spamandham

No. The absence of good is not evil. The absence of good, is non-good. Your are neglecting neutrality. If every aspect of our lives were either good or evil, we would all be psychotic basket cases. Fortunately, life is ruled primarily by that which is neither deemed good nor evil, but indifferent.

Evil is the opposite of good, not the absence of it.

Transponder

[QUOTE=evangelical;5528222]If I may be excused for taking this particular point, admitting (as you call it) the existence of right and wrong "entails" the existence of God.

It does not. If right and wrong are not moral absolutes but right and wrong for humans because of their evaluations of what is right and what is wrong, then God does not come into it at all.

Incidentally, have you any more to say on the contradictions in the supposed birth of Jesus (either under Herodian rule in Judea or under Roman rule when the First (Luke) census was taken)? It can't be both. Attempts to show that Quirinus might have taken a census oner Herod or Archelaus have fallen flat.

Transponder

Off the top of my head relating to the gospels I can recall

The genealogy of Jesus (Luke and Matthew); they disagree. Apologists suggest that one is the geneaology of Mary, but both are put down as ending with Joseph.

Some apparent confusion about whether Joseph and Mary lived in Judea or went there from Galilee. Incidentally, Galilee would not have been part of the census as it was under Herodian rule, not Roman. so Joseph would not have needed to register.

The placing of the Temple cleansing before the baptism in John is a good one. It is explained as a separate event, but the similarity in wording plus the omission of this event in John's passion narrative is strong evidence that he misplaced it. Moreover, he compounds the matter by having Jesus go to Galilee after his baptism and 'everyone was talking about what he did at the festival' which can only be the temple ruckus - which had not happened yet.

There's also the matter of 'after this he went to Judea' which makes no sense after the Temple but makes perfect sense after the wedding at Cana, which is what we have if the temple business is placed where it belongs. Apologists can and do explain this away but the whole thing makes strong evidence for an error, I'd say.

The calling of the disciples is not a contradiction, exactly. It implies that Jesus had not met them before but they dropped everything and followed him in a near - miraculous way. However, John makes it clear that he already had 'called' the disciples at the baptism. A better one is Luke's haul of fish. This is absent in Mark and Matthew. For that matter, John and Mark omit the tale of sinking Simon in the walking on the water. In fact, Luke omits that miracle altogether. I have no idea why.

I also wonder why the synoptics omit the raising of Lazarus. I can't imagine why, if they knew of it. Nor can I imagine how Mark, John and Matthew did not know of Herod's intervention at the trial of Jesus. Unless the Herodian palace and the Praetorium were in the same building (historically, beyond supposition) all the gospel - writers should have known of it.

Come to that, John omits all of the material between the healing at Cana and feeding of the 5,000. That omits a lot of material. He also omits all the parables - come to that two of the most famous (prodigal son and good samaritan) are known to none but Luke. but John does remember long and complicated sermons which the synoptics do not hint at.

Apologists, again, can and do explain this away - they wrote from a different point of view. But I can't see how a 'different point of view' could leave out the transfiguration in John. How could he possibly have omitted that if he had known of it?

There's the contradictions of the resurrection accounts. Matthew says that the Mary's saw Jesus. Luke says specifically they did not.

These to me are more telling contradictions than the bumping up of OT army numbers in a way that is not uncommon in old texts. They show how the gospels were written and why and why they are not eyewitness and not to be trusted.

Amaleq13

Thank you for returning to a Bible-centered discussion. If you avoid the less specific tangents about the PoE or the nature of good, no messy splitting or thread moving will be required.

avi

How about John 14:28, "My father is greater than I am", often translated as "The father", instead of "My father"? Is he "our" father, or Jesus' father alone, or no one's father?

thentian

I'm pretty certain it should be "the father" and not "my" or "our" as the greek word is "ὁ" according to all the authorities. That word means only "the". It's another example of how some translators like to sneak in their own theologies.

haitu

judas, centurion and resurrection. and yes i've heard all of the apologies and they are not compelling at all.

Transponder

I'd like to see those set out.

Judas. Only Matthew (the hanging) and luke (in Acts) report the death of Judas. I consider that much of the accounts are based on OT quotemining (I might post those after refreshing my memory) and the only common factor is that Judas met his end on a 'field of blood'. There are minor contradictions, such as whether Jesus fingered him at the 'last supper' or not.

The resurrection. I really must post a compared expose of the contradictions. One problem is the complete omission of any appearances in Mark. doubt the ingenious explanations about the end (which would of course be the well-protected centre of a roll) having broken off. Mark actually appears to end with an empty tomb and the two ladies running off and saying nothing to anyone. It follows that the other resurrection accounts - and contradictory they are - are inventions. Unless there is, again, an embarrassing fact which Mark chose to leave out.


What was the third again?

Oh yes, the centurion. At the crucifixion or at the healing in Capernaum?

The death of Judas and prophecy.

Acts 1.15 (Luke)

Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who R34 became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 "For he was counted R35 among us and received his share in this R36 ministry." 18 (Now this man acquired R37 a field with the R38 price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their R39 own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, `LET R40 HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, `LET R41 ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE F17 .' 21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the R42 Lord Jesus went in and out among F18 us-- 22 beginning R43 with F19 the baptism of John until the day that He was R44 taken up from us--one of these must become a witness R45 with us of His resurrection." 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.

LET R40 HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT';
Psalm 6924 Pour R2071 out Your indignation on them,
And may Your burning anger overtake them.
25 May their camp R2072 F695 be desolate;
May none dwell in their tents.
26 For they have persecuted R2073 him whom You R2074 Yourself have smitten,

Luke tweaks this a bit to try to make it fit
and, `

LET R41 ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE
Psalm 109
6 Appoint a wicked man over him,
And let an accuser R3538 F1234 stand at his right hand.
7 When he is judged, let him come R3539 forth guilty,
And let his prayer R3540 become sin.
8 Let his R3541 days be few;
Let another R3542 take his office.
9 Let his children R3543 be fatherless
And his wife R3544 a widow.
10 Let his children R3545 wander about and beg;
And let them seek R3546 sustenance far F1235 from their ruined homes

Luke is really struggling to find a prophecy.

Does Matthew do any better?

Math 27
3 Then when Judas, R1071 who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the R1072 thirty pieces F580 of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See R1073 to that yourself!" 5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the R1074 temple sanctuary and departed; and he R1075 went away and hanged himself. (1) 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7 And they conferred together and with F581 the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers. 8 For R1076 this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "AND R1077 THEY F582 TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; 10 AND R1078 THEY F583 GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME

"AND R1077 THEY F582 TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; 10

Not Jeremiah, as I recall.

No, Zechariah 11.12 I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; R321 but if not, never F121 mind!" So they weighed out thirty R322 shekels of silver as my wages. 13
THEY F583 GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, R323 that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD. 14 Then I cut in pieces my second staff Union, R324 F122 to break R325 the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

Now, THAT's what I call tweaking the prophecy. No, that seems nothing to to with Judas. Matthew was evidently struck with the potters' field and the thirty silver. Also got the cue for flinging the money at the priests. Appears to try to conflate the tomb caves of Akeldama with the 'field of blood' (it isn't a field) and supposed that it is called 'potters' field'. As in much else of the gospels it works better as quotemining the OT for prophecies and tweaking them, if neccessary and also, and very important, as supplying the narrative detail for the Jesus story.

Of course, that results in contradictory death accounts which have to be reconciled by arguing that Judas hanged himself, the rope broke and he smashed open. A bit of thought will show the problem.

(1) hanged - Apagchomai
to throttle, strangle, in order to put out of the way or kill to hang one's self, to end one's life by hanging

Sorta knocks on the head one apologist's suggestion that it just meant choking with grief. I suppose they'll say that the Greek dictionary has been amended to accord with the supposed and erroneous gospel meaning.

evangelical

You are the creator of the wrecking ball, in a sense, but you are not the one who uses it to break a hole in your wall. Therefore, you are not responsible for the privation.

In response to my comments about God being outside of time, and so forth, you wrote

That is most certainly not a contradiction. It would only be necessarily a contradiction if "p" and "not-p" are used at the same time and in the same respect. evangelical is 31 and not-31 are both true at different times, after all.


This is a misuse of analogy. By 'very good wall' is included the idea that it is sturdy. That is, it cannot collapse all on its own the next moment (assuming that you are telling the truth). Notice what you have left out of the analogy this time. Namely, the wrecking ball and the free choice of another to use it against your perfectly good wall. The universe did not collapse all on its own. It only collapsed because free humans-and free humans are part of the good creation-abused their freedom and we ourselves made it, the universe, to collapse.

Now, let me ask you a question. Would you rather be fated to do everything or free to choose? Would you like to marry a robot that you have programmed to love you, or a human being? It is logically impossible that God could have created free humans without the possibility that we would sin. To say that He could have or should have is to be objectively irrational.

evangelical

When you say "evaluations of what is right and what is wrong" there are two different senses in which you may mean that. First, there is a right and wrong, and we humans see that. Second, nothing is truly right or truly wrong but we humans speak as though there were, depending on whether we (arbitrarily?)like something or not. In the first case there is right and wrong which, again, entails that God exists. In the second case there is no right and wrong at all. So perhaps the existence of God is not entailed there, but there are no ethics to entail it. In other words, my original claim remains undefeated.

As for the nativities, I do plan to say more about that later but have not had the time to do so heretofor.