Skip to main content

Originally Posted by NunyoBidness:

I see a lot of people intimating that my eternal soul is in peril, but what I'm NOT finding is anybody actually explaining the discrepancy I mentioned.

 

Is there any official explanation that Christians have for this? Or, do they just write it off as one of the "patented replies" people use when they don't understand how someone can be told two (or three...) contradictory things and believe that both are literally true?

 

I'm honestly curious to hear from the devout how they resolve this conflict. It seems clear to me that the three accounts in the four Gospels cannot all be true, so I'd like to know what kind of thinking goes into accepting that the works are literal and infallible.

 

If anyone can enlighten me, I'd be pleased to listen.

 

n.b.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

If I had any proof showing me you are capable of being enlightened,

I might waste some time on it, or maybe not? I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by NunyoBidness:

Is there any official explanation that Christians have for this? Or, do they just write it off as one of the "patented replies" people use when they don't understand how someone can be told two (or three...) contradictory things and believe that both are literally true?

-------

 

You will almost certainly receive one of the folowing replies:

 

1. You are too stupid to understand

2. You do not have the "spiritual discernment" necessary to understand this

3. Your mind is already made up to so why bother explaining?

Whatever the case, you will not receive anything resembling a rational answer to your serious question.   Sorry. 

Originally Posted by NunyoBidness:

I see a lot of people intimating that my eternal soul is in peril, but what I'm NOT finding is anybody actually explaining the discrepancy I mentioned.

 

Is there any official explanation that Christians have for this? Or, do they just write it off as one of the "patented replies" people use when they don't understand how someone can be told two (or three...) contradictory things and believe that both are literally true?

 

I'm honestly curious to hear from the devout how they resolve this conflict. It seems clear to me that the three accounts in the four Gospels cannot all be true, so I'd like to know what kind of thinking goes into accepting that the works are literal and infallible.

 

If anyone can enlighten me, I'd be pleased to listen.

 

n.b.

-------------------------------

 

NB,,,,Out of the three Gospels you mentioned, I believe I would go with

John. He being the only apostle at the cross.

 

.

Last edited by INVICTUS
Originally Posted by NunyoBidness:

I see a lot of people intimating that my eternal soul is in peril, but what I'm NOT finding is anybody actually explaining the discrepancy I mentioned.

 

Is there any official explanation that Christians have for this? Or, do they just write it off as one of the "patented replies" people use when they don't understand how someone can be told two (or three...) contradictory things and believe that both are literally true?

 

I'm honestly curious to hear from the devout how they resolve this conflict. It seems clear to me that the three accounts in the four Gospels cannot all be true, so I'd like to know what kind of thinking goes into accepting that the works are literal and infallible.

 

If anyone can enlighten me, I'd be pleased to listen.

 

n.b.

_____________

With regard to the Gospels, I've been in meetings where five people heard six different things.  This is only a problem if you believe the Bible is to be taken as literal.  99% of all Christians are looking for the important messages in the Bible.  The fundamentalist wackos who believe the Bible should be taken literally tend to miss the point entirely.  Instead of a spiritual blueprint, they see a blueprint for everything, including the fact that the sun and the universe revolve around the earth, that the universe is only 6k years old, and that man was made out of dirt by magic.  Don't let the radicals and their distortions divert your attention.

Originally Posted by NunyoBidness:

Matthew 27 and Mark 15 both say Jesus said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", was offered vinegar, cried out again and died.

Luke 23 says that Jesus was offered vinegar more than three hours before dying, and said several things afterwards. It also says that his last words were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

John says that Jesus said he was thirsty and was given the vinegar. From there, he said "It is finished" and died.

 

These words are from NIV, which actually includes the Aramaic for Matthew and Mark, though it spells them differently. (Hrm. So, those are also inconsistent. Hrm.)

So, we have two disparate timelines, and three distinct versions of what Jesus's last words were. Which of these is correct?

If we go with the first account, in Matthew and Mark, then both Luke and John are incorrect. If we go with either Luke or John, then three of the Gospels are incorrect.

We have a situation here where clearly there is error in the Bible. It cannot all be literal truth if there are three statements here that contradict each other.

If the Bible is not all literal truth, how can we (as mere, flawed humans) determine which parts are literal truth and which are not? Can we honestly have any faith in the absolute literal truthfulness of a work which is clearly not absolutely literally true? What percentage of the book, then, should we believe to be correct, as it clearly is not 100% so?

 

I cannot put my faith in something as literal truth when I know it is flawed. I cannot put my faith in something as the word of God when it clearly has had thousands of years of men's hands in it.

 

Consider, as recently as 1960, in a tremendously well-documented society, a man was born in Hawaii, and yet 50 years later we have people who believe AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH that he was not, and writing about it, and broadcasting their misunderstandings. In 1,000 years, if those were the writings found by future archaeologists, they would come to the conclusion that the man was not born in Hawaii, despite the well-documented reality of the situation.

 

From a largely pre-literate society, where some people had something to gain from making the fish a little bigger in their fish stories, I have negligible faith in the surviving writings as literal truth. Especially when they contradict each other.

 

Originally Posted by NunyoBidness:

I see a lot of people intimating that my eternal soul is in peril, but what I'm NOT finding is anybody actually explaining the discrepancy I mentioned.

 

Is there any official explanation that Christians have for this? Or, do they just write it off as one of the "patented replies" people use when they don't understand how someone can be told two (or three...) contradictory things and believe that both are literally true?

 

I'm honestly curious to hear from the devout how they resolve this conflict. It seems clear to me that the three accounts in the four Gospels cannot all be true, so I'd like to know what kind of thinking goes into accepting that the works are literal and infallible.

 

If anyone can enlighten me, I'd be pleased to listen.

 

n.b. 




 

I'm not sure how the status of one sternal soul correlates with the assertion that there is an error in the Scriptures other than potentially to say if Scriptures are in conflict that somehow that provides an out against the judgment we all must face but still it remains a valid question.  Whether or not you receive an answer that sufficiently answers your question, to your satisfaction is anyone's guess.

 

By reading I assume you are claiming that since Matthew, Mark, Luke & John are not carbon copies of each other that there exist an error or, if not you some, that the Bible is not reliable as a communication from God unto Mankind.

Matthew 27:47-50 (AMP) (those around the Cross,mention of Elijah offer wine for comfort after which he drinks He dies. )
{47} And some of the bystanders, when they heard it, said, This Man is calling for Elijah!
{48} And one of them immediately ran and took a sponge, soaked it with vinegar (a sour wine), and put it on a reed (staff), and was about to give it to Him to drink.
{49} But the others said, Wait! Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him from death.
{50} And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and gave up His spirit.

 

Mark 15:35-37 (AMP) (followers of Jesus, Looking for Elijah offer wine for comfort after which he drinks He dies.)
{35} And some of those standing by, [and] hearing it, said, See! He is calling Elijah!
{36} And one man ran, and, filling a sponge with vinegar (a mixture of sour wine and water), put it on a staff made of a [bamboo-like] reed and gave it to Him to drink, saying, Hold off! Let us see whether Elijah [does] come to take Him down.
{37} And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed out His life.

 

Luke 23:35-40 (AMP)  
{35} Now the people stood by [calmly and leisurely] watching; but the rulers scoffed and sneered (turned up their noses) at Him, saying, He rescued others [from death]; let Him now rescue Himself, if He is the Christ (the Messiah) of God, His Chosen One!
{36} The soldiers also ridiculed and made sport of Him, coming up and offering Him vinegar (a sour wine mixed with water)
{37} And saying, If you are the King of the Jews, save (rescue) Yourself [from death].
{38} For there was also an inscription above Him in letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew: This is the King of the Jews.
{39} One of the criminals who was suspended kept up a railing at Him, saying, Are You not the Christ (the Messiah)? Rescue Yourself and us [from death]!
{40} But the other one reproved him, saying, Do you not even fear God, seeing you yourself are under the same sentence of condemnation and suffering the same penalty?

 

John 19:27-30 (AMP) (Some say that this rendering can also be a separate time from Matthew/Mark but I personally believe it is the same as Matthew/Mark and just reveals some additional details as who was there and said what.  Again these were three different people recording what they see through their eyes or testimony.)
{27} Then He said to the disciple, See, [here is] your mother! And from that hour, the disciple took her into his own [keeping, own home].
{28} After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished (ended), said in fulfillment of the Scripture, I thirst.
{29} A vessel (jar) full of sour wine (vinegar) was placed there, so they put a sponge soaked in the sour wine on [a stalk, reed of] hyssop, and held it to [His] mouth.
{30} When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

Here we have four sections of scripture all relating events of one event.  This event transpired over some six hours, in time,and reading Matthew, Mark, and John seem to relate approximately the same point in time and that being the moment Christ dies.  Luke however is relating a different event and should not be considered the same event timewise.  In three of the renderings it is caring and followers of Jesus who care for His well being and comfort and offer Him the drink to help His comfort.   Luke is relating a different event, timewise from those related in Matthew, Mark, and John.  For one Luke identifies the ones presenting the drink out of sport and ridicule taunting Him to prove to them He is who He said he was by taking Himself down off the cross.  They are offering the drink out of taunting not attempting to comfort Christ.  Although the there that reference the same time period are not identical one would expect three different people writing from what they knew/observed/recorded would not be expect to be carbon copies of each other otherwise sure allegations of fraud and that it would be faked.  These writings were also later assembled into the scriptures we call the Bible.

 

There is no conflict of Scriptures as you seem to want to indicate that there is then as a challenge, almost, stating that no Christian is willing to confront this and explain it.   I also don't know about the statement that you see a lot of people here stating that your eternal soul is in peril but the Scriptures do say that everyone's soul/spirit is eternal and that Christ Jesus came and died as a sacrifice for our sins in order to provide us with an escape from judgment.  Christ is our only escape of Judgment that will occur one day for He is the only perfect blood sacrifice enabling us, gentiles, and jews, to obtain salvation.  It is not the members of this forum that will judge you or me but God who will Judge us all.  

Last edited by gbrk
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by NunyoBidness:
<snipped for space>

 

NB,,,,Out of the three Gospels you mentioned, I believe I would go with

John. He being the only apostle at the cross.

 

.

Note that the Apostle John provides the most defined description of the event by including more specifically who was there and who said what as well as indicating why the drink was offered.  The drink was offered due to Christ indicating he was thirsty.  Matthew and Mark did not indicate the reason the drink was offered.

Best, of course they cannot explain the contridictions.  They've never studied them.  These aren't the kinds of things you learn in Sunday school.

I can almost guarantee you that none of them have ever heard of the "Q" gospel.  Most scholars agree that the gospels were hammed together from various sources who sort of, ummm, borrowed material from more ancient sources to come up with the fictional story of Jesus.That original author is called "Q," 

 

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:

Best, of course they cannot explain the contridictions.  They've never studied them.  These aren't the kinds of things you learn in Sunday school.

I can almost guarantee you that none of them have ever heard of the "Q" gospel.  Most scholars agree that the gospels were hammed together from various sources who sort of, ummm, borrowed material from more ancient sources to come up with the fictional story of Jesus.That original author is called "Q," 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Q  Doesn't exist.

.

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:

Best, of course they cannot explain the contridictions.  They've never studied them.  These aren't the kinds of things you learn in Sunday school.

I can almost guarantee you that none of them have ever heard of the "Q" gospel.  Most scholars agree that the gospels were hammed together from various sources who sort of, ummm, borrowed material from more ancient sources to come up with the fictional story of Jesus.That original author is called "Q," 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Q  Doesn't exist.

 

 

Not really, but Locutus does. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

.

rum_mama, my friend and I have a few questions for you. If you don't want to answer them that's ok. Seeing as they are of a very personal nature.

Are you a transvestite? Or are you just a man that likes to dress up in drag? My friend happened to see your avatar the other day while we were hanging out and I was reading some threads on here and she wanted me to ask you these things. Again if you don't want to answer we understand completely.

Bill why would you say that you aimed this thread at the atheist? That makes no sense. We don't believe in ANY of it. If you will notice the only ones that are arguing this point with you are other Christians. I have only seen this done among Christians.

 

I (as an atheist) could care less which way you believe your God will save you and take you to heaven. It's ALL BS to me.

 

quote:   Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

Bill, why would you say that you aimed this thread at the atheist? That makes no sense. We don't believe in ANY of it.  If you will notice the only ones that are arguing this point with you are other Christians.  I have only seen this done among Christians.

 

I (as an atheist) could care less which way you believe your God will save you and take you to heaven.   It's ALL BS to me.

 
Hi Dark,

 

If you will go back and read my initial post, you will find that I did NOT say that this post is aimed at the atheists.  I said that I initially come on the Religion Forum in 2007 to refute the false teachings of the atheist, then primarily Deep and Fish.

 

But, the purpose of my post for this discussion is declared in this statement from my initial post:

 

My non-believing Friends on the Religion Forum continue to challenge me to prove these beliefs.  And, when I do offer Biblical foundation for my beliefs -- they refuse to hear it, they deny it, and they keep asking me, "Bill, you are always preaching OSAS.   Prove it!"

Wee, gee whiz, fellows and gals -- I have shown you practically every Scripture verse in the Bible -- supported by commentary writings from many very knowledgeable pastors, theologians, and Bible scholars.  Yet, you still demand, "Prove it!"


A non-believing Friend could be either a person who is not a Christian -- or it could be a Christian who does not believe the same as I believe.  But, here, I was referring more to my vanilla-flavored non-believing Friends who are not Christian -- yet, want to authoritatively define what a Christian is and what a Christian should believe; even though he/she is not a believer.  

 

So, my Friends who do not follow Jesus Christ anyway -- tells us that they do not believe in eternal security in Christ, i. e., the teaching of "once saved, always saved."  

 

Well, that is sort of like the person who does not like football, and does not follow football -- but, wants to tell Nick Saban how to coach our Alabama team.   Not much credibility.


So, Dark, my Friend, that was, and is, the main thrust of this discussion.

 

But, I am curious.  You tell me, "I (as an atheist) could care less which way you believe your God will save you and take you to heaven. It's ALL BS to me." 

 

Then, since you have absolutely no interest in God, nor how to get to heaven, nor how a person attains eternal security in Christ -- why did you come into a discussion titled, "'Once Saved, Always Saved' -- Really?"  Just reading the title would tell me that this is purely a Christian issue. 

 

So, what brought you into the discussion?  And, why do you then question why I wrote it -- if you (as an atheist) could care less?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×