring to each others writing as "scripture".  What other proof do you need to show that they knew that what they were writing was not "just a letter"?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 15, 2011)

> So you guys see the gospels as first hand accounts?



Nope. Pseudographia written decades if not hundreds of years after the fact.


----------



## StriperAddict (Nov 15, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Nope. Pseudographia written decades if not hundreds of years after the fact.


 
I didn't realise Luke, among the rest, lived over a hundred years.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 15, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> I didn't realise Luke, among the rest, lived over a hundred years.



He didn't.

It was common practice in those days to write texts in the name of another person to give it authenticity.

"Luke may also have drawn from independent written records.[9] Traditional Christian scholarship has dated the composition of the gospel to the early 60s,[10][11] while higher criticism dates it to the later decades of the 1st century" : source - wikipedia.org


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 17, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Nope. Pseudographia written decades if not hundreds of years after the fact.



That's all good except for the fact that we've got copies of originals that date back to the mid second century AD (ie 150s).  That's not hundreds of years after the fact.

Also, when compared to the translations and versions we had at the time the earliest manuscripts were found, they were almost word for word...something like 99.96% the same.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> That's all good except for the fact that we've got copies of originals that date back to the mid second century AD (ie 150s).  That's not hundreds of years after the fact.
> 
> Also, when compared to the translations and versions we had at the time the earliest manuscripts were found, they were almost word for word...something like 99.96% the same.



Jesus died in AD33 or so. It's not likely that anyone writing in AD150 would have even met him.

As for 99.96% of the time? Really? There's more differences in versions of those scriptures than there are copies. Mills compiled 30,000 some such variations quite a while back and frankly we're still finding em.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> That's all good except for the fact that we've got copies of originals that date back to the mid second century AD (ie 150s).  That's not hundreds of years after the fact.
> 
> Also, when compared to the translations and versions we had at the time the earliest manuscripts were found, they were almost word for word...something like 99.96% the same.



We have 0 copies of originals


----------



## gtparts (Nov 17, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> We have 0 copies of originals


Really?
And that is proof of what? 

We have no originals of many ancient manuscripts, yet we make attributions to the works (copies) and regard them as being both accurate and significant. Why ..... just because? Or is it because there is no contrary evidence offered that will do anything but get the one offering the dissenting opinion laughed out of the literary community? 

The point is, the Bible has survived the most detailed scrutiny for approx. 2000 years and no serious, unbiased biblical scholar today  doubts that the current degree of authenticity we find in Scripture today is not fundamentally the same as, and accurately conveys, the meaning and intent of the original works. 

Is the Bible, in all its various translations, transliterations, and paraphrases perfect? We know it is not. In fact, that is not the issue at all. What most refer to as the inerrant Word of God is reference to the original as inspired by God. The inerrant, infallible Word of God, then, is the one that perfectly communicates the mind of God, which is a work of the Spirit in the lives of believers. Strictly speaking, the truth can be found between the front cover and back cover, but we can not fully apprehend or comprehend that without the Holy Spirit.... no surprise, when one understands that is the living Word.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 17, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Really?
> And that is proof of what?
> 
> We have no originals of many ancient manuscripts, yet we make attributions to the works (copies) and regard them as being both accurate and significant. Why ..... just because? Or is it because there is no contrary evidence offered that will do anything but get the one offering the dissenting opinion laughed out of the literary community?
> ...



Yes, and REALLY. Not sure what your rant is???  I merely pointed out an incorrect statement


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 18, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Yes, and REALLY. Not sure what your rant is???  I merely pointed out an incorrect statement



We have copies of the originals.  I know we don't have the originals...but we have copies of them.

I'll have to get my source as far as the 99% claim.  And no, it isn't wikipedia.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 18, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> We have copies of the originals.  I know we don't have the originals...but we have copies of them.
> 
> I'll have to get my source as far as the 99% claim.  And no, it isn't wikipedia.



That is an oxymoron. How do you know if it was original if you only have a copy? [I'm just being a thorn now] I think it was Bruce Metezer. I think he reliable. He admits to the problem texts instead of trying to force them. This I admire in view of the pressure he faces to say what people wish him to say. I think him and Bart are good friends and co authored a recent book together.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 18, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> That is an oxymoron. How do you know if it was original if you only have a copy? [I'm just being a thorn now] I think it was Bruce Metezer. I think he reliable. He admits to the problem texts instead of trying to force them. This I admire in view of the pressure he faces to say what people wish him to say. I think him and Bart are good friends and co authored a recent book together.





Okay...I wonder how many originals we have of anything anymore....but none get questioned.

Again, look at how little they changed between the oldest copies we have and the newest copies we have.  Very very very little change.

Look at the OT and the dead sea scrolls.  Kinda proved it with even older texts.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 19, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...I wonder how many originals we have of anything anymore....but none get questioned.
> 
> Again, look at how little they changed between the oldest copies we have and the newest copies we have.  Very very very little change.
> 
> Look at the OT and the dead sea scrolls.  Kinda proved it with even older texts.


You seem to assume that I disagree


----------



## ryanh487 (Nov 21, 2011)

The pharisees did not have authority to arrest or punish people without Roman permission. The Roman detachment was the only legal way to arrest Jesus, and the governor was asleep. He was taken to the governor as soon as morning came.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 21, 2011)

ryanh487 said:


> The pharisees did not have authority to arrest or punish people without Roman permission. The Roman detachment was the only legal way to arrest Jesus, and the governor was asleep. He was taken to the governor as soon as morning came.



This sounds reasonable, yet I still think it was a group rounded up by the religious who took him in and questioned him looking for anything he might say that they could use against him. They handed him over, which implies that he never was under a Roman detachment, the next day after deciding that they would say it was because he was leading a rebellion against the king.


----------

