Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 09-20-2002, 08:15 PM

And you didn't address the other geography problem. I put two together for Mark.

I think my third contradiction is solid but the forth allows the most wiggle room of the bunch for inerrancy advocates.

Vinnie · 09-20-2002, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Hi Vinnie! Also, in Acts 19, Luke says that there are disciples of John who are unaware of Jesus. This also appears to contradict the view that John and Jesus were somehow connected.

Thx for the info Michael. I just read that the other day too but I forgot about it. I've been reading HJ reconstructions and Gospel criticism too much. So much that I actually forgot to check Acts when writing that

Vinnie

ex-preacher · 09-21-2002, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:

1. You fail to mention that Abiathar was the son of Ahimalech. I doubt Jesus misremembered, although that is possible I suppose. Or Mark could easily have mixed them up in his recollection OR, since it says "in the days of..." we have a reasonable generalization.

It looks like Radorth has admitted the possibility that Jesus "misremembered" or Mark got mixed up. So much for inerrancy. Case dismissed.

Quote:

2. Jesus has David "entering the house of God."? This is a stupendous error? My, what are your other 999 like. I shudder.

Maybe you forgot that the temple was supposedly built after David's death by his son, Solomon.

Quote:

3. Does it say somehwere David ate it himself? I missed that, but then I don't spend all my free time looking for witches in the Bible.

All you need to do is spend a little free time reading your Bible to find out that David was completely alone in 1 Samuel 21. By the way, if you're hunting for witches, just jump to 1 Samuel 28 for a hilarious story involving Saul and a witch.

ex-preacher · 09-21-2002, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


Widely spaced events presented as being direct cause and effect. You make it sound like you would turn yourself in if you told a lie, your Dad got mad and killed your Mom. Also this is another example of negative details lending credence because David is admitting a fault. Jesus isn't condoning anything except the importance of human beings to God

Do you actually read the Bible? Go back and read 1 Samuel 21 again. David lied to Ahimelech, telling him that he was on a mission from Saul. Ahimelech therefore helped David by giving him the bread which was for priests only. David's deceit placed all the priests at Nob in grave danger by putting them in the position of having aided a fugitive. David himself admitted that he was responsible in part for the deaths of the priests.

It seems odd that Jesus would use this incident to illustrate his brand of situation ethics. But maybe Jesus misremembered.

Radorth · 09-21-2002, 08:17 AM

Quote:

forth allows the most wiggle room of the bunch for inerrancy advocates.

I'm not an inerrancy advocate. I have no answer to "No one has seen God at anytime," although a face to face encounter is arguable.

I have no answer for the crucifixion time disagreement. I do say this is simply nitpicking and applying standards of authenticity by which we can dismiss all but videotaped, tape recorded or stenographed history. (And even the latter could be redacted).

Case reopened.

Quote:

Maybe you forgot that the temple was supposedly built after David's death by his son, Solomon.

He didn't say "temple" nor did he intend it. Are you seriously proposing there was no place for the consecrated showbread at that time?

Quote:

David himself admitted that he was responsible in part for the deaths of the priests.

"In part" yes, a new admission by you. Thank you. Some of us like to know the whole truth before we slander people. Why must we adopt your tendentious faith that Jesus was condoning violence, when David himself admitted he did wrong? But then Jesus does readily forgive those who repent, though skeptics often prefer not to in the case of theists. It appears you would impute Saul's evil ways and actions to David's account. Thankfully God does not do that, and even imputes righteousness to the most undeserving folks. Are you saying Jesus is to forgetful of sins? What are you, a legalist?

And may you be judged by your own rules. It's only fair, right?

Radorth

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Vinnie · 09-21-2002, 09:45 AM

Quote:

I do say this is simply nitpicking and applying standards of authenticity by which we can dismiss all but videotaped, tape recorded or stenographed history. (And even the latter could be redacted).

I wasn't dismissing anything, save the untenable notion of inerrancy.

Vinnie

NOGO · 09-21-2002, 04:24 PM

Radorth,

I am happy to see that you do answer questions.

I am still waiting for you to burst my bubble on the resurrection issue. At least on this issue you cannot claim that it is just nitpicking.

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

Bubba · 09-21-2002, 05:28 PM

Excellent response, guys. I am enjoying this immensely.

Ex-preacher your post was very helpful.

Bubba <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Radorth · 09-23-2002, 08:40 PM

Quote:

John's question makes it seem like he didn't know Jesus was the Christ when he clearly pronounced him as the lamb who takes away the sins of the world,

Yes he probably did think Jesus was "the one." So did Peter, who called him "the Christ, the son of the living God," and saw miracles Jbap never saw, and STILL denied him.

It's just like being in love and thinking only wonderful things until things get rough. Then you wonder what the hell you were thinking. It's
called human nature.

Quote:

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that "over 30 miles away from" constituted "the region of".

You're recinding the alternate reading allowed? I can see why. 6 miles is certainly "in the region of."

Well, is that it? Those are the "stupendous" contradictions? My.

Hint: Try comparing NT and OT. You won't strain my credulity quite as much.

Rad

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

09-21-2002, 04:24 PM	#47
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Radorth, I am happy to see that you do answer questions. I am still waiting for you to burst my bubble on the resurrection issue. At least on this issue you cannot claim that it is just nitpicking. [ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

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

09-20-2002, 08:15 PM	#41
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	And you didn't address the other geography problem. I put two together for Mark. I think my third contradiction is solid but the forth allows the most wiggle room of the bunch for inerrancy advocates.

09-21-2002, 05:28 PM	#48
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Excellent response, guys. I am enjoying this immensely. Ex-preacher your post was very helpful. Bubba <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.