rhutchin

When Mark uses the term, "Later...," it's meaning is ambiguous. It can mean one hour, one day, one month. When we incorporate the information provided by John regarding Thomas, we can fix the time as "eight days later." John does not tell us that Jesus rebuked Thomas. He only offered Thomas the evidence that he had sought.

Mark tell us that Jesus rebuked the "eleven" for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. There is nothing wrong with this occurring eight days later when Thomas was with them and they would be less emotional. Even though the ten believe that Jesus is alive after He appears to them on easter night, it is still true that they did not believe the testimony of others who had seen Him before they did. They have earned a rebuke. Jesus could well have waited to rebuke them when they were not overcome with the emotion of seeing Him alive on easter night.

The only alleged travesty that you have presented is that I am not buying into your explanation of the events that occurred. That is nothing for anyone to get excited about.

Jack the Bodiless

Why do you imagine that regular animal sacrifices are "for sin"?

In the OT, it appears to be just a religious duty, a form of worship.
Why can't you just read each story for what it says? Why do you imagine an elaborate conspiracy among the gospel authors to break up the account into pieces that give a false impression when each is read in isolation?

And what about the missing pieces that might be in the Gospel of Mary, or (especially) the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas? Have you even read those?

What about the gospels that have been lost, or the portions that have been lost (like most of Mary IIRC)?

rhutchin

As you say, "It appears..." The idea behind the sacrifices is that a sinful person could not approach God without an acknowledgment of his sinfulness and this acknowledgment was represented by the offering. A person then, as well as now, could not worship God without acknowledging his sinfulness which the Israelites did through the offering and believers do by acknowledging the cross. Do you have a specific offering in mind that you think runs counter to this?

Because in reading each gospel story, it becomes evident that each writer is not providing a complete and comprehensive account of the ministry and death of Jesus but one writer may tell us certain things and another tells us other things. For example, the Book of Matthew is basically an expansion of the Book of Mark that repeats much of the information in Mark and then expands on this by providing information not found in Mark.

For one writer, such as John to provide information that he is privy to because of his close association with Jesus and presence at events where others were not present is not the definition of a conspiracy.

Dogfish

Isn't that the same as a challange - wanting other documents to be considered?

And I'm sure Muslims "know" as much about their god as you "know" about yours.

Dogfish

Do you have references that state that the sacrifices were specifically for sin?

Eddie Schultz

For rhutchin, and any others who believe the bible to be inerrant. The bible claims the earth to be around 6,000 years old (some say between 6 and 10 thousand years). The thread is about contadictions in the bible, but I thought this would fit, as it's blatantly not true (to rational thinkers, anyway).

How old is the earth?
If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”

If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)

If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.

If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.

If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.

If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”

If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).

The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)


To me, this is the case closer, because there isn't one Creationist that can show evidence for this. (if they do, it is not peer reviewed evidence, only what their faith tells them to present as truth) And they can't present any evidence to dispute the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old, as over 99% of all Scientists have found to be fairly accurate.

Any takers?

Happy New Year, everyone! :wave:

makerowner

I'd rather just read what it says. Doesn't that make more sense?

If you asked some of the NT authors, they would have been very concerned with works as well: " 'I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.' " (Rev. 2:19 RSV); "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (Jas. 2:24). And even though most Christians ignore it, you guys have dietary restrictions too: "But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." (Acts 21:25 RSV).

Can you name any of those factors?

Here's a couple: The Gospel of Thomas closely resembles the sayings gospel Q, and represents an older tradition than the canonical gospels. Jude quotes a verse from 1 Enoch, so shouldn't it be canon? There also possible references to Baruch, Tobit, and Wisdom of Solomon in the NT.

Johnny Skeptic

But you are dodging the thread about God breaking his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to conquer Tyre. You did make a brief appearance, but I assume that that was just for show.

At any rate, as I have told you before, even though some skeptics claim that the Bible contains contradictions, it is not encumbent upon them to reasonably prove that the Bible contains contradictions. On the other hand, since the Bible claims that the God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth, it is emcumbent upon Christians to reasonably prove that that is true.

rhutchin

Yes. Read Leviticus.

rhutchin

Your example is not exactly right. Jesus does not say that a person shall not get into heaven but that he shall not be forgiven. So your example would be, "anyone who steals from me will never be my friend" and "I only invite my friends to my birthday party." The implication, stop stealing from me and become my friend and then I will invite you to my birthday party. My argument makes no sense to you only because your example misrepresents the situation.

Did you remember to look at the context to see if it was the different in each case?