By the way, Christian pillow fight was funny..... Although you might enjoy it, I'm embarrassed. I hope Seahawk finds some other way than this website to meet God.First off, fchick. Kudos to you for a well thought out, eloquent post. I find your thoughts sincere and appreciate your tone. christian are like any other humans... they are prideful and will argue to defend that which they believe. As for Seahawk, the bible says seek and you shall find. If the God of the bible is true, and Seahawk is sincerely seeking him.. he will find him. If he follows logic and sticks to reason, he may not find the same God you found. I do believe there is a leap that must be made into faith for the christian God. If you try to reason him out, you may find yourself frustrated.
Anyway, I don't see a dual prophecy as a cop-out. I think the OT/NT are an integrated whole, and as such, the parallels between the OT heroes (Job, David, etc) and the whole nation Israel to Christ and his church are very striking.cop-out may have been too strong a word. It's difficult to put into writing how I feel about certain things. I'll come back to it.
Code:
[b]Which then leads to your whole point? Did the NT writers do this on purpose[/b]?
The NT writers often referred to OT scripture to feed to the main character or events. It is almost Universally accepted among scholarship that Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke used Mark's work to write their own version of the story.I do not believe it was Mark's intention have his book read as real history. I believe he was writing a story in the tradition of the class of authors present in the first century AD and before. Greek philosophy and works such as Homer's famous epics were the classics of the day. There weren't many educated authors walking around during the days of Jesus. The entire region was Hellenized and those that did get training received this training in the tradition of Greek philosophy. It was normal during the day to select a Heroic epic, and contstruct a new story based on these greek classics. I believe Mark did this and his Hero was Jesus. He had the theme of writing on his side, and his hero had many people to compare to. There are parallels with Homer's classic Epics (Illiad and Odyssey) and also several comparisons with Jesus to Elijah and Elisha.
The author of Mark had many things to choose from to make the story. Some of the things Jesus did had already been done in stories of the OT, with heroes like Elijah and Elisha.
The end of Mark's original story had the women go into the Tomb and be told Jesus wasn't there. They were so afraid they ran out, fled, and told no one.
This was the conclusion of the Original Mark. This is another reason why we have conflicting resurrection accounts in Matthew and John. They didn't have Mark to lean on. So their stories differ. The church (or someone) comes along later and adds the ending we have today, onto the ending of Mark. I presume this is done to go more along with how the women are described in the other gospels.
Did the NT writers pick bits of the OT on purpose? sure. What Mark (and likely Q) didn't provide they needed to pull elsewhere.
There was no flight into Egypt for Joseph and Mary.
There was no slaughter of the innocents at the hands of King Herod. Josephus was the premiere historian of the day. He was a Jewish military leader and writer when he was captured by the Romans in the Jewish/Roman war. He became employed by the romans and wrote his famous "Antiquities" during the first century. He often had terrible things to say about King Herod, who was viewed by the Romans as a puppet king in Judea. Course he never mentions Herod ordering the destruction of all the babies in Bethlehem and all the coasts thereof. He would have loved to write something evil that Herod did.
The only reason Matthew does it is to slip in a prophecy he thought might apply. So yeah, to an extent, Matthew script-mined stuff from the old Testament to bolster his story.
Is in not simpler to suggest that those that were closest to Jesus (God on earth) knew how to interpret/translate the OT?Just by reading the gospels, you can quickly see that those who surrounded Jesus weren't very smart on the scriptures. Jesus even said as much. They were fishermen. None of them could read or write I'd bet. Why would they? Fishermen weren't normally sent to schools.Jesus himself called them on more than one occasion about them not understanding what he was talking about. Take
Luke 18:31-34 --
31Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33On the third day he will rise again."
34The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.
Those around Jesus didn't even know what he was talking about. These people did not know Hebrew scriptures except for what they might have heard spoken in synogogues growing up.
So how could those around him interpret OT Scripture?
But I actually have a question for Jesus on this verse, where it says on the third day the son of man will rise again. Where in the OT does it say the messiah will die, then be resurrected on the third day?
Also, remember these were Hellenized Jews. The priests and synagogue keepers likely knew Hebrew scripture in the original language. But many of the other Jews might not have even been able to read Hebrew. The Hebrew bible was translated by Greek-speaking Jews in the first couple of centuries BCE. Any scripture that the gospel writers used was probably taken from this copy of the Hebrew scriptures. This is known as the LXX, or better known as the Septuagint.
Isn't it likely that our understanding of Hebrew language today is different than theirs - at the time and place?could be. I doubt the NT writers knew or spoke Hebrew. They wrote in Greek.
Code:
[b]Your dismissing the NT writers (their prophecy fulfillment claims) because you don't believe them. That's ok. I do. But I hear you saying, liars (my word) on top of it. I'm not offended, but still, can't you just call them ignorant/crazy/blind instead? Why do they have to have bad intentions in their mistranslations[/b]?
ok, I retract calling anyone liar, if I did. I want to follow up this in a new post. I'll address it to you.
Code:
[b]If I argue that the NT writers could translate Hebrew to Greek better than you can understand Hebrew in today's English, then why am I not reading the Greek[/b]?
I don't know. Can you read Greek? But the NT writers didn't have to translate Hebrew to Greek. It was already done for them via the LXX. It's a jewish translation of the Hebrew bible to Greek well before the NT writers were born.
Code:
[b]For the same reason I don't read Hebrew. I understand English. To me, it is natural. Even if I learned to read Hebrew/Greek, I would still "hear" in English. God talks to me in English[/b].
I understand.
Code:
[b]You and I agree on two things very strongly. One, read the whole text. Two, read it for yourself. I brought up the scholar issue, because this is how I usually hear these arguments. "Dr. Smoopypants says the bible was corrupted", etc.. Then, the Christian scholars have to rebut. And off we go[/b]..
Yeah. I've read lots of arguments from both sides of an issue. Sometimes one side is more compelling than the other. And it goes both ways.
Code:
My comment about scholars was supposed to be dismissive of them as well. I noticed that you were well-versed in many books that make dismissive claims about the bible, so I assumed that you were one of those people that actually never read the bible, only its criticisms. I see now that you have come to your beliefs through a high-powered knowledge of the bible. I apologize for my misunderstanding of the underpinnings of your beliefs[/b].
no worries. I was a christian for a long time. It was when I began studying the bible in earnest that I began to have questions about it. Ironic that. I once was happy in what I was learning in sunday school and living under the umbrella of my brand of faith.
Code:
[b]I see that your positions are not through ignorance, but through intellectual study. Impressive[/b].
Thank you. That's a nice thing to say. Be assured that I won't just babble about because I read something on some website like "SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com"Most of the trivial discrepancies, like these types of skeptics find, don't bother me.
Who cares how many women were at the tomb and if it was still dark or not. Those aren't contradictions. Those are just different perspectives and aren't important. There are deeper issues than that to call into question.
Where we clearly disagree is that I should read the texts in Hebrew or read articles on the KJV. Because of your background, I am sure you can figure our why I trust the KJV. It's pure English. It has not changed in 400+ years. It was translated by believers (fewer scholars). And most importantly, it has a literal bloodline. People have died to put that book in my hand. That is significant in my opinion.The fact that it was translated by believers doesn't bother you at all? I'd rather it be translated by a disinterested party. I grew up in a KJV only household. My father still only uses this version and probably wouldn't even let another translation into his house.
(
Please, brothers in Christ, let's not argue about versions of the bible. If you hear God in your prayerful study of the NIV or Catholic bible, I have no quarrel. Amen.)

maybe a good idea. We don't want to open that can of worms.
Code:
[b]But a man has to draw a line somewhere. What is the bottom line? What is the rock, which drives my understanding of everything else? Where is my foundation in which I choose to live my life? Who is my authority?For me, it is the KJV bible. I am not ignorant of what some claim are its faults. I am not ignorant of the Hebrew texts. I am not ignorant of the "logical" problems of God/Satan/Resurrection, etc[/b].
cool.
Code:
[b]So then, you ask, do I choose not to subject myself to questions and doubts about my most fundamental beliefs? Do I really choose to close my fertile mind? Indeed, I do. So I can open my heart to Christ[/b].
Like I said at the beginning... to open your heart to Christ means you sometimes have to close your mind. Nothing wrong with holding onto beliefs. I commend you for it. My wife does the same. She doesn't want to know any of the details, she believes Jesus is real and he lives within her. And that's ok with her, the rest is just smoke and mirrors. She believes Jesus is there.
Two last questions for Jayrock. You believe in God (or supreme being), but not Satan. Do you find it odd that a Christian claims, you have to believe in God in order to meet him, but you don't have to believe in Satan to have him dwell in you? Two, Do you ever fear that Satan simply found your weakness - your intellectual prowess?1. I said I believe there is a possibility of a supreme God. I don't know. I'm more agnostic about that. Satan is a fictional character created to balance a story of good vs evil.
Would it interest you to know that the early OT writers didn't believe in any place called "hell" or a Satan that was the devil? Satan, in the OT, was just another one of God's servants. He was the accuser. He did nothing that didn't have the blessing of God first. We see Satan in "Job" and when he accuses Joshua. I do not believe the serpent in the garden was satan, BTW. Satan, somehow evolved over time through the bible.
The concept of the great stuggle between good and evil first entered Judaism during their exile. The persian religion of "Zoroastrianism" had a profound influence on the exilic writers. King Cyrus, who conquered babylon and later returned the Jews to Jerusalem practiced this religion.
Judaism and Christianity both were greatly influenced by this religion. You can google it to find out a great deal. Post exilic Jews were transformed. The idea of Hell, eternal punishment, lakes of fire, demons, etc.. came from Zoroastrianism.
2. Did Satan find my weakness? Why would satan care about me? he isn't omnipresent like God. Seems there are bigger fish to fry than me.
I find the concept of Satan as Devil to be incoherent. If you believe in original sin, then everyone is destined to hell and eternal punishment simply for being born. Satan doesn't have to do anything to influence them. Jesus said no one could pluck his believers out of his hand... so satan would know he couldn't take a christian away from Jesus. So what's he to do?
Satan is depicted in the NT to be somewhat a moron, IMO. If the Hebrew scriptures truly did point to Jesus as the final lamb of sacrifice for all mankind, then Satan knew this, right? Surely the lord of darkness understood the scriptures, right? If the OT tells of Jesus dying on a cross, etc... why is Satan wasting his time tempting Jesus in the Desert... Why wouldn't he just persuade one of the Jewish authorities to have Jesus stabbed in his sleep? or something.
If he knew Jesus was special, why didn't he tell King Herod that the child went to Egypt, and he could wait for him in Nazareth? There were any number of ways satan could have prevented Jesus from making it to the cross. I know, I know... God's plan.
The thing with satan and demons, etc.. I don't understand the demon possession thing. Why would Satan possess someone, when all that would do is show that he does really exist? I can't see satan wanting to prove he exists.. it might turn folks to God if they really saw or felt satan. If he remains silent, they have a better chance of staying away from God. Yet the NT is littered with demon possessions and open exorcisms. The whole thing is silly.
Sorry for the length, thanks for the discussion.
Not sure what is wrong with the quotes here. I put what you said in code.
sorry..