The Consistency/Inconsistency of Scripture

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by QGator2414, Jan 8, 2014.

  1. Gatormb
    Offline

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,741
    Likes Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +761
    Great new analogy Real. Plant the seed. Pray for the Father to water for Jesus said He can only work with whom the Father has given Him.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,521
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +487
    Fantastic!
  3. Dreamliner
    Offline

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    64,033
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +806
    Oh, now I agree with all that. I celebrate the violence of God.
  4. wcj786
    Offline

    wcj786 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +130
    The God of the Old Testament is still the same God we worship today. He has a merciful side, but also a strict, totalitarian side. The side in the Old Testament is his totalitarian side. He wrote the Ten Commandments to show that it is actually impossible for man to live completely by the law. He then sent his Son down to earth to show his merciful side.

    Christ died for my sins and when I accepted him into my heart as Lord and Savior, he washed away my sins and wrote my name in The Book of Life. While I am still subject to the laws of the Old Testament, Jesus blood has spared me the ultimate penalty of failing to uphold those laws. That does not mean that I will not be punished for breaking them here on Earth, but that I will be spared the ultimate punishment of going to Hell.

    Those that refuse to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior are under the same laws that I am, but because He has not written them into The Book of Life, they will eventually face the ultimate penalty, which is eternity in Hell.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Dreamliner
    Offline

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    64,033
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +806
    Jesus was the most violent person in all of scripture.
  6. Dreamliner
    Offline

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    64,033
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +806
    Reductio ad Hitlerum is underused in the company of relativists.
  7. lacuna
    Online

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +660
    Reputable Biblical scholars generally agree the gospels of Matthew and Luke were directly derived from the earlier writings of Peter's disciple Mark, with Matthew and Luke embellishing and adding to Mark's account. The traditional attribution to Mark comes from writings attesting to that in the 2nd century, many years after his gospel is believed to have been written. There are numerous similarities in the synoptics but there are also marked differences. Scholars generally agree the writings came from oral retellings that were at least 2nd hand, but more likely 3rd, 4th, or even 5th hand.

    A majority of Biblical scholars believe John's gospel was not written by the apostle John, but by writers from a community who followed John. At the earliest it was written between 85 A.D. and the end of the 1st century. Perhaps not even until the 2nd century. (Information on John to follow in subsequent post.)

    There's a wealth of reliable, scholarly information available on the 'Net for research into this topic for those who are interested. It seems sensible to investigate these sources rather than repeating deficient mis-information.

    http://www.free-online-bible-study.org/synoptic-gospels.html

    http://www.free-online-bible-study.org/q-document.html

    http://megasociety.org/noesis/138/synoptic.html

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html#

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

    Your analogy is applicable as far as the football fans watching the game agreed about the score and the win. But it's an entirely different matter when discrepancies and inconsistencies are found in writings that are traditionally believed to be authentication that Jesus is God. The differences and omissions in the synoptics regarding the birth of Jesus have a more serious implication. They are game changing.
  8. lacuna
    Online

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +660
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
    Authorship
    Main article: Authorship of the Johannine works

    The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[9][10] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[11][12][13][14][15][16] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.[17][18] According to Victorinus[19] and Irenaeus,[20] the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical.[21] This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.[22]

    The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[23] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[24]
    1. An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
    2. A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
    3. The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.[25]
    In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.[26] The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.[27][28]

    1. ^ Blomberg, Craig (2009-08-01). "The Gospel of John". Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.). Nashville: B & H Publishing Group. pp. 197–198. ISBN 0805444823. "All this adds up to strong circumstantial evidence for equating the beloved disciple with the apostle John."
    2. Jump up ^ Carson, D A (1991). "The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel". The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. pp. 68–69. ISBN 0802836836. "[Denying Johannine Authorship] Also requires their virtual dismissal of the external evidence. This is particularly regrettable. Most scholars of antiquity, were they assessing the authorship of some other document, could not so easily set aside the evidence as plentiful, consistent and plainly tied to the sources as is the external evidence that supports Johannine authorship."
    3. Jump up ^ Anderson 2007, p. 19."These facts pose a major problem for the traditional view of John's authorship, and they are one of the key reasons critical scholars reject it."
    4. Jump up ^ Lindars, 1990, p. 20."It is thus important to see the reasons why the traditional identification is regarded by most scholars as untenable."
    5. Jump up ^ The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Volume 3 Abingdon Press, 2008. p. 362 "Presently, few commentators would argue that a disciple of Jesus actually wrote the Fourth Gospel,..."
    6. Jump up ^ Marilyn Mellowes The Gospel of John From Jesus to Christ: A Portrait of Jesus' World. PBS 2010-11-3. "Tradition has credited John, the son of Zebedee and an apostle of Jesus, with the authorship of the fourth gospel. Most scholars dispute this notion;..."
    7. Jump up ^ D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo. An introduction to the New Testament. Zondervan; 2 New edition. 2005. Pg 233 “The fact remains that despite support for Johannine authorship by a few front rank scholars in this century and by many popular writers, a large majority of contemporary scholars reject this view.”
    8. Jump up ^ "To most modern scholars direct apostolic authorship has therefore seemed unlikely." "John, Gospel of." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  9. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,061
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,551
    There are plenty of superficially pleasing, intellectual reasons to not accept the authority of scriptures, the divinity of Jesus, or the existence of God, and the ability of the natural man to rationalize one or more, attests to his hardy, independent, prideful, and fallen nature.

    So celebrate !

    It's absolutely your day, and your life !
    • Like Like x 2
  10. lacuna
    Online

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +660
    A two faced God, like Janus?

    Consider for a moment the idea that just as writers of the books of the New Testament canon had ideas that were in opposition or inconsistent, so did writers of the books of the Jewish Tanakh. I think we can all agree that God the Father is not a man, yet the prophets and scribes from long ago depicted him in anthropological terms: Father, husband, lover, keeper of a vineyard, the hand of God, the mouth of God, the feet of God, etc. These were literary devices or metaphors, employed to illustrate how the scribes and prophets wanted the people to know God loved them and would bless them for their obedience or be angered, or grieved and punish them for transgressions.

    People respond well to narratives and the stories in the Bible supply that in spades. I don't believe for a nano second that Infinite God would permit God's Self to be limited, or bound by egoistic impulses, attitudes or vengeful scenarios. The tales do wield a good deal of power and fear, though, and would have provided an excellent explanation for the disasters and defeats the Children of Israel encountered or encouragement to obey for the blessings that were promised. Many a soul would have believed it then. Just as they do now.

    What was true then is also true now. Our sins and failures carry within them their own seeds of the consequences that must be borne by those same sins and failures. We reap what we sow. Our devilish, selfish actions do indeed have repercussions that will appear as judgments. When we play in places where people are hurt, our society will likewise deteriorate to the same degree that we invest our time, resources, energies, attitudes and thoughts in activities and things that are injurious to our society and our fellows.

    Matthew 25:29 ...For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'

    What we do, say, write - even think - does effect other people. This Effect was personalized as a vengeful God who must be placated and obeyed. I don't think God gave the 10 Commandments "to show that it is actually impossible for man to live completely by the law." I think the Commandments were written to instruct the faithful how they should be living their lives to avoid the deleterious consequences that would befall them, seemingly as judgment if they disregarded the principles in the Commandments.

    If this belief works for you, that's all to your good. But please remember, when Jesus spoke of Hell, he was speaking of Gehenna, the garbage dump in the Hinnom Valley adjacent to the city of Jerusalem. It was an unclean place where fires burned refuse day and night. Observant Jews who wished to maintain ceremonial cleanliness would never have set foot there.

    You wrote above, "While I am still subject to the laws of the Old Testament." In the first paragraph you specifically mention the 10 Commandments, which are still in effect. The 613 Laws, however were declared fulfilled by the coming of the Christ and as such, under the directive of the Council of Jerusalem in the 1st century, male gentile followers of Jesus were not required to be circumcised - which would have placed them under the older covenant - and therefore under no obligation to keep any of the 613 Laws that might have individually applied to them. If you are a gentile Christian, you need not keep the Laws. Otherwise I'm presuming you don't eat shrimp or sleep with your wife 2 weeks out of every 4?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. lacuna
    Online

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +660
    So LD, what would be displeasing, intellectually shallow reasons for accepting the authority of scripture or the divinity of Jesus? Or do you think you've got that covered in "hardy, independent, prideful and fallen"?
  12. Gatormb
    Offline

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,741
    Likes Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +761
    Matthew 10:28

    And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (garbage dump).
    .......................................................................................................................
    Funny how the Bible is full of analogies & metaphors but when it comes to Hell it really, really, really is just a garbage dump.

    Well, Jesus spoke more about that garbage dump than He did about Heaven. Matter of fact He spoke more about that garbage dump than all others in the Bible combined.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,266
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,344
    You are correct. My argument wasnt that the inconsistencies of multiple authors proves or disproves anything, it was that given the nature of the text, one should expect inconsistencies within it. Anything pre-print was handwritten, so there are multiple texts even by the same author, because each text was hand copied, and there are often small to major variations. There are probably several different versions of say, "Luke" for instance, and someone way back decided one was more authoritative than the other, and became the source text.
  14. Dreamliner
    Offline

    Dreamliner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    64,033
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +806
    I am firmly convinced that internal and external evidence suggest that all the books of the NT were written well in advance of 70 AD
  15. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,061
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,551

    Any reason of any description.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,266
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,344
    Again with the archeology. Archeologists found Troy too, which was assumed to be mythical for along time. Does that "confirm the history" of the Iliad (especially the parts about the gods intervening in stuff)?
  17. lacuna
    Online

    lacuna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,829
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Gainesville
    Ratings Received:
    +660
    You posted this once before and at that time I refuted it with factual information found on line that was written by a reputable theologian scholar. You probably read your misinformation from something Ray Comfort wrote as I know you're a fan of his. Comfort once wrote Jesus preached more about hell than heaven. He was wrong about the banana and he's wrong about this.

    I really don't understand your attraction to the man. He makes videos that manipulate people, employing logical fallacies and arguments from incredulity to make his points. He's insensitive and offended elderly people in New Zealand several years ago when he sent out thousands of "appointment cards" asking the old folks to make an appointment with death.

    http://answersinscience.org/ray_comfort_wrong.pdf

    For your edification:

    http://www.rightreason.org/2010/did-jesus-preach-hell-more-than-heaven/

    [​IMG]If you have any theological interest in the subject of hell, you will probably have either read or heard someone tell you that Jesus taught more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. In fact, you may also have read/heard people telling you that Jesus preached on the fearful idea of hell as a place of endless suffering far more than he talked about heaven.

    John Walvoord, in his contribution to the book Four Views on Hell says that when it comes to the doctrine of hell in the Bible, “Jesus himself defined this more specifically and in more instances than any New Testament prophet. All the references to gehenna, except James 3:6, are from the lips of Jesus Christ himself…” [Walvoord, “The Literal View” in William Crockett (ed.), Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 19-20.]

    Some of the initial rhetorical impressiveness of this observation fades away, however, when we realise that “all the instances” of gehenna, in the Gospels actually amounts to very few. As it is a very Jewish word (a Greek term derived from a Hebrew word referring to the Valley of Hinnom), it comes as no surprise that Matthew uses it most often. But even in Matthew’s Gospel, it appears in no more than four contexts (Matthew 5, Matthew 10, Matthew 18 and Matthew 23). Actually, none of those passages really serve the purpose of teaching about gehenna. That word is used in passing during a teaching on a different subject.

    To be fair, the Gospel writers don’t actually have to use the word gehenna to teach about the judgement, so we should also count examples that don’t use that word. But even then, how many examples would we have beyond these four? Bear in mind – it would be cheating to double up by counting the same teaching from two different Gospels (that would be like taking clippings from two different newspapers and then claiming that the same disaster happened twice!). I’ll use Matthew’s Gospel. If we choose only examples where Jesus is actually teaching about hell rather than a different subject, I would set the number at something close to zero. But let’s include examples that appear to refer to the final fate of the lost, even by way of a distant possible analogy in a story. Let’s start adding up.

    Some might suggest Matthew 7:19 as an example. “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” Well, maybe. I’m inclined to think that it’s not even a reference to the afterlife, but to the false teachers in Judaism who are going to be cut out of the kingdom in a judgement culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem. But – in spite of no obvious indicators in the context – let’s say that it’s a reference to punishment in the afterlife. If that’s what it is, then bear in mind that there’s also a teaching here about “heaven,” or rather, a teaching about acceptance in God’s kingdom too. Just a couple of verses later Jesus says “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

    Next would be Matthew 13, the story of the sower. The wheat represents those who belong to God, and the weeds represent the enemies of God. At the end of the story we hear (verse 30), “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.” Notice here that two outcomes are mentioned, a good one and a bad one. If we’re trying to read theologies of “heaven” and “hell” into such outcomes, then they both appear here. In verses 44 and 45 Jesus gives a couple more parables of the kingdom of heaven where only the positive side is mentioned. Then in the same chapter, in verses 47-50, Jesus compared the kingdom of heaven to a fishing net that caught good and bad fish. The good fish are kept and stored, but the bad fish are thrown away. Jesus says that this is like the way the evil will be thrown into a “fiery furnace.” But since the story describes the fate of the righteous and the wicked, we’d have to say that heaven and hell are both referred to.

    In Matthew 22:1-14, Jesus compared the kingdom of heaven to a wedding feast. In the story, assuming (as hellfire preachers do) that the outcomes here are all about heaven and hell, heaven is the main theme, since most of the people in the story get to remain at the wedding banquet. But the king orders his servants to take one guest and “cast him into the outer darkness.”

    In the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), a teaching on stewardship, three fates are described for three people in the story. Two of the master’s servants, who used what he had given them wisely, are told to enter the joy of their master. The last one is sent “into the outer darkness.” Again, if that’s hell, then heaven has already been mentioned as well.

    Lastly in Matthew’s Gospel there’s the story of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31-46), a well known teaching on doing good to others. At the conclusion of the story, we read of the two types of people, “and these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” If hell is there, heaven is there too.

    Let’s see – that’s five examples (these are all the examples that Walvoord uses), plus the four contexts where the actual word gehenna is used, so we have nine in total. For three years of public ministry and teaching, three years worth of sayings to draw on, nine times is not very often, especially when we consider the fact that none of these instances involves a sustained teaching on the subject. I’ve explained elsewhere that when Jesus taught on final punishment, he actually didn’t say about it what many evangelicals believe about it, but let’s not go there now. It’s hardly surprising that we have more references to this subject from Jesus than from any other biblical figure. The reality is, we simply have more teaching from Jesus than we do from (nearly) any other biblical figure. It would hardly be fair, for example, to do a search for a subject in the letters of John and a search for a subject in the Gospels to see who cared more about a subject: John or Jesus! The fact is, I think it’s a fair call to say Jesus taught more about most of the things that he taught about than he did about hell. Showing love to our neighbour, for example, or the importance of concern for the poor and outcast, the way we use money, or even the historical judgement of God that was about to come upon Jerusalem. But there’s definitely no case to be made that the evangelical theology of eternal torment in fire and brimstone can be derived from the clear and frequent teaching of Jesus because he said so much about it. That claim just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    An anonymous writer for RBC ministries tells us – and this is part of their radio broadcast as well – that “Jesus often talked about hell. Actually, he talked far more about hell than about heaven.”

    I suppose it’s a very Stoic sounding approach: Let’s just stiffen our upper lip, “man up” and admit the awful truth: Hell features more strongly in the teaching of Jesus than heaven. The trouble is, assuming that by “hell” we mean the fate of the lost and by “heaven” we mean the fate of the saved (a rather misguided way to use language if you ask me), it’s clearly false that Jesus referred to hell more than to heaven. Remember that for virtually every reference to hell that we just saw in Matthew’s Gospel, it was coupled with a reference to the fate of the people of God as well (the same applies to the use of gehenna in Matthew 18). So the count is already about even when we add up those contexts that refer to hell. But there are plenty of other texts that refer to the wondrous fate of God’s people as well. The list of examples in the beatitudes of Matthew 5 alone would tip the scales heavily. Then we have the treasures in heaven that await us in Matthew 6, in others Gospels we have the party thrown for the returned prodigal son, the promise that we have eternal life and will be raised up at the last day. The reality is, Jesus said very little about “hell” indeed, and certainly more about what he came to give us.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    That's lousy reasoning for saying such things.
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2014
  19. cocodrilo
    Online

    cocodrilo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    10,951
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +693
    Eternal damnation in hell is truly a strange argument for Christianity or a Creator of the Universe. You have to wonder how such an idea would occur to an almighty deity far above this speck called Earth. I wonder if it might be an idea projected upon the deity by us vengeful, all too human mortals, who like to say "God will get you for that." There is righteous comfort, as well as great fear, in believing in a God of such cruelty.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    Well made point.

    And what to make of non-Christians/folks of other religions or no religion at all?
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2014

Share This Page