Freethought & Rationalism Archive

makerowner · 01-03-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. Define what Mark means when he says, "Later..." in v14? That is the crux of the problem. Show us within the context of Mark how you come to understand the meaning of "Later." Show us the travesty.

Read the preceding verses:

Quote:

[9]Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
[10] She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
[11] But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
[12]After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.
[13] And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.
[14]Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.

The eleven still don't believe in the resurrection, so how could this be a second appearance?

makerowner · 01-03-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It is true that ...he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness,... but it is not true that speaking blasphemy is a permanent condition that cannot be changed.

Then why did he say that? Just change the referents and you'll see how ridiculous this is. If I tell you "anyone who steals from me will never be invited to my birthday party" does that mean that when you stop stealing, I'll invite you? Obviously not. Just replace "steal from me" with "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit" and "be invited to my birthday party" with "have forgiveness". Your argument makes no sense. The word 'never' is final, sorry.

Quote:

A person speaking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot receive forgiveness so long as they continue to do so. It is impossible to be forgiven blasphemy while one is blaspheming. This is the point that Jesus makes to the Pharisees. All their piousness and good works (which are good to do) mean nothing if they deny the obvious, that Christ is God. They must be consistent in ALL that they do.

Jesus first says--

30 “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

Then he also says: "For he that is not against us is for us." (Mk 9:40) What was that about being consistent?

Roland · 01-03-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

I'm sorry, but your conflated scenario, though elaborate, is patently unworkable. How could Mark be referring to the SECOND appearance of Jesus when Mark says Jesus rebuked THEM (the eleven) for their hardness of heart in not believing others when they said they had seen Jesus? That could ONLY be referring to Jesus' FIRST appearance, since only Thomas is still a doubter by the second one.

And why do you say that Jesus ate with the "ten" in Luke when Luke tells us quite specifically and unequivocally that "eleven" disciples were present? You may want to send Thomas out for a bathroom break, but there is not a thing in Luke's own account to suggest that anything fewer than the eleven were there. In fact, he goes out of his way to cite the exact number of disciples present.

What you are doing is, quite simply, a travesty to the original authors.

OK. Define what Mark means when he says, "Later..." in v14? That is the crux of the problem. Show us within the context of Mark how you come to understand the meaning of "Later." Show us the travesty.

The "later" has to refer to an event no later than Easter night, since the eleven disciples are still all being rebuked by Jesus for their lack of faith. It would make no sense for this to have occurred a week later since, even in John's account, ten of the disciples had already accepted the truth of Jesus' resurrection after his first appearance to them.

Roland · 01-03-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. Define what Mark means when he says, "Later..." in v14? That is the crux of the problem. Show us within the context of Mark how you come to understand the meaning of "Later." Show us the travesty.

Read the preceding verses:

Quote:

[9]Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
[10] She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
[11] But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
[12]After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.
[13] And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.
[14]Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.

The eleven still don't believe in the resurrection, so how could this be a second appearance?

Hallelujah! At least SOMEONE gets the point I am trying to make. :wave:

Joan of Bark · 01-04-2008, 04:23 AM

You know, the Almighty could have saved us all a lot of time and trouble if He had simply used a more efficient means of transmitting this information to us. For instance, he could have beamed the information directly to our brains at birth, thereby eliminating all the problems involved with reproducing, translating, and interpreting the Bible.

rhutchin, the unavoidable fact is that there are over 1000 Christian denominations in the world, almost all of whom claim to be following the Bible, yet no two of which can agree completely on what it says. Hell, Christians can't even agree on something as basic as whether it is permissible to kill another human being under certain circumstances. This alone should be proof of the numerous contradictions inside its hallowed covers.

Dogfish · 01-04-2008, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Wrong again:

Next excuse?

You need to tell the Muslims. The ones I have heard about seem to think that they need to be as good as possible and obey all the laws and, if they are fortunate, they will see paradise. Alternatively, blowing oneself up and killing infidels in the process is a gimme.

Because Paul and Peter said so. The real issue is, Who is God? Is it Christ or is it Allah? The true and living God is the one who has provided the real inspired texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

As someone else pointed out, there are hundreds of books attributed to various prophets and apostles; how do you know which ones are real? Conversely, many of the books included in the Protestant canon are generally considered not to have been written by "apostles of Christ": several of the Pauline letters, Revelation, Matthew, Mark, 2nd Peter, etc. Are you chucking them out too?

I think the current lineup is as good as it gets.

Boy, dodge the first question and answer the second with "because i think so". The wisdom of faith astounds.

rhutchin · 01-04-2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

You know, the Almighty could have saved us all a lot of time and trouble if He had simply used a more efficient means of transmitting this information to us. For instance, he could have beamed the information directly to our brains at birth, thereby eliminating all the problems involved with reproducing, translating, and interpreting the Bible.

rhutchin, the unavoidable fact is that there are over 1000 Christian denominations in the world, almost all of whom claim to be following the Bible, yet no two of which can agree completely on what it says. Hell, Christians can't even agree on something as basic as whether it is permissible to kill another human being under certain circumstances. This alone should be proof of the numerous contradictions inside its hallowed covers.

God could have done a lot of things. He seems to have given each person a brain to figure it all out and then told them that they can do that which pleases them.

The great number of denominations seem to attest to the great number of cultural influences on the church and to an extent, doctrinal differences. In some cases, people just want the aura of religiosity without being encumbered by the restrictions imposed in the Bible. It is not proof of contradictions in the Bible but of contradictions in the lives of people.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-04-2008, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

In some cases, people just want the aura of religiosity without being encumbered by the restrictions imposed in the Bible.

How many goats did you sacrifice last year, rhutchin?

rhutchin · 01-04-2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

Boy, dodge the first question and answer the second with "because i think so". The wisdom of faith astounds.

No dodge here, unless you are Muslim and can actually speak to the issue. If you want to know what the Koran says ask someone who is devoted to it. Devout Muslims do the prayers and don't eat pork etc. in hopes of gaining paradise. Their God may be a forgiving god, but no Muslim seems to know whether their god has forgiven them and will not know until they die. They hope that their good works will offset the bad things that they do. If you know a Muslim, ask them what they think. If you get a different answer than what I have gotten, let me know.

The current Biblical canon was established based on many factors that seem good to me. I see no reason to challenge what we have today and no one offers any challenge. The most that people offer is that there are other written documents that could be considered Scripture. So!!

rhutchin · 01-04-2008, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

In some cases, people just want the aura of religiosity without being encumbered by the restrictions imposed in the Bible.

How many goats did you sacrifice last year, rhutchin?

Not a single one. God offered Christ once for all sin and now does not require anything of me other than that I present myself as a living sacrifice to Him.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-04-2008, 04:23 AM	#125
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	You know, the Almighty could have saved us all a lot of time and trouble if He had simply used a more efficient means of transmitting this information to us. For instance, he could have beamed the information directly to our brains at birth, thereby eliminating all the problems involved with reproducing, translating, and interpreting the Bible. rhutchin, the unavoidable fact is that there are over 1000 Christian denominations in the world, almost all of whom claim to be following the Bible, yet no two of which can agree completely on what it says. Hell, Christians can't even agree on something as basic as whether it is permissible to kill another human being under certain circumstances. This alone should be proof of the numerous contradictions inside its hallowed covers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.