BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

That's because you read them on the same level that Waco47 does. Same level of agenda, dishonesty, ignorance, and rigid confirmation bias.

Ironically, you are the least scientific and one of the most religious people here.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If the claim of literalists is that the gospel accounts are "eye witness" then compare these two "Follow me" stories.

Matthew 8 18 Now when Jesus saw great crowds[f] around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. 19 A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." 20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 21 Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 22 But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
Jesus Stills the Storm
23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him.

Notice the stories tak place in the context of boarding a boat.

Now look at Luke's "follow me" stories.

5Luke 9: 57 As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." 58 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." 59 To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." 60 And Jesus[j] said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." 61 Another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." 62 And Jesus said to him, "No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Which "eye witness account is "true" and "historical" or are the gospel writer intent to share the good news of Jesus and shape the stories to that end?

---

They don't conflict. What's your point?

---

There are even more blatant conflicts between the birth narratives and the crucifixion narratives.

---

There are only apparent conflicts in the bible, all of which to an objective, intellectually honest person can be resolved, or be given the benefit of the doubt.

To an intellectually dishonest person with an agenda, who only seeks to confirm their bias, these resolutions will always be rejected regardless of their merit.

---

Actually, what you are saying about intellectually dishonesty and agenda is applicable to your contention. There are plenty of irreconcilable narratives and concepts in the Bible. You learn that in surveys of the OT and NT at Baylor. The birth narratives and the crucifixion are two good examples. Christian ministers all across the country in Sunday sermons ignore, dance around, contort, and strain in attempts to rationalize, obscure, and harmonize obvious contradictions between narratives. In doing that, they are creating their own non canonical extra biblical account of events. Those ministers who aren't intellectually dishonest, and who are not pushing an inerrant dogma agenda simply admit the obvious - there are irreconcilable differences and move on.

---

Let me guess- you think the birth narrative about Jesus going to Nazareth directly from the temple in Luke irreconciably contradicts Matthew's account of Jesus' family first going to Egypt, then to Nazareth?

We've been through all this. Your objections have been addressed and handled.

---

That's just a part of what biblical scholars around the world recognize and acknowledge as contradictions in the birth narratives. There is nothing to handle. The contradictions are there in black and white for you to read for yourself. Lay the text out between the two narratives in parallel columns and it is more than obvious. They both can't be right, not to mention the conflicts with known history.

---

Do you have a link?
Here's mine that says no contradiction :
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-birth.html


Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus' birth. Matthew 12 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 12 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the Incarnation.

Various people have claimed that the books of Matthew and Luke contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus' birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

They are two separate issues
1 Historicity. The stories falil historical standards.
2. The stories are based on an event" and the stories shaped for theological purposes. The are not "minor variations " but deeply spiritual, evangelical and theological points to evoke faith in the hearer.
To discuss there history is beside the point and contrary to the gospel writer's aim.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

They are two separate issues
1 Historicity. The stories falil historical standards.
2. The stories are based on an event" and the stories shaped for theological purposes. The are not "minor variations " but deeply spiritual, evangelical and theological points to evoke faith in the hearer.
To discuss there history is beside the point and contrary to the gospel writer's aim.

---

There's no historical standard that requires multiple accounts to be identical in every detail. It simply does not exist. If it did, then practically all corroborated accounts would fail the test.

Many times we read or hear gripes about Biden but they don't offer solutions. We read gripes about Trump but no solutions were offered.

Any fool can smell a rotten egg but it takes something special to offer an alternative. TexasScientists always talks about the problem of suffering as evidence there is no god but, he never offers a solution to suffering.

Now is your chance TexasScientist. What is your solution to suffering?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

They are two separate issues
1 Historicity. The stories falil historical standards.
2. The stories are based on an event" and the stories shaped for theological purposes. The are not "minor variations " but deeply spiritual, evangelical and theological points to evoke faith in the hearer.
To discuss there history is beside the point and contrary to the gospel writer's aim.

---

There's no historical standard that requires multiple accounts to be identical in every detail. It simply does not exist. If it did, then practically all corroborated accounts would fail the test.

---

The title of the thread is "Deconstructing Fundamentalism .
I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

They are two separate issues
1 Historicity. The stories falil historical standards.
2. The stories are based on an event" and the stories shaped for theological purposes. The are not "minor variations " but deeply spiritual, evangelical and theological points to evoke faith in the hearer.
To discuss there history is beside the point and contrary to the gospel writer's aim.

---

There's no historical standard that requires multiple accounts to be identical in every detail. It simply does not exist. If it did, then practically all corroborated accounts would fail the test.

---

The title of the thread is "Deconstructing Fundamentalism .
I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

---

What he has said on this thread is that he doesn't believe any of it really happened. It's merely fiction used to convey a message, though he doesn't believe in a deity so I'm not sure what that purpose is or whose purpose it is.

In truth he's being purposely vague because he knows the implications of what he saying. He purports to be a Methodist minister.

---

I'm trying to be generous. His theology confuses me

---

It's not that difficult.

Pick your favorite from column 1
Pick 2 from column 2
Get a drink
Don't forget your egg rolls

---

That pretty much covers Christianity since Luther

---

Sadly, it does for a lot of people but not all.

Just like a bunch of crooked lawyers don't provide a good image of the legal system that you are a part of, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a good representation of what Christianity is. But, you already knew that.

---

What I knew was that denominations have chosen different things to cast as important.

What I didn't do, unlike you, was to call any of them crooked.

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

You don't believe any of it actually happened. You've been very clear about that (which as I stated previously begs the question why you would want to call yourself Christian). However, Sam is correct - an account that differs in a minor detail doesn't prove your point. Thus, my statement that you have failed to meet your burden is accurate.

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

Please direct me to your support of the assertion. All I see is the assertion. I've posted links to support the assertion that there is no conflict between Matt 8 and Luke 9. With respect, please post your evidence

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

You don't believe any of it actually happened. You've been very clear about that (which as I stated previously begs the question why you would want to call yourself Christian). However, Sam is correct - an account that differs in a minor detail doesn't prove your point. Thus, my statement that you have failed to meet your burden is accurate.

---

Do not tell me what I believe. It's not respectful. I believe that there are events that happened in Jesus. life but when and where has been lost to us. The gospel writers took those events and shaped them to share us the good new sof Jesus Christ the Son of God (Mark1:1) Their intent was never to write history.

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

You don't believe any of it actually happened. You've been very clear about that (which as I stated previously begs the question why you would want to call yourself Christian). However, Sam is correct - an account that differs in a minor detail doesn't prove your point. Thus, my statement that you have failed to meet your burden is accurate.

---

Do not tell me what I believe. It's not respectful. I believe that there are events that happened in Jesus. life but when and where has been lost to us. The gospel writers took those events and shaped them to share us the good new sof Jesus Christ the Son of God (Mark1:1) Their intent was never to write history.

---

With all due respect, I am only going by what you have said, and have invited you - multiple times - to clarify your beliefs. You have chosen not to, and appear to want your beliefs to be left purposely vague. That's on you, my friend. You could easily clarify what you believe, but choose not to.

What events in Jesus' life do you believe actually happened? Did he heal people? Did he walk on water? Was he resurrected? Do you believe Jesus was a deity? Is he physically alive right now?

Once again, these are all questions I have asked and others have asked to understand your beliefs, but you choose not to answer. You could easily clarify your beliefs by providing specific answers, but I won't hold my breath.

M said "With all due respect, I am only going by what you have said, and have invited you - multiple times - to clarify your beliefs. You have chosen not to, and appear to want your beliefs to be left purposely vague. Show me exactly where I equivocated. I have appealed to scriptural texts time and again. Either you enter into this discussion with respect, logic, and actual quotes of my equivocation. Again you are making up stuff about me. I discuss as long as I see good faith effort on your part.


What events in Jesus' life do you believe actually happened? I believe all the events actually happened but I am not constrained by literalism

Did he heal people? Yes, the texts declare he did.
Did he walk on water? Yes, the texts declare he did.
Was he resurrected? Yes, the texts declare he did.
Do you believe Jesus was a deity? He was the Son of God and the Son of Humans. The texts tell me so.
Is he physically alive right now? No But I have experienced and I follow him

I have answered them extensively. Being clever here is not the point. Our faith is dependent not literalism but the witness of the disciples before.us.

Waco1947 said:

---

M said "With all due respect, I am only going by what you have said, and have invited you - multiple times - to clarify your beliefs. You have chosen not to, and appear to want your beliefs to be left purposely vague. Show me exactly where I equivocated. I have appealed to scriptural texts time and again. Either you enter into this discussion with respect, logic, and actual quotes of my equivocation. Again you are making up stuff about me. I discuss as long as I see good faith effort on your part.


What events in Jesus' life do you believe actually happened? I believe all the events actually happened but I am not constrained by literalism

Did he heal people? Yes, the texts declare he did.
Did he walk on water? Yes, the texts declare he did.
Was he resurrected? Yes, the texts declare he did.
Do you believe Jesus was a deity? He was the Son of God and the Son of Humans. The texts tell me so.
Is he physically alive right now? No But I have experienced and I follow him

I have answered them extensively. Being clever here is not the point. Our faith is dependent not literalism but the witness of the disciples before.us.

---

Don't have time right now to respond to everything but appreciate the attempts to answer. These answers don't appear to be entirely consistent with your past positions.

Just so I am clear - you believe that Jesus performed the supernatural events that are recorded in scripture? Healing? Walking on water? The resurrection? These are much different answers than you've given previously.

If Jesus is not physically alive then you believe him to be dead?

This is known as cherry-picking.

You, Waco, have set yourself up as the final, ultimate arbiter as to whether Scripture is truly saying what it claims.

That is, you would make yourself God.

Granted, lots of people on each side of the question do that, but it is the most perilous of sins, as it corrodes your very soul.

May God bring you back home to trust and faith.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

You don't believe any of it actually happened. You've been very clear about that (which as I stated previously begs the question why you would want to call yourself Christian). However, Sam is correct - an account that differs in a minor detail doesn't prove your point. Thus, my statement that you have failed to meet your burden is accurate.

---

Do not tell me what I believe. It's not respectful. I believe that there are events that happened in Jesus. life but when and where has been lost to us. The gospel writers took those events and shaped them to share us the good new sof Jesus Christ the Son of God (Mark1:1) Their intent was never to write history.

---

The intent of the gospel writers was always to write history - writing down fanciful stories in order to get themselves executed by the Romans really doesn't make a lot of sense, then or now. You have four different perspectives - Matthew and John who were disciples, Mark who was the scribe of Peter, and Luke, who basically went around talking to people. It's hardly surprising that minor discrepancies could crop up.

---

If it was just history, they would not have been formatted the way they are. They used history to get them to the important part, preserving Christ's message and teachings. So, I do agree there is history in the Gospels, but you cannot say that the Gospels were written like Tacitus/

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You haven't shown any real inconsistencies. Even if you had, no serious historian would say an event "fails the test of historicity" because of minor variations among different accounts.

---

Several on this thread have asked if the 2 passages presented by 47 contradict each other. As near as I can tell, nobody is saying they are inconsistent.

---

47 seems to be saying they are.

---

I agree, but he lacks the ability to enunciate it.
He says they are contradictory, but not how.
He says they don't describe the same event, but that they are contradictory.

Then he ends with a homily about the spiritual meaning of the miracle of walking on the water, even though he believes it really didn't happen.
I'm really confused and don't know how to proceed

When I asked he posted:

I'm confused on what you are asserting.

Are you saying the passages contradict one another? Yes
Are you saying that happened at different times, therefore one of them could not have occurred? No, One not occurring is immaterial to the texts. These are good news accounts not history.
Are you saying the passages describe the same event and therefore could not have occurred? Not at all.

Thanks in advance for clearing it up

Jesus calmed a storm that is true but for the good news writers shaped the event to fit their theology of who Jesus was. They want us to have faith in Jesus not simply that he had power over storms.
Every preacher I know including me preach that Jesus is with us in every emotional, spiritual turmoil in our lives and "to fear not" but "to have faith in his power to calm our souls. .

---

What he has said on this thread is that he doesn't believe any of it really happened. It's merely fiction used to convey a message, though he doesn't believe in a deity so I'm not sure what that purpose is or whose purpose it is.

In truth he's being purposely vague because he knows the implications of what he saying. He purports to be a Methodist minister.

---

I'm trying to be generous. His theology confuses me

---

It's not that difficult.

Pick your favorite from column 1
Pick 2 from column 2
Get a drink
Don't forget your egg rolls

---

That pretty much covers Christianity since Luther

---

Sadly, it does for a lot of people but not all.

Just like a bunch of crooked lawyers don't provide a good image of the legal system that you are a part of, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a good representation of what Christianity is. But, you already knew that.

---

What I knew was that denominations have chosen different things to cast as important.

What I didn't do, unlike you, was to call any of them crooked.

---

Let me help you then: false profits, purveyors of the prosperity gospel, help me buy a G6 so god will bless you.

I think you get the idea.

If you thought I was calling you crooked, you are mistaken. I expect honest, hard-working lawyers to have a great deal of disdain for those that sully the reputation of those that do it right.

Think of it as the way you bad mouth Republicans because of the actions of a few.

---

You're still missing the point. Let me say it fourth grade style.

The ability to selectively make some parts of the Bible more important than others is why we have so many denominations.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

You don't believe any of it actually happened. You've been very clear about that (which as I stated previously begs the question why you would want to call yourself Christian). However, Sam is correct - an account that differs in a minor detail doesn't prove your point. Thus, my statement that you have failed to meet your burden is accurate.

---

Do not tell me what I believe. It's not respectful. I believe that there are events that happened in Jesus. life but when and where has been lost to us. The gospel writers took those events and shaped them to share us the good new sof Jesus Christ the Son of God (Mark1:1) Their intent was never to write history.

---

The intent of the gospel writers was always to write history - writing down fanciful stories in order to get themselves executed by the Romans really doesn't make a lot of sense, then or now. You have four different perspectives - Matthew and John who were disciples, Mark who was the scribe of Peter, and Luke, who basically went around talking to people. It's hardly surprising that minor discrepancies could crop up.

---

You are exactly right here. Myself and the parent of a TAPPS 2A football player can go to a game and watch his kid playing in said TAPPS 2A game. They will respond on Facebook how their kid is ready for the Big Time, thinking he can play D1 somewhere.

I will accurately understand this same kid better be glad he is at a TAPPS 2A school, because at a decent public school he wouldn't ever sniff the field, probably wouldn't even be on the team.

Different experience, will create a different explaination of what was just seen, even though it was exactly the same event that was being seen.

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Metaphorically speaking, it's believing in the ideas and teachings of Jesus and not necessarily the Webster's dictionary definitions as defined by man.

My personal journey has been a joyous but trying one. I have always fully believed in Jesus and His teachings. There is sanctity in God, there is no sanctity in man...That's been the words I live by. Just look at the dozens of different translations used in churches in the last 20 years. Man always tinkering with the Word of God to morph it to something more comfortable for himself. Same as it ever was.

But, but, but Trey, the Bible is the Word of God whispered to man's ear and put onto papayrus or stone or some other form of medium. Then we've played a 5000 year version of telephone.

What happened to Jesus from 12/13 to 30? Though it is not mentioned in the canonical texts, why couldn't/wouldn't Jesus have been married? NOt saying he was, not saying he wasn't. Why is it so inconceivable that he could have been has always been a question of mine, merely out of curiosity. It doesn't make Him any less divine, by His own teachings. IF marriage is a gift from God, and in its purist form is "forming 2 into 1", just as our personal relationship with God should turn 2 into 1, then why wouldn't a Jewish boy at the proper age of becoming a man not be married?? Then we don't see Him for 18 years. Indian texts from that time frame speak of a Middle Eastern teacher of great knowledge speaking in their region (sidebar, I know). I think that's fascinating because I fully believe that Jesus did travel to foreign/strange lands and teach/discuss with others as He was formulating His mission.

The recently published findings by the SBC and the long known abuse issues in the Catholic Church absolutely disgust me, and my family has been through some of the horrible misgivings by ultra-fundamentalists...myself included (not sexually, they'd have had their neck broken, but psychologically and philosophically)

On Science and Evolution, I don't feel that believing in God or believing in science separates you from believing in both. The mathematical odds of The Big Bang and humans being created out of primordial soup are as or more cosmically farfetched than the belief of a creative being.

This ties directly into one thing that cannot be denied: Man has always been inclined to believe that something far greater than he is out there. Why? Is it just because we recognize our own existence, or is it built into the very fabric of our being that there is a greater power out there than us? Why did the Incans/Mayans/Thai and Cambodians/Egyptians/Hebrews/Zoroastrians/etc have such similar places of worship?

One final thing that truly got me into the place I am today, which I will summarize shortly again, is when my Grandmother and several other family members were in the final death throws of dimentia/Alzheimers. When the human body and brain is in a virtually Zombie-esque status, how is it possible that the only thing they remember is The Word, and the songs about it? I challenge any of you who don't believe anymore to go visit a family member (especially if they are/were a believer) to go visit them and sing "Just a Closer Walk With Thee" or "The Old Rugged Cross" or "Amazing Grace" with them. It may be harder for you as you can't sing the songs you don't believe, but just try it. Open up Corinthians and read to them. It'll shock and terrify you how they remember that and won't remember who the person is reading/singing to them by any measure. That's God still alive in the last vestige of their humanity, their soul.

In summary, I believe in Christ and His teachings of love/respect/cherishing/honesty/humility. I believe He is the Son of God, and the Guardian/Shepherd of souls. There is sanctity in God, there is no sanctity in man. I attend church pretty to very regularly, though the last 18 months has been tougher with 2 kids and all the crap we've been through with our first one emotionally, financially and time-management wise. I go to a church where our preacher preaches more about the teachings of Christ and how we interact with our fellow man rather than being separated from Christ and the fire/brimstone epitaphs of fundamentalism. God is good. Christ is Love. Man is errant.

trey3216 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Metaphorically speaking, it's believing in the ideas and teachings of Jesus and not necessarily the Webster's dictionary definitions as defined by man.

My personal journey has been a joyous but trying one. I have always fully believed in Jesus and His teachings. There is sanctity in God, there is no sanctity in man...That's been the words I live by. Just look at the dozens of different translations used in churches in the last 20 years. Man always tinkering with the Word of God to morph it to something more comfortable for himself. Same as it ever was.

But, but, but Trey, the Bible is the Word of God whispered to man's ear and put onto papayrus or stone or some other form of medium. Then we've played a 5000 year version of telephone.

What happened to Jesus from 12/13 to 30? Though it is not mentioned in the canonical texts, why couldn't/wouldn't Jesus have been married? NOt saying he was, not saying he wasn't. Why is it so inconceivable that he could have been has always been a question of mine, merely out of curiosity. It doesn't make Him any less divine, by His own teachings. IF marriage is a gift from God, and in its purist form is "forming 2 into 1", just as our personal relationship with God should turn 2 into 1, then why wouldn't a Jewish boy at the proper age of becoming a man not be married?? Then we don't see Him for 18 years. Indian texts from that time frame speak of a Middle Eastern teacher of great knowledge speaking in their region (sidebar, I know). I think that's fascinating because I fully believe that Jesus did travel to foreign/strange lands and teach/discuss with others as He was formulating His mission.

The recently published findings by the SBC and the long known abuse issues in the Catholic Church absolutely disgust me, and my family has been through some of the horrible misgivings by ultra-fundamentalists...myself included (not sexually, they'd have had their neck broken, but psychologically and philosophically)

On Science and Evolution, I don't feel that believing in God or believing in science separates you from believing in both. The mathematical odds of The Big Bang and humans being created out of primordial soup are as or more cosmically farfetched than the belief of a creative being.

This ties directly into one thing that cannot be denied: Man has always been inclined to believe that something far greater than he is out there. Why? Is it just because we recognize our own existence, or is it built into the very fabric of our being that there is a greater power out there than us? Why did the Incans/Mayans/Thai and Cambodians/Egyptians/Hebrews/Zoroastrians/etc have such similar places of worship?

One final thing that truly got me into the place I am today, which I will summarize shortly again, is when my Grandmother and several other family members were in the final death throws of dimentia/Alzheimers. When the human body and brain is in a virtually Zombie-esque status, how is it possible that the only thing they remember is The Word, and the songs about it? I challenge any of you who don't believe anymore to go visit a family member (especially if they are/were a believer) to go visit them and sing "Just a Closer Walk With Thee" or "The Old Rugged Cross" or "Amazing Grace" with them. It may be harder for you as you can't sing the songs you don't believe, but just try it. Open up Corinthians and read to them. It'll shock and terrify you how they remember that and won't remember who the person is reading/singing to them by any measure. That's God still alive in the last vestige of their humanity, their soul.

In summary, I believe in Christ and His teachings of love/respect/cherishing/honesty/humility. I believe He is the Son of God, and the Guardian/Shepherd of souls. There is sanctity in God, there is no sanctity in man. I attend church pretty to very regularly, though the last 18 months has been tougher with 2 kids and all the crap we've been through with our first one emotionally, financially and time-management wise. I go to a church where our preacher preaches more about the teachings of Christ and how we interact with our fellow man rather than being separated from Christ and the fire/brimstone epitaphs of fundamentalism. God is good. Christ is Love. Man is errant.

---

It makes sense that Jesus wasn't married while on earth. He was already betrothed - to his body of believers.
The "forming 2 into 1" was to happen with the union of Jesus and his church. Jesus was sent to us for this true marriage, not for earthly marriage. It was God's redemptive plan.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Metaphorically speaking, it's believing in the ideas and teachings of Jesus and not necessarily the Webster's dictionary definitions as defined by man.

My personal journey has been a joyous but trying one. I have always fully believed in Jesus and His teachings. There is sanctity in God, there is no sanctity in man...That's been the words I live by. Just look at the dozens of different translations used in churches in the last 20 years. Man always tinkering with the Word of God to morph it to something more comfortable for himself. Same as it ever was.

But, but, but Trey, the Bible is the Word of God whispered to man's ear and put onto papayrus or stone or some other form of medium. Then we've played a 5000 year version of telephone.

What happened to Jesus from 12/13 to 30? Though it is not mentioned in the canonical texts, why couldn't/wouldn't Jesus have been married? NOt saying he was, not saying he wasn't. Why is it so inconceivable that he could have been has always been a question of mine, merely out of curiosity. It doesn't make Him any less divine, by His own teachings. IF marriage is a gift from God, and in its purist form is "forming 2 into 1", just as our personal relationship with God should turn 2 into 1, then why wouldn't a Jewish boy at the proper age of becoming a man not be married?? Then we don't see Him for 18 years. Indian texts from that time frame speak of a Middle Eastern teacher of great knowledge speaking in their region (sidebar, I know). I think that's fascinating because I fully believe that Jesus did travel to foreign/strange lands and teach/discuss with others as He was formulating His mission.

The recently published findings by the SBC and the long known abuse issues in the Catholic Church absolutely disgust me, and my family has been through some of the horrible misgivings by ultra-fundamentalists...myself included (not sexually, they'd have had their neck broken, but psychologically and philosophically)

On Science and Evolution, I don't feel that believing in God or believing in science separates you from believing in both. The mathematical odds of The Big Bang and humans being created out of primordial soup are as or more cosmically farfetched than the belief of a creative being.

This ties directly into one thing that cannot be denied: Man has always been inclined to believe that something far greater than he is out there. Why? Is it just because we recognize our own existence, or is it built into the very fabric of our being that there is a greater power out there than us? Why did the Incans/Mayans/Thai and Cambodians/Egyptians/Hebrews/Zoroastrians/etc have such similar places of worship?

One final thing that truly got me into the place I am today, which I will summarize shortly again, is when my Grandmother and several other family members were in the final death throws of dimentia/Alzheimers. When the human body and brain is in a virtually Zombie-esque status, how is it possible that the only thing they remember is The Word, and the songs about it? I challenge any of you who don't believe anymore to go visit a family member (especially if they are/were a believer) to go visit them and sing "Just a Closer Walk With Thee" or "The Old Rugged Cross" or "Amazing Grace" with them. It may be harder for you as you can't sing the songs you don't believe, but just try it. Open up Corinthians and read to them. It'll shock and terrify you how they remember that and won't remember who the person is reading/singing to them by any measure. That's God still alive in the last vestige of their humanity, their soul.

In summary, I believe in Christ and His teachings of love/respect/cherishing/honesty/humility. I believe He is the Son of God, and the Guardian/Shepherd of souls. There is sanctity in God, there is no sanctity in man. I attend church pretty to very regularly, though the last 18 months has been tougher with 2 kids and all the crap we've been through with our first one emotionally, financially and time-management wise. I go to a church where our preacher preaches more about the teachings of Christ and how we interact with our fellow man rather than being separated from Christ and the fire/brimstone epitaphs of fundamentalism. God is good. Christ is Love. Man is errant.

---

It makes sense that Jesus wasn't married while on earth. He was already betrothed - to his body of believers.
The "forming 2 into 1" was to happen with the union of Jesus and his church. Jesus was sent to us for this true marriage, not for earthly marriage. It was God's redemptive plan.

---

That's fair. Still doesn't mean as a 13 year old Jewish boy He wouldn't have been married as he hadn't truly grown into His ministry yet.

It's a nitpick thing. I don't believe He was married, I just don't believe it to be inconceivable or antithetical/heretical to His mission if He was.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

You don't believe any of it actually happened. You've been very clear about that (which as I stated previously begs the question why you would want to call yourself Christian). However, Sam is correct - an account that differs in a minor detail doesn't prove your point. Thus, my statement that you have failed to meet your burden is accurate.

---

Do not tell me what I believe. It's not respectful. I believe that there are events that happened in Jesus. life but when and where has been lost to us. The gospel writers took those events and shaped them to share us the good new sof Jesus Christ the Son of God (Mark1:1) Their intent was never to write history.

---

The intent of the gospel writers was always to write history - writing down fanciful stories in order to get themselves executed by the Romans really doesn't make a lot of sense, then or now. You have four different perspectives - Matthew and John who were disciples, Mark who was the scribe of Peter, and Luke, who basically went around talking to people. It's hardly surprising that minor discrepancies could crop up.

---

Mark 1:1 disagrees with you. As John "I tell you about Jesus that you believe."

trey3216 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Metaphorically speaking, it's believing in the ideas and teachings of Jesus and not necessarily the Webster's dictionary definitions as defined by man.

My personal journey has been a joyous but trying one. I have always fully believed in Jesus and His teachings. There is sanctity in God, there is no sanctity in man...That's been the words I live by. Just look at the dozens of different translations used in churches in the last 20 years. Man always tinkering with the Word of God to morph it to something more comfortable for himself. Same as it ever was.

But, but, but Trey, the Bible is the Word of God whispered to man's ear and put onto papayrus or stone or some other form of medium. Then we've played a 5000 year version of telephone.

What happened to Jesus from 12/13 to 30? Though it is not mentioned in the canonical texts, why couldn't/wouldn't Jesus have been married? NOt saying he was, not saying he wasn't. Why is it so inconceivable that he could have been has always been a question of mine, merely out of curiosity. It doesn't make Him any less divine, by His own teachings. IF marriage is a gift from God, and in its purist form is "forming 2 into 1", just as our personal relationship with God should turn 2 into 1, then why wouldn't a Jewish boy at the proper age of becoming a man not be married?? Then we don't see Him for 18 years. Indian texts from that time frame speak of a Middle Eastern teacher of great knowledge speaking in their region (sidebar, I know). I think that's fascinating because I fully believe that Jesus did travel to foreign/strange lands and teach/discuss with others as He was formulating His mission.

The recently published findings by the SBC and the long known abuse issues in the Catholic Church absolutely disgust me, and my family has been through some of the horrible misgivings by ultra-fundamentalists...myself included (not sexually, they'd have had their neck broken, but psychologically and philosophically)

On Science and Evolution, I don't feel that believing in God or believing in science separates you from believing in both. The mathematical odds of The Big Bang and humans being created out of primordial soup are as or more cosmically farfetched than the belief of a creative being.

This ties directly into one thing that cannot be denied: Man has always been inclined to believe that something far greater than he is out there. Why? Is it just because we recognize our own existence, or is it built into the very fabric of our being that there is a greater power out there than us? Why did the Incans/Mayans/Thai and Cambodians/Egyptians/Hebrews/Zoroastrians/etc have such similar places of worship?

One final thing that truly got me into the place I am today, which I will summarize shortly again, is when my Grandmother and several other family members were in the final death throws of dimentia/Alzheimers. When the human body and brain is in a virtually Zombie-esque status, how is it possible that the only thing they remember is The Word, and the songs about it? I challenge any of you who don't believe anymore to go visit a family member (especially if they are/were a believer) to go visit them and sing "Just a Closer Walk With Thee" or "The Old Rugged Cross" or "Amazing Grace" with them. It may be harder for you as you can't sing the songs you don't believe, but just try it. Open up Corinthians and read to them. It'll shock and terrify you how they remember that and won't remember who the person is reading/singing to them by any measure. That's God still alive in the last vestige of their humanity, their soul.

In summary, I believe in Christ and His teachings of love/respect/cherishing/honesty/humility. I believe He is the Son of God, and the Guardian/Shepherd of souls. There is sanctity in God, there is no sanctity in man. I attend church pretty to very regularly, though the last 18 months has been tougher with 2 kids and all the crap we've been through with our first one emotionally, financially and time-management wise. I go to a church where our preacher preaches more about the teachings of Christ and how we interact with our fellow man rather than being separated from Christ and the fire/brimstone epitaphs of fundamentalism. God is good. Christ is Love. Man is errant.

---

I like what you wrote I disagree on one point. Science will evidently get to primordial soup and find our first breathe. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.
At

Waco1947 said:

---

. As to the Big Bang I applaud the search for the big bang but it be begs the question what before the big bang. That will remain forever a mystery IMHO.

---

Ex nihilo.

Your statement is one of the issues with many in the Process Theology vein. Many reject God's creation of the universe from nothing.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

You don't believe any of it actually happened. You've been very clear about that (which as I stated previously begs the question why you would want to call yourself Christian). However, Sam is correct - an account that differs in a minor detail doesn't prove your point. Thus, my statement that you have failed to meet your burden is accurate.

---

Do not tell me what I believe. It's not respectful. I believe that there are events that happened in Jesus. life but when and where has been lost to us. The gospel writers took those events and shaped them to share us the good new sof Jesus Christ the Son of God (Mark1:1) Their intent was never to write history.

---

The intent of the gospel writers was always to write history - writing down fanciful stories in order to get themselves executed by the Romans really doesn't make a lot of sense, then or now. You have four different perspectives - Matthew and John who were disciples, Mark who was the scribe of Peter, and Luke, who basically went around talking to people. It's hardly surprising that minor discrepancies could crop up.

---

Mark 1:1 disagrees with you. As John "I tell you about Jesus that you believe."

---

Mark 1:1 says "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." This doesn't disagree with anything I said in the least.

1 John 1-4, on the other hand, says

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

which clearly affirms my point that they intended to write history.

Likewise Luke 1:1-4:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Why argue with a lunatic? Dude believes in butt sex salvation and that opposing abortion means you are sexist. Total freak and needs to be mocked.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

You don't believe any of it actually happened. You've been very clear about that (which as I stated previously begs the question why you would want to call yourself Christian). However, Sam is correct - an account that differs in a minor detail doesn't prove your point. Thus, my statement that you have failed to meet your burden is accurate.

---

Do not tell me what I believe. It's not respectful. I believe that there are events that happened in Jesus. life but when and where has been lost to us. The gospel writers took those events and shaped them to share us the good new sof Jesus Christ the Son of God (Mark1:1) Their intent was never to write history.

---

The intent of the gospel writers was always to write history - writing down fanciful stories in order to get themselves executed by the Romans really doesn't make a lot of sense, then or now. You have four different perspectives - Matthew and John who were disciples, Mark who was the scribe of Peter, and Luke, who basically went around talking to people. It's hardly surprising that minor discrepancies could crop up.

---

Mark 1:1 disagrees with you. As John "I tell you about Jesus that you believe."

---

What would telling them made up stories do to get them to believe?

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

When your best examples of problematic text are in fact not problematic at all, it tends to confirm the history rather than challenge it.

This assertion lacks support.

---

Typically, the person making the assertion a text is problematic bears the burden of proving as such. You haven't even attempted to do so.

So with all due respect, the burden is yours and you've failed to meet that burden.

---

With respect I did support my assertion I am responding to that fundamentalism that treats the gospels as history - literally. If the literal history is their standard then I am challenging that "history."

---

You don't believe any of it actually happened. You've been very clear about that (which as I stated previously begs the question why you would want to call yourself Christian). However, Sam is correct - an account that differs in a minor detail doesn't prove your point. Thus, my statement that you have failed to meet your burden is accurate.

---

Do not tell me what I believe. It's not respectful. I believe that there are events that happened in Jesus. life but when and where has been lost to us. The gospel writers took those events and shaped them to share us the good new sof Jesus Christ the Son of God (Mark1:1) Their intent was never to write history.

---

The intent of the gospel writers was always to write history - writing down fanciful stories in order to get themselves executed by the Romans really doesn't make a lot of sense, then or now. You have four different perspectives - Matthew and John who were disciples, Mark who was the scribe of Peter, and Luke, who basically went around talking to people. It's hardly surprising that minor discrepancies could crop up.

---

Mark 1:1 disagrees with you. As John "I tell you about Jesus that you believe."

---

Yes that is correct - the gospel writers meant to tell us about a historical account of Jesus - his teachings, actions and miracles - so that we would believe. That verse is not at all inconsistent with what JXL said. Not in the least.