Luiseach

Like, yes? ;-)

spurly

Nope. Most Christians believe he only died once. He hung himself. No one took him down, and eventually he fell and split open with his guts spilling out.

As to the other "inconsistency", it too can be explained pretty easily. Blood money was not allowed to be brought into the treasury of the temple. So the money was used to by the field of blood, maybe the field where Judas fell.

Kevin

spurly

David,

From what I understand the section that was 90x30 only included the Holy of Holies and the inner sanctuary. The rest of the temple was much larger than that, as archeology as shown.

Kevin

spurly

No one. The Godhead is a concept that is hard to get our finite minds around at times.

Kevin

spurly

He had one physical birth that we celebrate this time of year. However, his existence is eternal. For a short period of time he placed himself in his creation - and this involved a physical birth.

Kevin

spurly

As a follower of Christ, Here's a question I have always had when this topic comes up.

Don't you think the people who put the canon together knew about the "discrepencies" you all have mentioned on this forum? I don't see how they could not have known about them.

Most of us would have tried to fix the problems with the "holy text", so that they were not problems anymore. However, these men did not do that.

The question that comes into my mind is "why". There are a few possible answers.

1) They did not know about them (which is surely false)

2) They had such a respect for Scripture that they would not change something, even if it looked like a contradiction.

3) They had rational interpretations that explained the "inconsistencies".

4) They would have burned the whole book and started over again.

I believe they left them there because they knew that the "discrepencies" were not really "discrepencies" at all.

I will be the first one to admit that over the years there have been translations and interpretations that have been dead wrong.

But one thing I think is great is that the leaders of the church never tried to cover up these "inconsistencies" by destroying texts that were different than others. (At least not that I know of)

Just some things to think about

Kevin

Amos

How can you be a follower of Christ if Jesus did not become Christ until the resurrection and left the scene soon after that?

Maybe you meant that you are a follower of Jesus like the Jesuits.

-DM-

At the time, the texts had not likely been subject to the intense scrutiny that they have since. However, whether they knew about the discrepancies or not is more or less irrelevant. Why? Because the discrepancies exist. Their existence tends to provide strong evidence against inspiration by a perfect and omnipotent "God."

As a matter of fact, there have been quite a few attempts over the years to fix many of these problems.

This is nothing more than the typical ad hoc how-it-might-have-been scenario that Christians and Christian apologists use in order to convince themselves, and hopefully others, that the Bible is something more than it really is: a book which does NOT show the earmarks of inspiration by a perfect and omnipotent "God," a book which contains some fact and some fiction, some history and some error, etc.

1) You would have to be omniscient, of course, in order to know with certainty what the leaders of the Church never tried to do. I'll give you credit, though, for adding "at least not that I know of."
2) In any case, you are wrong.

Here are just a few examples of attempts which were made to cover up obvious problems and/or make the Bible say something that the church wanted it to say (and remember, it only takes one to prove that what you said is erroneous):

2CH 21:20, 22:1-2 Ahaziah was forty-two when he became king; he succeeded his father, who died at the age of forty. Thus, Ahaziah was two years older than his father. [Note: Some translations use "twenty-two" here in an attempt to rectify this discrepancy. The Hebrew is clear, however, that 2CH 22:2 is 42. The Hebrew words involved are Strong's H705 and H8147, "forty" and "two," respectively.]

MT 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment. [Some versions add "without a cause" here in an attempt to ameliorate this precept given that almost everyone is "angry with his brother" at some point. Those added words are not present in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts.]

MT 6:13b And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. [Words in italics are not in the oldest manuscripts. They represent the "Doxology," the priests response in the Eastern Orthodox Church and were added at a relatively late date.]

MK 16:9-20 [Not part of the original text, yet these verses serve as justification for Christian missionary proselytizing.]

1JN 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. [Not in the oldest manuscripts. This is a relatively late addition which supports the Trinity concept, a concept which did not become official doctrine until 325 AD.]

All four of the Gospels are pseudepigraphal, that is, they are anonymous, they do not carry the names of their authors, yet the names of disciples were assigned to those books by the Church in order to lend them an added air of authenticity at a time when heresies were threatening the official doctrine of the Church.

. . . and there is more

-Don-

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]</p>

spurly

Don,

Thanks for responding. I don't doubt that there are parts of what we now call "The Bible" that are in question (ex. Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11, etc.)

However, from the study that I have done, I have come to the conclusion that the Word of God is found in the word of God (the Bible).

I have made a deal with BH Manners, one of the moderators on this board, that at the beginning of the year I am going to take the best scholarships from both sides of the argument on the validity and reliability of the Scriptures and study them (so I won't just be coming from one side or the other, though I admit I am coming with a Christian bias).

But when the dust settles on the old manuscripts, I think one thing I will find is that the Bible does contain the very words of God. We shall see.

Kevin

Amos

That's like saying that there is salvation to be found in the bible and just the opposite is true.

The Word of God must be found in your own heart when you become the Christ as representation of God on earth. Then will you be able to recognize that you are the Word that is born of God and that your essence will be wherein the next generation can find the Word in the continuity of God since the beginning.