sschlichter

you suggested that their is an inner truth in the book of mark, and that it is being ignored. even if a myth; what inner truth is mark teaching?

angelo

I don't have the time or patience to go into detail, so I will suggest a very good book that has all your answers.

''Who Wrote The New Testament? (or via: amazon.co.uk)'' By Burton L. Mack. [1995] published by Harper San Francisco.

Another great book would be John Shelby Spong's ''Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism (or via: amazon.co.uk)'' [Again published by Harper]

In both sources you will find that the story about Jesus is ''Told in accordance with the scriptures.'' And Mark and Mathew, Luke and John putting their spin on the whole shebang.

In other words, these authors of the gospels were trying to understand the the events that were orally told for years before they were finally put to papyrus.
Like I wrote before, it's like someone finally writing about the adventures of Robin Hood from the legends only.

rizdek

Well, I was conceding that they might have eventually said something to someone as you mentioned earlier. The reason I get "immediacy" out of it is that people generally don't run to do something if they are not going to do it at the end of said "run" and to run to do something does not suggest stopping to do a bunch of other things in between. I don't think your "driving quickly to work but stopping for something on the way" has the same connotation as "running" to do something.

So when Matt says

"they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. "

I seriously wonder how anyone could interpret that in any other way. If it just said "and went to bring word," I could understand that it wasn't contradictory. But to "run" to do something has a different connotation to me. And when Mark said they

"went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. "

It suggests that within a timeframe that is apparent in Matthew's account where he said they DID say something to someone, in Marks account they said nothing to any man. That's what I get out of it.

bong_0000007

Duplicate post used as an OP for its own thread deleted

gregor

Thanks, bong. That's both well written, responsive to the OP, and generally understandable - ummm, well actually not.

The boards generally frown on cut-and-paste evangelism. If you want to take a topic and start a thread from any of that word salad you just posted, feel free.

rizdek

I have been going back and forth with sschlichter for a few days on accounts of the ressurection day story I find to be contradictory. I believe we are at an impass, and I believe many other debaters feel the same way. The two sides simply won't agree either because of deep beliefs or a desire not to "give in."

The specific point I have been debating with sschlichter is the accounts in Matthew and Mark of what the women supposedly did after leaving the tomb. To me Matthew's account suggests they immediately went to give word to the disciples. That is how I interpret Matthew 28:8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. But Marks account suggests to me that in essentially the same time frame they fled and told no man.

Sschlichter has challenged this interpretation saying, and I'm paraphrasing, the accounts are not specific enough as to time frame to allow this interpretation. To that I respond:

To me, the two versions seem contradictory. To say someone fled and told no one, does not seem consistent with departed quickly and did run to bring disciples word. But if that is consistent to biblical apologists, so be it. I'll not continue debating this point. If that means you consider yourself(ves) to be the winner in your dialogue with me, that's ok with me.

My interest in this point is not academic. I'm not just quibbling biblical text. I truly do not believe Jesus to be the son of a god who had to be sacrificed to expatiate mankind for past and future sins. And I believe by finding these small inconsistencies suggests that many of the stories surrounding Jesus' life probably came about as disciples and followers tried to make the person they followed divine. And when people fabricate things, they often overlook details that end up being inconsistencies. Much the same as the reasoning law enforcement agencies use when they question suspects individually to detect inconsistencies in their stories...not necessarily blatant contradictions, but minor and telling inconsistencies.

The reason for my doubt in the veracity of the NT accounts of jesus more spectacular actions is not some rebelious desire to be free of the responsibilty to live a moral life, or even to be free from bending my will to a truly omnipotent being if one should reveal itself to me. The reason I do not want the ressurection to be true is the far reaching implications it has for the god of creation. I find reprehensible the christian docrine that a god, who had the power and intelligence to create matter and energy out of nothing, to fine-tune it to support life and to cause to exist intelligent, self-aware life, then decided that the key element in any interaction between humans and itself is that something has to suffer, bleed and die in a horrible way because of sin. So many christians think with fondness and gratitude of the sacrifice of Jesus "because of his love." But none seem to look behind the rationale for why such a sacrifice ever would have to happen at all. Keep in mind that Jesus is God, and God is Jesus. So the thing that God defined as sin, was also defined by Jesus as sin and vice versa. And the reaction of god to said sin I would think, must be a choice, if god is believed to have free will. And keep in mind that God would, or should, have infinite options when it comes to dealing with the imperfections in its creation. Even though I found CSLewis book Mere Christianity to be unconvincing, I tend to agree with him that humans seem to have an intuitive sense of morality and fairness. I don't believe it had to be injected by a god, but nevertheless, we seem to generally have it as a species. Just as, it seems to me, do some other animals. In any case I believe I do. But it is this very sense of morality and justice that causes me to be repulsed by the concept that a god would require supreme suffering because of the sins of humans....which by the way according to the bible were passed down to us from the first humans because of some failure on their part. Suddenly this "very good" creation was not so good, suddenly there is death and evil where there apparently wasn't any before, there are natural disasters, and every human is born "in sin." So, the story goes that god kicks said humans out of the luxurious land in which he originally placed them; that just so happened to have in the very center the very thing that led to their downfall to begin with, and an accompanying tempting talking serpent to help coax them into disobedience. And keep in mind this was apparently before they even knew right from wrong (because they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil yet).

But regardless how it came about, the NT writers (including Paul) were convinced that man became sinful because of the actions of the first humans. Basically they believed we inherit sin, I suppose much like we inherit brown hair or blue eyes; not through any merit, fault or consicous action on our part.

And because either through inference or through a few odd phrases in the bible, christian theists are convinced that this god of theirs can't stand to even be in the presence of, or look upon, sin. The christian god, with all its power, intelligence and goodness couldn't think of anything else to do about sin than to create a god-human, Jesus, so that said Jesus could live a few years, piss the government and traditional religious leaders off and ultimately get himself beaten and killed, all as part of god's great plan. And it must be a physical human jesus, the sacrifice of whom, is what god miraculously says atones for man's sins. So basically christianity if founded on the most barbaric of all concepts, that its god required human sacrifice, and it is the blood of said sacrifice that, when invoked, cleanses the worst sinner of all his sins, thus somehow making said sinner now acceptable in the sight of their god. Even though christians are convinced that all humans sin and that all sin, even thought sin, is most abhorrent to their god, humans can be exonerated from any and all sins with little more than a "nod and a wink" at jesus, figuratively speaking. The doctrines of christianity iare not even consistent that one must live a life without sin after this spiritual "nod and wink." In fact some denominations, all of which claim to be fully supported by the bible, believe that man can not help but continue to commit sins daily and that the sacrifice of the god-human jesus, and the blood from said sacrifice continues to "cover" those sins just so long as we keep up the "nodding and winking," figuratively speaking.

It goes against any sense of moral justice that I can conceive of that somehow even a god should be able to "transfer" guilt, if such guilt actually exists, from one moral, responsible being to another. Either humans commited sins for which they should be held personally responsible, or they haven't. If the whole, "god came to earth as himself to be a sacrifice to himself for sins against himself" thing is somehow a twisted way to show that even god doesn't think it would be just to punish humans for a tendency toward sin they seem to have inherited, then why bother with the suffering at all? God, being god, should be able to forgive sins by transferring the guilt to virtualy anything... rays of sun, drops of water, atoms of hydrogen, moons of jupiter,etc. He could just require that we "believe" and all could be forgiven and forgotten.

But no, christians believe their god specifically demands that someone, somewhere "has to pay" or these sins, and has to pay in cruel, torturous ways where suffering and shedding of blood and ultimately death occurs. In the OT bible, god apparently spends chapters giving guidance on exactly how to sacrifice and kill livestock so its blood can atone for sin. And it isn't until the NT that humans find out that it isn't sacrifice of animals that atones for sin afterall. And somehow this sophisticated god, for sophisticated it must be to have the power and intelligence to create and fine-tune the universe, will "feel better" and "be avenged" and thus "let sinful man off the hook" once this barbaric suffering has occured and a person just "believes" it and accepts the "gift" of salvation.

And this is what apologists that demand a physical, dying, resurrecting jesus are defending and promoting. To me this doctrine seems incongruous and absurd. Just as absurd as contending that "running to bring word" is and "fleeing and telling no man" can be interpreted to not be contradictory.

Stephen T-B

to continue that line of thought...
God's expectations of perfection are, I think, a transposition of Man's expectations of perfection.
The story of a god which punishes the entire human race for the failure of the first Man and Woman to achieve its own perfect standards is, I think, a metaphor for our own dissatisfactions with the way we are. That might explain why it resonates so powerfully.

Our survival as a species - a rather feeble species - has, I think, depended upon our ability to cooperate with one another, but the requirements of cooperation may sometimes be in conflict with much deeper impulses to do with personal survival and reproduction. I have no doubt but that we are subject to primitive instincts which our "conscious" minds are aware "let us down".
Exacerbating this sense of inadequacy is the deliberate "conditioning" which has been carried out at the behest of certain rulers because it suited their purposes.
In Judea around 700 BC when it is thought by some scholars that the Torah was being assembled, the obedience and subservience of the many disparate Canaanite tribes whose allegiance the king of Judea demanded was a matter of politcial necessity; I think it reasonable to think that one purpose of the scriptures was to show that disobedience was terribly punished.
At the same time, the story of the Fall pressed home the lesson that all men were depraved and that only by obeying the Jewish god - whose commands were conveyed by the Jewish king's allies in the priesthood - could Jews avoid the natural consequences of that depravity.
And onto this politically-expedient doctrine has been tacked the later Christian message. It is, however, no longer a tool of political coercion, but a purely religious one.

angelo

It's clinging to a string for xtians to believe the absurd idea that an almighty creator of this cosmos needed any sacrifice at all to appease himself.
Further, for thousands of years this deity would not shut up, starting from the garden of Eden through to the dozens of prophets who claimed to speak for him until finally he departs earth and hasn't been heard of or seen since the cross, or 40 days after the cross, as claimed by one of the gospels.
Not even the death of around six million of his people in the Nazis gas chambers has tugged at his heartstrings enough to make an appearance to comfort the survivers.
What sort of a god is this monster who lets countless people die in his name without so much as tiny revelation to let people know that he's in control, and not to panic as all will be revealed in his own time.
This idea of such a god is ridiculous to say the least.

Doug Shaver

That always happens when you debate contradictions with an inerrantist.

Which is why Barker's Easter Challenge is so effective. An inerrantist can make a discussion on any single apparent contradiction last forever. That's why most of them are actually eager to say: "Oh, you think there are contradictions in the Bible? So me one. Just one." Rhetorically, they can't lose.

But, if all the Easter stories in the NT were truly coherent, meeting Barker's challenge would be a piece of cake for any apologist. We skeptics don't have to get sidetracked by any single inconsistency. The failure of any apologist ever to write a single narrative including every detail, and including a specific time and place for every incident, proves that there is a contradiction in there somewhere. We don't even have to identify it. Barker's challenge, so long as it remains unmet, is an elegant existence proof.

aChristian

I never did read Barker's challenge, but have just gathered what it is from comments like this one. However, early on I gave several harmonies of the gospel that make reasonable guesses on the details of the story that are not told and harmonize the accounts. Barker or anyone else that cannot read across four columns is just being evasive or lazy. I even gave one source that combined it all in one column. You are claiming that there are contradictions, yet have been unable to show one. Everytime it was claimed that there was a contradiction, sschlicter was able to show that the only contradiction was what the person who wanted there to be one was reading into the story. You really need some twisted logic to say that contradictions exist even if you are unable to show a single one.