Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
3 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2012 - 7:56PM #21
Beautiful_Dreamer
Posts: 5,167

From now on, any and all extended debate of Judaism, Jews as people, how wrong they are about something, etc will take place on Discuss Judaism. They cannot post here to defend themselves so, if you have something to say about them, do it where they can answer. Thanks.


Beautiful_Dreamer


Beliefnet Community Host, Christian to Christian Debate.

More where that came from...

Writing I get paid to do

Beliefnet Community Host - Christian Faith and Life, Christian to Christian Debate
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2012 - 10:26PM #22
hamerhas
Posts: 1,084

Timelines of scripture have always been misunderstood and missapplied.


One of the most popular misunderstandings/ misapplications of time applied is to calculate the


Jewish Shepherds visit to the newborn Christ as closely corresponding with the visiting of the "


kings " to the Christ  CHILD .


As if they could have passed each other on the road.


Yet we know from historical fact that the command by Herod to kill all male children 1 year and


younger was not issued without an understanding of the age the child he was attempting to


kill had most likely attained.


In spite of this historical fact, to this day it is quite a common occurance in most Christmas plays


conducted in christian churches & schools to see the portrayal of the Kings visiting the baby in


the manger.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 9:38AM #23
smcisaac
Posts: 8,062

Cliff, yes, of course there is a discrepancy between the Biblical "three days" and 72 chronological hours, but it is on its face an unimportant anomaly, easily explained in several ways.  If you think it is important rather than unimportant, it must be because you think it has broader implications, but you haven't suggested what those broader implications might be.


Is there a more profound conclusion that you are driving toward?  Perhaps you think it shows that the Bible is not perfectly inerrant, that it is inconsistent from some details to others at different places in the text?  I would agree, but a lot of us here already accept that and it doesn't trouble us.


If not that, then what?  (Or even if so, then what?) 

"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way."  Gospel of Philip, Logion 72

"Christ will regenerate all things; through Him all things will be purged, and return into eternal life. And when the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, all things will be God; that is, all things will still exist, but God will exist in them, and they will be full of Him." Fabius Manus Victorinus, c. 350 AD
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 11:47AM #24
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:38AM, smcisaac wrote:

yes, of course there is a discrepancy between the Biblical "three days" and 72 chronological hours


Gawd! I was beginning to wonder if anybody on Beliefnet was ever going to fess up to that. Finally! Thank you for having the courage to admit it.



Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:38AM, smcisaac wrote:

but it is on its face an unimportant anomaly


Maybe to you it is on its face an unimportant anomaly; but not to me; not when the Lord's resurrection is one of the two essential facts of the gospel that must be accepted in order to escape the wrath of God.



Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:38AM, smcisaac wrote:

Is there a more profound conclusion that you are driving toward?  Perhaps you think it shows that the Bible is not perfectly inerrant, that it is inconsistent from some details to others at different places in the text?


I do not believe the New Testament's chronology of crucifixion week is inconsistent. Nor do I believe the record isn't perfectly inerrant. I do not believe the New Testament is the problem. I believe the problem is how people interpret it; and that problem is compounded by people's fallible comprehension. In other words: the problem is not with the New Testament, no, the problem is with the minds of the people reading the New Testament.



Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:38AM, smcisaac wrote:

I would agree, but a lot of us here already accept that and it doesn't trouble us


You and the "a lot of us here" for whom you speak are not my role models. In point of fact, men far better educated, and far more experienced than I have been troubled enough by the New Testament record's apparent "inconsistencies" to dedicate portions of their lives to sleuthing the chronology of crucifixion week. I am so glad they did because their labors have spared me years of doing the very same thing.


You see, there are those of us among the rank and file who hate loose ends. We are not content to accept Mark Twain's humorous assessment of faith; which goes like this: Faith is a man believin' somethin' he knows ain't so. (chuckle) That is actually a pretty fair evaluation of most of the rank and file pew warmers filling the world's churches on Sunday morning— gullible chumps who haven't a clue.


There's a prolific ex-unbeliever author named Josh McDowell who wrote a book titled: Know What You Believe. I think his book's title is pretty good advice; and very applicable to crucifixion week; especially with Easter on the horizon.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 1:20PM #25
Svetlana
Posts: 11,315

Cliff, I think you'd have better luck at constructive conversation if you'd read people's posts with more attention.  No one denied that the chronology doesn't  match, we simply said it didn't affect our faith, that it doesn't matter to us.  In regard to that, you seem to think that it should matter, and that you are trying to make a more significant point.  We all agree the chronology is incorrect, so please tell us how and why that matters, and how it should affect our faith.  If you do have another point to make about that, please do so.


Thanks.

"No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it."  ~ (common sense)

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma."  ~ Gracie Allen

"I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"I wonder sometimes if we ever give God a headache." ~ Dontay Hall, age 8
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 2:30PM #26
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.

Mar 12, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Svetlana wrote:

I think you'd have better luck at constructive conversation if you'd read people's posts with more attention.


What an interesting coincidence. I've been feeling the very same way about you and some of the others.




Mar 12, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Svetlana wrote:

We all agree the chronology is incorrect, so please tell us how and why that matters, and how it should affect our faith.  If you do have another point to make about that, please do so.


Sorry; but I do not care to repeat myself. Had you been reading my posts with more attention; you wouldn't be asking me those questions since they've already been addressed at least once already.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 4:04PM #27
Svetlana
Posts: 11,315

Mar 12, 2012 -- 2:30PM, Webers_Home wrote:


Mar 12, 2012 -- 1:20PM, Svetlana wrote:

We all agree the chronology is incorrect, so please tell us how and why that matters, and how it should affect our faith.  If you do have another point to make about that, please do so.


Sorry; but I do not care to repeat myself. Had you been reading my posts with more attention; you wouldn't be asking me those questions since they've already been addressed at least once already.


Cliff
/



OK, I have re-read all your posts again (and yes, that means I've read them all at least three times).  All I have found is that perhaps I am to change my belief that the crucifiction occured on Friday to its having occured on Thursday, or the Resurrection from Sunday to Monday.  You went into a lot of calculations of the measurement of time and what it all meant to everyone in that time and place, but none of this tells me what I am to believe differently about the Resurrection, how your timeline is to correct my faith about Christ Himself.  I don't care WHEN it happened, I only care THAT it happened.  Is that my error?

"No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it."  ~ (common sense)

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma."  ~ Gracie Allen

"I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"I wonder sometimes if we ever give God a headache." ~ Dontay Hall, age 8
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 11:22PM #28
smcisaac
Posts: 8,062

Mar 12, 2012 -- 11:47AM, Webers_Home wrote:


Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:38AM, smcisaac wrote:

but it is on its face an unimportant anomaly


Maybe to you it is on its face an unimportant anomaly; but not to me; not when the Lord's resurrection is one of the two essential facts of the gospel that must be accepted in order to escape the wrath of God.



Why?  What makes the particular way that you count the 3 days so important?  What makes the error (as you see it) in counting it differently so important?  What is it about the difference that you consider to be so significant?


Mar 12, 2012 -- 9:38AM, smcisaac wrote:

Is there a more profound conclusion that you are driving toward?  Perhaps you think it shows that the Bible is not perfectly inerrant, that it is inconsistent from some details to others at different places in the text?


I do not believe the New Testament's chronology of crucifixion week is inconsistent. Nor do I believe the record isn't perfectly inerrant. I do not believe the New Testament is the problem. I believe the problem is how people interpret it; and that problem is compounded by people's fallible comprehension. In other words: the problem is not with the New Testament, no, the problem is with the minds of the people reading the New Testament.



Okay, so now you've given us one reason why this issue is not important: you don't think it illustrates an inconsistency in the text.  But you still haven't given us a reason why it is important.

"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way."  Gospel of Philip, Logion 72

"Christ will regenerate all things; through Him all things will be purged, and return into eternal life. And when the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, all things will be God; that is, all things will still exist, but God will exist in them, and they will be full of Him." Fabius Manus Victorinus, c. 350 AD
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 11:25PM #29
Webers_Home
Posts: 922

.
FAQ : Isn't Mtt 12:40-41 just a metaphor?


Well; as for me, I decline to accept that Jonah's burial constitutes a metaphor because the wording of the New Testament and the wording of Old Testament are essentially identical.


†. Jonah 1:17 . . Yhvh provided a great fish to swallow Jonah; and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.


†. Mtt 12:40-41 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


Since I know for proof positive from Mrk 9:31, Luke 18:33, Luke 24:6-7, Luke 24:46, Luke 24:21, and 1Cor 15:4 that Mtt 12:40-41 meant the Lord would revive on the third day instead of after the third day was over; then I believe it is perfectly safe for me to assume Jonah 1:17 means the very same thing; and John 2:19 too.


Note : the above FAQ is a real-life inquiry. I didn't make it up.


Cliff
/

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 13, 2012 - 10:29AM #30
smcisaac
Posts: 8,062

Mar 12, 2012 -- 11:25PM, Webers_Home wrote:


.
FAQ : Isn't Mtt 12:40-41 just a metaphor?


Well; as for me, I decline to accept that Jonah's burial constitutes a metaphor because the wording of the New Testament and the wording of Old Testament are essentially identical.


†. Jonah 1:17 . . Yhvh provided a great fish to swallow Jonah; and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.


†. Mtt 12:40-41 . . As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


Since I know for proof positive from Mrk 9:31, Luke 18:33, Luke 24:6-7, Luke 24:46, Luke 24:21, and 1Cor 15:4 that Mtt 12:40-41 meant the Lord would revive on the third day instead of after the third day was over; then I believe it is perfectly safe for me to assume Jonah 1:17 means the very same thing; and John 2:19 too.


Note : the above FAQ is a real-life inquiry. I didn't make it up.


Cliff
/




So IF we read these two passages in concert, and IF we read them literally rather than figuratively, and IF we accept the premise that they are absoutely true and correct and in perfect agreement when interpreted literally, and IF we conclude that this means either a third nightfall or a third daybreak must have occurred after Jesus's burial and before his resurrection, that must mean that either Jesus died on Thursday or he rose on Monday.  But Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, and John 20:42 all explicitly agree that Jesus died and was buried on the "day of Preparation", which is the day preceding the Sabbath, i. e., Friday.  So he must have died on Friday, and risen on Monday. So that in turn would mean that the liturgical tradition of celebrating Easter on Sunday must be off by a day.


Which leads to the overarching question:  So what?  Some of us may doubt your interpretation, but even if this is the correct interpretation and other views are mistaken, so that the traditional celebration of the anniversary of the Resurrection is in fact off by a day, what difference does it make?


Moreover, if this interpretation is correct, why is it directly and clearly contradicted by every one of the four Gospels?  Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 all explicitly agree that the empty tomb was discovered on the "first day of the week". The first day in both Roman and Jewish calendars was Sunday, not Monday. Matthew and Mark are even more specific in identifying it as the day following the Sabbath.   In other words, each Gospel testifies explicitly and consistently not only that Jesus died on Friday, but also that the empty tomb was discovered on Sunday.  How does your interpretation explain that?

"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way."  Gospel of Philip, Logion 72

"Christ will regenerate all things; through Him all things will be purged, and return into eternal life. And when the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father, all things will be God; that is, all things will still exist, but God will exist in them, and they will be full of Him." Fabius Manus Victorinus, c. 350 AD
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook