The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[heretic888]

Just a little something I'd like to add...

If you read the entirety of the second chapter of 1 Corinthians, you will find that the secondary definition of psuchikos (which 7starmantis has previously asserted was the only definition of the word) -- 'of the animal life, animal' -- makes little sense in light of the context the author is writing within.

The author begins by proclaiming that, when he first came to the Corinthians, he desired that they 'know nothing' other than the gospel of 'Christ crucified'. He then states his teaching does not rest on 'eloquent words' or the 'wisdom (sophia) of men', but on God's word. But, curiously, the author then goes on to mention that there is a 'wisdom' (sophia) spoken among the 'initiated' or 'completed' or 'fulfilled' (teleos).

In other words, he references a deeper understanding that only those fully completed or initiated into the teachings can possess. This is not only evocative of mystery school symbolism, but it also belies any definition of psuchikos in this context as referring to 'sensous' or 'carnal' truths. Psuchikos, in this context, seems to refer to individuals that not yet fully 'initiated' or 'completed' within Christ.

If you don't believe me, open up a Bible and read through the second chapter of 1 Corinthians yourself. At no point does the author even allude to hedonistic or carnalistic desires. Instead, he distinguishes between the doctrine of 'Christ crucified' which he first taught to his audience as compared to the 'wisdom of the initiated' that he was reserving for the Corinthians when they were 'mature' or 'perfected' or 'fulfilled' (teleos) enough to receive.

This is very, very telling.

And, of course, the most telling part of the second chapter of 1 Corinthians is how the author ends his dissertation. He concludes by simply stating, "But we have the mind (nous) of Christ."

This is the zenith, the summum bonum, the ultimate completion of the mystery school initiation: a radical identity with the Son of God himself.

Throughout 1 Corinthians 2, we see are perfectly in accord with what would be a Jewish version of the ubiquitous Hellenistic mystery school. Upon first arrival, the traveling preacher desires that his prospective flock know only the literal, outward, or 'physical' lessons of his teachings --- that of 'Christ crucified'. He then divulges that there is indeed a 'wisdom' among those 'initiated' or 'fulfilled' or 'perfected' within the teaching, and that this 'wisdom' is not of this world or of this age. He then states that only those who are properly 'perfected', those with a 'spiritual' understanding of the teachings, can properly receive the Spirit of God and that such a 'spiritual' perspective enables one to understand or discern all things. Lastly, the preacher caps off this 'spirital' teaching by stating very clearly that he and the 'perfected' possess the very mind of the Son of God.

So, again, we are in perfect accord with what we would expect from a Jewish mystery school. The fact that the Pauline authors evince a decided ignorance of much of the Gospel narrative (such as claiming Christ appeared before 'the Twelve' after the Resurrection, apparently ignorant of Judas' suicide), as well as the fact that only Gnostic schools (such as those of Marcion and Valentinus) claim Paul's authority prior to the appearance of the Pastoral Letters in the late 2nd century (appearing collectively and spontaneously in the hands of Irenaeus), all lend credence to this explanation.

Furthermore, there is the logical wrinkle of Occam's Razor: given all the available information, what is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation?? That the 'Gnostic heresy' became so widespread in such a short time (within a generation) so as to completely overshadow orthodox literalism in virtually all parts of the known Christian world?? Or, that orthodox literalism (which later developed into what is now Roman Catholicism) was itself a historically later emergent, developing in Rome in the latter half of the second century??

Which of these, truly, makes more sense??

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

But, if you don't believe me, maybe you'll listen to Robert M. Price.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[7starmantis]

You've posted that the Bible has no contradictions. I'm posting contradictions and giving an explanation for their existence. The authors wrote independently, borrowed freely from the Old Testament and Egyptian and Greek mythology in drafting their stories, and borrowed freely from each other.

In that essence, I'm debating the inerrancy of the Bible by providing suppositions to the contrary and giving them support through an analysis of the texts themselves. That is my point, so I disagree with your contention the thread has no point. If you can't deal with the information I've provided and make counter-points of your own, then do indeed stand back.

Yes, my point however is that suppositions are simply not proof of anything and are simply suppositions. You offer assumptions to support your belief, not really verifiable proof. Plus, your "errancy of the bible" arguemtn is a little weak when your not presenting contradictions but theories about people stealing stories from each other.

This is the attitude that makes this debate trite:

If you can't deal with the information I've provided and make counter-points of your own, then do indeed stand back.

Again, assuming a false premise that because I post a dislike for the way the thread is going or the arguemnt is being presented that I "can't deal".

1) Contrary to what has been previously stated, the Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon does indeed distinguish between phusikos and psuchikos. Not only this, but it also provides a wealth of related information concerning the terminology, including: the frequency of the query in classical poetry and prose (respectively), a list of words with similar definitions to the query, a list of words that regularly appear with the query in both poetry and prose (respectively), and direct citations to serve as examples for each definition accompanying the query.

Your correct, I stand corrected, your lexicon does indeed distinguish between the two words, however the distinction is incomplete. It lists a contradiction within itself here:

Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon[/url]]psu_chi-kos , ê, on,

• 
  
  A.of the soul or life, spiritual, opp. sômatikos, hêdonaiArist.EN1117b28 ; hormaiPlb.8.10.9 ; pneuma ps. the spirit, or breath of life, Plu.2.1084e, [p. 2028] etc.; nosos ib.524d. Adv. -kôs Ph.1.81 ; opp. sômatikôs, noerôs, Procl.Inst.139; also, heartily, from the heart,LXX 2 Ma.4.37, 14.24.

• • • 2.of the animal life, animal,ho ps. anthrôpos the natural man, opp. hopneumatikos, 1 Ep.Cor.2.14, cf. Ep.Jud.19, Phot. s.v.

Ok, it says the one word means both: "Of the soul or life, spiritual"
as well as: "Of the animal life, animal". How do you explain that?
Let me axplain, the word psuchikos (which is the only one used in said passage, thus the only one really worth discussing) is listed by Liddel-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon as meaning both of these deffinitions. However, they ignored a great distinction. Psuchikos does in fact mean "natural" but it is in distinction on the one hand from pneumatikos, which is the higher or renovated nature; and on the other from phusikos, which is the lower or bestial nature.
Your lexicon leaves this distinction unlisted, thus allowing two seperate and almost opposite deffinitions for one word. Its not neccessarily completely incorrect, simply incomplete.

5) Just because the lexicon I used claims the secondary definition is used in the second chapter of 1 Corinthians does not necessarily make it so. I was merely citing the lexicon as demonstrating there are multiple interpretations and definitions of the word psuchikos, which I think has been adequately demonstrated at this point. As to whether any given usage has a particular meaning in mind, this is solely dependent on the context in which the word is used. I will address the context of 1 Corinthians 2 in my next point.

Now your discounting your own source? No one was arguing there were not multiple deffinitions for the word, simply not such inclusive and contradicting ones. The words are in different form and usage when they mean other things, I'm actually surprised you overlooked noting this in your posts. Your lexicon includes all these distinctions in one word's deffinition, ignoring the different forms and usages used to create different meanings.

6) If you read the entirety of the second chapter of 1 Corinthians, you will find that the secondary definition of psuchikos (which 7starmantis has previously asserted was the only definition of the word) -- 'of the animal life, animal' -- makes little sense in light of the context the author is writing within.

OK, lets get started here. The deffinition of psuchikos I gave is neither secondary or solitary. Neither of which I claimed. Using the word "secondary" here is extremely disingenuous. Having two deffinitions in ancient greek doesn't mean one is "more correct" or "less correct" it simply shows the word is able to be used differently to mean a slightly different thing. Actually the context of the author highly supports this deffinition, thus the reason I gave it, I'll present that a bit further on.

The author begins by proclaiming that, when he first came to the Corinthians, he desired that they 'know nothing' other than the gospel of 'Christ crucified'. He then states his teaching does not rest on 'eloquent words' or the 'wisdom (sophia) of men', but on God's word. But, curiously, the author then goes on to mention that there is a 'wisdom' (sophia) spoken among the 'initiated' or 'completed' or 'fulfilled' (teleos).

I'm assuming your refrencing this verse:

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Is that correct? Your paraphrasing leaves much to be desired. Your have misquoted this verse and thus created a differnet context. The author is not saying here that "he desired that they 'know nothing' other than the gospel of 'Christ crucified'". What he is saying is that he (the author) decided not to "judge" or "condemn" (krino - condemn, punish:--avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence. Strong's) them for anything before arriving basically.

He goes on to speak of wisdome (sophia) but makes a very clear distinction between "mans wisdom" (lower wisdom) and "gods wisdom" (higher wisdom). Your using the same meaning when he (the author) clearly makes a distinction. The greek word (sophia) means: wisdom (higher or lower, worldly or spiritual) according to my several lexicons, so the distinction must be made, and it is.

In other words, he references a deeper understanding that only those fully completed or initiated into the teachings can possess. This is not only evocative of mystery school symbolism, but it also belies any definition of psuchikos in this context as referring to 'sensous' or 'carnal' truths. Psuchikos, in this context, seems to refer to individuals that not yet fully 'initiated' or 'completed' within Christ.

Yes, your correct here, he does refrence a deeper understanding not grasped by those who are not "believers" or who do not have "gods wisdom". The fact that it is "evocative" of any symbolism doesn't change its meaning. It eithe rhas one meaning or the other, it can't have several meanings. How exactly does it "belie" any deffinition of psuchikos? What it seems to refer to you or anyone else is not what I'm after, or what I'm presenting. What it actually refers to is what I'm showing and interested in.

If you don't believe me, open up a Bible and read through the second chapter of 1 Corinthians yourself. At no point does the author even allude to hedonistic or carnalistic desires. Instead, he distinguishes between the doctrine of 'Christ crucified' which he first taught to his audience as compared to the 'wisdom of the initiated' that he was reserving for the Corinthians when they were 'mature' or 'perfected' or 'fulfilled' (teleos) enough to receive.

He isn't speaking of hedonistic of carnal desires, but of those who are governed by them. Every perosn has "hedonistic" or "carnalistic" desires according to the bible, the distinction is made between those who live in those desires and those who make an effort to live by other desires, spiritual desires if you will.
Again, your makign a distinction where there is none. He is not distinguishing between "christ crucified" and "wisdom of the initiated" but between levels of understanding. I dont see any proof of these theories you are presenting besides suppositions and feelings. I'm presenting actual text and deffinitions that show these theories and suppositions to be false.

On a side note, I hope people reading this go out and read a bible or got online and read one, on both sides of this discussion. There is alot of information being presented that is very clear by just reading the passages.

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Yes, my point however is that suppositions are simply not proof of anything and are simply suppositions. You offer assumptions to support your belief, not really verifiable proof. Plus, your "errancy of the bible" arguemtn is a little weak when your not presenting contradictions but theories about people stealing stories from each other.

When contrasted with attempts at harmonization by true believers, they're also far better explanations, supposition or not. The theory of Judas's suicide rope breaking is nothing more than a supposition, one ought note.

Again, assuming a false premise that because I post a dislike for the way the thread is going or the arguemnt is being presented that I "can't deal".

Well, those reading the thread might note all those challenges I've presented that you haven't dealt with. I--for one--am waiting.

On a side note, I hope people reading this go out and read a bible or got online and read one, on both sides of this discussion. There is alot of information being presented that is very clear by just reading the passages.

I'll extend that suggestion. Read the entire thing, as boring as it can be. Take it in small chunks. Then read scholarly analyses of it, as well as some popular apologetics. I'll provide anyone that wants it with a suggested reading list.



Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

When contrasted with attempts at harmonization by true believers, they're also far better explanations, supposition or not. The theory of Judas's suicide rope breaking is nothing more than a supposition, one ought note.

In many cases you are exactly right. However, "far better explinations" does not mean actual fact in all cases. Someone may be far more willing to accept an explination that is devoid of fact simply because of thier experiences or belief system.

The theory of Judas' rope breaking is a supposition, your correct. However its not one that plays an important role in factualness of the stories. The stories still "jive" without that supposition. So its really a non issue, if you recal its not something I offered as proof of anything.

Well, those reading the thread might note all those challenges I've presented that you haven't dealt with. I--for one--am waiting.

An appeal to the thought process of all those suppositious readers out there? :wink:
Ok, I seem to have lost track, I kept "refuting" your "challenges" without even a nod from you, you just kept posting three and four "challeneges" at a time. Most of which are easily refuted with correct context and quoting of the text in question....I'll scroll back several pages and see what I can do

I'll extend that suggestion. Read the entire thing, as boring as it can be. Take it in small chunks. Then read scholarly analyses of it, as well as some popular apologetics. I'll provide anyone that wants it with a suggested reading list.

As will I, only expect mine to contain reading from both sides of the arguments, both extreme and mild. Remember to research the bias and experience of your "scholarly reading" as well.

I'll address some of your "challenges" as soon as I have a little time. It would help if you clearly defined your "challenge" though. Are you offering contradictions, unbelievable facts, incorrect historical data, etc...

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Ok, I seem to have lost track, I kept "refuting" your "challenges" without even a nod from you, you just kept posting three and four "challeneges" at a time. Most of which are easily refuted with correct context and quoting of the text in question....I'll scroll back several pages and see what I can do

I'll address some of your "challenges" as soon as I have a little time. It would help if you clearly defined your "challenge" though. Are you offering contradictions, unbelievable facts, incorrect historical data, etc...

7sm

And I've offered things to which you've not responded. I had nothing further to say after your answer to the Bethpage/Bethany post. You made your point, I made mine. Let your refutations stand if they go unanswered. Others will decide for themselves whether they have merit when contrasted with what I present.

I posted three or four at a time to show a number (and I have far more) of instances where NT writers borrowed from the Septuagint for their source material. This isn't all about you, 7Star. Other readers are out there to whom I'm presenting this.

But if you want specifics, start with the crucifixion time-line contradictions I listed. That'll be a good start.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

But if you want specifics, start with the crucifixion time-line contradictions I listed. That'll be a good start.

OK, lets do that. If I'm correct you addressing:

25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

This is easily clearified by understanding that Mark is using Jewish time (sunset to sunset; third hour = 9 AM) while John is using Roman time, which is like ours (sixth hour = 6 AM - note that John says about the sixth hour; he's estimating). We can see this is factual and true by looking at the crucifiction itself. We know that it took over 6 hours, if John's sixth hour is really the Jewish sixth hour (noon), then the crucifixion lasted past the time when the Sabbath started. John 19:31 says that the Jews didn't want the bodies left up over the Sabbath, which obviously means that the Sabbath hadn't started yet.

However, we can see even further evidence of John using Roman time. In John 1:39 we are told that Andrew and Peter met Jesus and "spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour." If this were Jewish time, that would make it 4 PM, too late to spend the "day" with someone. But by Roman time, it is 10 AM, ample time to spend the day.

So we can clearly see that what appeared to be a contradiction is merely a misunderstanding of the actual context. Many supposed contradicitons are cleared up this way, by simply digging deeper into the stories and backgrounds.

OK, so I'll try and address some more tomorrow.

7sm

 

[Raewyn]

Please dont hurt me when I ask this but....................... I have just read through all 18 pages of this thread and I still dont quite understand..............

Why all the debate??? Do you all have something to prove???? Why are there always arguements/debates over the bible??? I have mentioned this before but why can 1 verse/chapter or even testement be interpreted differently by so many people?? Im a non believer but I have an open mind and I know people have very strong views on this......... but I am just trying to understand. I thought that the bible was a way that god speaks to us in this day and age? I thought it was based on faith, whether you choose to believe was just a matter of faith?? Why is there a need to prove whether the bible is fact or fiction??

Have I just taken the wrong end of the stick in regards to what this thread is all about?? I dont know, enquiring minds would like to know.

 

[7starmantis]

Please dont hurt me when I ask this but....................... I have just read through all 18 pages of this thread and I still dont quite understand..............

Why all the debate??? Do you all have something to prove???? Why are there always arguements/debates over the bible??? I have mentioned this before but why can 1 verse/chapter or even testement be interpreted differently by so many people?? Im a non believer but I have an open mind and I know people have very strong views on this......... but I am just trying to understand. I thought that the bible was a way that god speaks to us in this day and age? I thought it was based on faith, whether you choose to believe was just a matter of faith?? Why is there a need to prove whether the bible is fact or fiction??

Have I just taken the wrong end of the stick in regards to what this thread is all about?? I dont know, enquiring minds would like to know.

Thats a good point, but because something can be interpreted differently doesn't mean there is no truth. Because people interpret things differently doesn't change whats true or factual. I think the bible is something you must "believe" with "faith", but even so why should it be a blind faith? The fact is that the bible is either true or not, inerrent or contains errors, the insipred words of God or not. I think thats what the thread is about. In my opinion is just simply interested and I enjoy this kind of debate. On the other hand, I have been forced as a child to learn alot about the bible, and it gets to me to hear people offering arguments of the bibles truth or falsehood with flawed arguements. I dont mind someone proving the bible incorrect to me as long as they do theri homework and offer me facts substantiated with proof.


7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

This is easily clearified by understanding that Mark is using Jewish time...

This doesn't solve the contradiction at all. If you read what I wrote, the two accounts have the crucifixion on different DAYS. Mark has Jesus slaughtered on Passover, with the Passover seder (the meal) consumed as his last supper on the evening of his arrest with his execution the next day. John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover when the Passover lambs are slaughtered, and his final meal isn't the Passover seder. In John, Jesus was dead by the time Passover starts. In Mark, he's alive and preparing for Passover.

This has nothing to do with Roman or Jewish time, and the use of these as an apologetic harmonization ignores the fact that John clearly has Jesus die on a different day altogether.

Why all the debate??? Do you all have something to prove????

Yes.

Raewyn, the inerrancy of the Bible has been used throughout American history as justification for slavery; denying women their rights; for the murder of women suspected as being witches; for the crimes perpetrated against native populations; for the persecution and social shunning of homosexuals; for the subjugation of free thought and artistic expression; for attacks on science and science education; for the suppression of academic freedom; and for some of the most mean spirited and hateful rhetoric one can imagine.

A personal observation of this latter example was when I saw a "Hellfire and Brimstone" preacher exercising his right to free speech on the Indiana University campus. A young woman passed by--she said nothing to him and did nothing to interrupt his red-faced ranting--and he called her a "whore." She burst into tears.

I personally don't mind if people choose to believe. When they wear their beliefs on their sleeves and use their faith as a rationale for dangerous political activism and public exhortations of nonsense, then I'm going to take a stand against it.


Regards,


Steve

 

[mantis]

Please dont hurt me when I ask this but....................... I have just read through all 18 pages of this thread and I still dont quite understand..............

Why all the debate??? Do you all have something to prove???? Why are there always arguements/debates over the bible??? I have mentioned this before but why can 1 verse/chapter or even testement be interpreted differently by so many people?? Im a non believer but I have an open mind and I know people have very strong views on this......... but I am just trying to understand. I thought that the bible was a way that god speaks to us in this day and age? I thought it was based on faith, whether you choose to believe was just a matter of faith?? Why is there a need to prove whether the bible is fact or fiction??

Have I just taken the wrong end of the stick in regards to what this thread is all about?? I dont know, enquiring minds would like to know.

I do not mean to offend anyone here, but I made an observation.
There are at least two mistakes being committed on this thread
1. people talk while their ears are closed
2. people present a vast number of points.
the conclusion of these two mistakes is NONE of the conflicts are being resolved, and this thread is going nowhere until you guys lead US, the audience, to a conclusion SOON.

 

[arnisador]

There really are too many points to follow. It mightbe best to start a new thread focused on some one of them.

 

[7starmantis]

Good point, but lets not start another thread, this one is directed towards that topic, so lets see what we can do....I'll address the alleged "rape and murder" charge, in my next post, I have to run right now, but Ill jump on when I can and address that one since its a big one.

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Good point, but lets not start another thread, this one is directed towards that topic, so lets see what we can do....I'll address the alleged "rape and murder" charge, in my next post, I have to run right now, but Ill jump on when I can and address that one since its a big one.

7sm

You haven't addressed the crucifixion question I posed yet.

Mantis is quite correct in his point. You didn't read my post. At no point did you address it.

There are two main crucifixion timeline contradictions. One debates the hour of the crucifixion, the other debates the day.

I presented the latter contradiction, and you answered with the stock answer for the first question...which I didn't bring up. Now you're saying in your next post you're moving on to something I posted...how many pages ago? You haven't addressed THIS one yet.

Why?

So once again, I ask with diminishing patience, was Jesus crucified on Passover as Mark states--or on Passover eve as John states?


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

This doesn't solve the contradiction at all. If you read what I wrote, the two accounts have the crucifixion on different DAYS. Mark has Jesus slaughtered on Passover, with the Passover seder (the meal) consumed as his last supper on the evening of his arrest with his execution the next day. John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover when the Passover lambs are slaughtered, and his final meal isn't the Passover seder. In John, Jesus was dead by the time Passover starts. In Mark, he's alive and preparing for Passover.

This has nothing to do with Roman or Jewish time, and the use of these as an apologetic harmonization ignores the fact that John clearly has Jesus die on a different day altogether.

My bad, I just didn't make myself clear enough. I sort of jumped to another parallel point. I'll address it clearer in a bit.

Raewyn, the inerrancy of the Bible has been used throughout American history as justification for slavery; denying women their rights; for the murder of women suspected as being witches; for the crimes perpetrated against native populations; for the persecution and social shunning of homosexuals; for the subjugation of free thought and artistic expression; for attacks on science and science education; for the suppression of academic freedom; and for some of the most mean spirited and hateful rhetoric one can imagine.

A personal observation of this latter example was when I saw a "Hellfire and Brimstone" preacher exercising his right to free speech on the Indiana University campus. A young woman passed by--she said nothing to him and did nothing to interrupt his red-faced ranting--and he called her a "whore." She burst into tears.

Now, this is whats called radical extremes and is just as much a "sin" in the bible as murder. See, anyone who uses the bible to justify something the bible clearly labels as wrong or "sin" is simply not understanding or intentionally using it to justify their own evils. We could also make a list of radical extremist who use the bible's alleged inaccuracy to support their "habits" as well. The truth is that not everyone who believes in the bible is a bigoted racist homophobe; just as everyone who does not believe in the bible is not a mass murdering sexual predator who drinks the blood of virgins on haloween. Can we see that extreme statements aren't really the norm?

I personally don't mind if people choose to believe. When they wear their beliefs on their sleeves and use their faith as a rationale for dangerous political activism and public exhortations of nonsense, then I'm going to take a stand against it.

However you seem to take a stand against anyone who believes the bible, not just those who use it for their own "nonsense". No one in this thread is participating in any of your listed examples.

You didn't read my post. At no point did you address it.

There are two main crucifixion timeline contradictions. One debates the hour of the crucifixion, the other debates the day.

I presented the latter contradiction, and you answered with the stock answer for the first question...which I didn't bring up. Now you're saying in your next post you're moving on to something I posted...how many pages ago? You haven't addressed THIS one yet.

Why?

So once again, I ask with diminishing patience, was Jesus crucified on Passover as Mark states--or on Passover eve as John states?

Whoa there chief....lets not fly off the handle. Breath and repeat after me....woooosaaaaaa

Ok, I'll address your post later, I just got into addressing the hour and didn't clearly make my point, I'll address it later tonight. Anyone who reads my post and then reads the passage could really see it though.....for those who can not I will post it later tonight.

7sm

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The truth is that not everyone who believes in the bible is a bigoted racist homophobe; just as everyone who does not believe in the bible is not a mass murdering sexual predator who drinks the blood of virgins on haloween. Can we see that extreme statements aren't really the norm?

I never said that everyone who believed in the Bible is a mass murdering sexual predator that drinks the blood of virgins on Halloween. Nor did I say that all Christians are evil. As for extremes being the norm, they may not be...but they're the most dangerous.

However you seem to take a stand against anyone who believes the bible, not just those who use it for their own "nonsense".

I said--and its above for you to read:

"I personally don't mind if people choose to believe. When they wear their beliefs on their sleeves and use their faith as a rationale for dangerous political activism and public exhortations of nonsense, then I'm going to take a stand against it."

What part of that did you not understand?

Whoa there chief....lets not fly off the handle. Breath and repeat after me....woooosaaaaaa

<snicker>...loss of patience isn't necessarily anger...you haven't seen me angry...nor close to it.

I turn green when I get angry.

And then Hulk smash.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

John has Jesus arrested the night before the Passover, and the last supper isn't a Passover meal at all (John, chapters 13, 18 and 19). He attributes Paschal significance to Jesus's crucifixion by having John the Baptist identify him as "the Lamb of God," and having Jesus killed at the very hour the Passover lambs are slaughtered.

Mark, on the other hand, has Jesus's disciples going into town to prepare for Passover (and the last supper before his arrest that evening) at the exact same time John has Jesus on the cross.

OK, since you have not given specific verses, I'll just assume I know of which you refer. It has been argued that John shifted the time to correspond with the slaughtering of the lambs, however, if John wanted to make this point, he could have done so quite obviously (as Mark mentioned the exact day the lambs were killed), and John is clearly the one who would make significant mention of it (as the one who called Jesus the "lamb of God"). So, seeing that the idea may be flawed, lets look deeper at the time frame. What we gather from the synpotics and historical data is this time frame:

1. lambs (the passover, and the first day of the longer feast of Unleavened Bread) were killed (Thursday afternoon)
2. the Last Supper was eaten at the beginning of the Passover holiday (Thursday evening, until early Friday morning; in accord with the Jewish reckoning which started a day at 6 PM)
3. Jesus was crucified (Friday morning and afternoon)

OK, so on surface we see a contradiction, but lets dig even deeper. Most recognize that in John 13:1, the only thing being said to be "before the passover" was Jesus' knowledge, and that verse 2 starts a new thought. Thats very likely and possible, but lets seek fact.
John 18:28 states:

28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

Here, people read that Caiaphas and friends have yet to eat the passover. The key here is in knowing that "Passover" was used to refer to the entire feast which was also known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. During this feast, there were still sacrifices being offered that the priests might temporarily disqualify themselves from by being in the place of a Gentile. We can see factual evidence of this by looking at a few supporting facts:

• In Luke's Gospel: Luke 2:41-43 - Speaks of Jesus' parents going to Jerusalme for the "days" of the passover.
• In Mark's Gospel: Mark 14:12 "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover..."
• Even in Josephus, who like Mark calls the first day of unleavened bread the passover.
• In rabbinic sources, which refer to the "nights of Passover" (in the plural).

So we see from my earlier post that the hour is quite correct and they correspond. We see from this post that the word used "passover" is not refering to the same day. See, John 19:14 speaks of the "preparation of the passover".The main point for contradiction here is to say that this "preparation of the passover" refers to the preparing of it on Thursday. But the word "preparation" here refers to the day of preparation for the Sabbath -- i.e., Friday. In other words, John is saying that it was the Friday, the Sabbath preparation day, of the Passover. The word "preparation" (paraskeu) is never used anywhere else in coordination with the word "Passover" like this, and elsewhere it always refers to Friday before a Sabbath. Note as well that John goes on to refer to the preparation by itself in 19:42, which all agree refers to a Friday.


We can also see from John 19:31 that the jews wanted Jesus' body down from the cross because it was preparation day (friday) and the body should not be left for sabbath (saturday). We see proof of this here in:

John 13:27-29 (KJV)] And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. 28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. 29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

Some think this means John puts the Supper on a Wednesday, because shops would not be open if it were Thursday night for Judas to buy stuff for the Passover feast. But first, the "feast" here should be understood as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the several days of holiday that followed. Second, if this is Wednesday, then why is it needful for Judas to move quickly under this assumption, since they could easily go shopping Thursday?
Also this passage clues us in about this being a Passover eve by the reference to the poor. It was on Passover eve that the temple gates were left open from midnight forward, so that beggars could congregate there and collect alms.


So, we can see now that the two stories are exactly identical in day and hour....seems strange they are so exact and yet none of the disciples or authors of these passages had watches or clocks eh?


7sm

 

[7starmantis]

Now lets look at the alleged rape and murder ordered by God in the OT. Lets just begin with the best example for HHJH's case....Numbers 31.

On the charge of rape, lets look at the facts.
It's quite clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women, but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives (31:19), and rape (or even consensual intercourse) would have violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the women are usually referred to as people, not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as captives rather than sexual objects.

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women, but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen God punish such violations with death during their travels in the desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions resulting from their relations with Midianite (the very people we are talking about here) women (25:1-9), as Moses reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women given this context.

[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]God did gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt 21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt 23:15-16).

[/font]Lets also look at the prospect of rape or "forced sex" of captives:[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]
The law explicitly condemned all of the following: [/font]

• [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Rape (Dt 22:25-27)[/font]
• [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Prostitution (23:17-18)[/font]
• [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Sex outside of marriage, whether consensual or not (Ex 22:16-17, Dt 22:28-29)[/font]
• [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Sex with a servant who was betrothed or married to someone else (Lev 19:20-22)[/font]

Which leads us to wonder why the non-virgin females and boys were slaughtered, when they'd be perfectly good house slaves.

Good question, with some background and digging its pretty easy to see the reasons. [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The Midianites conspired with the Moabites to curse Israel (Num 22:1-7). When the curse was turned into a blessing instead (24:10-11), the Moabite and Midianite woman agreed to seduce the Israelite men and in doing so entice them to serve their idols (25:1-9, 31:15-16, Rev 2:14). The Israelites who fell prey to this and engaged in idolatry were also held responsible, and were executed (25:4-5). Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared. (RationalChristianity).

7sm

[/font]

 

[hardheadjarhead]

[/list] Good question, with some background and digging its pretty easy to see the reasons. [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The Midianites conspired with the Moabites to curse Israel (Num 22:1-7). When the curse was turned into a blessing instead (24:10-11), the Moabite and Midianite woman agreed to seduce the Israelite men and in doing so entice them to serve their idols (25:1-9, 31:15-16, Rev 2:14). The Israelites who fell prey to this and engaged in idolatry were also held responsible, and were executed (25:4-5). Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared. (RationalChristianity).

And the little boys? Why were they killed?



Regards,


Steve

 

[arnisador]

And the little boys? Why were they killed?

Hey, this is getting pretty depressing!