|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 18:38:08 GMT -5
[Mark 15:20,21, Matt 27:32, Luke 23:26] versus [John 19:17]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 18:44:18 GMT -5
you know its been proven that during accidents and crimes that multiple witnesses see different things which then can lead to a single truth...
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Apr 12, 2014 18:55:15 GMT -5
[Mark 15:20,21, Matt 27:32, Luke 23:26] versus [John 19:17] Mar 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. Tools specific to Mar 15:21 Mar 15:21 ¶And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross. Mat 27:32 ¶And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross. Luk 23:26 ¶And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus. Jhn 19:17 ¶ And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:+ Bob what is your point? ken
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 12, 2014 19:03:16 GMT -5
[Mark 15:20,21, Matt 27:32, Luke 23:26] versus [John 19:17] Jesus did carry his own cross until he could no longer - and out of fear that he might die before they could crucify him - they made Simon of Cyrene bear the cross. Gill So Christ, when he first went out to be crucified, carried his cross himself, until the Jews, meeting with Simon the Cyrenian, obliged him to bear it after him; that is, one part of it; for still Christ continued to bear a part himself: of this Isaac was a type, in carrying the wood on his shoulders for the burnt offering; and this showed that Christ was made sin, and a curse for us, and that our sins, and the punishment which belonged to us, were laid on him, and bore by him; and in this he has left us an example to go forth without the camp, bearing his reproach: ... biblehub.com/john/19-17.htm
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 19:12:51 GMT -5
[Mark 15:20,21, Matt 27:32, Luke 23:26] versus [John 19:17] Jesus did carry his own cross until he could no longer - and out of fear that he might die before they could crucify him - they made Simon of Cyrene bear the cross. Gill So Christ, when he first went out to be crucified, carried his cross himself, until the Jews, meeting with Simon the Cyrenian, obliged him to bear it after him; that is, one part of it; for still Christ continued to bear a part himself: of this Isaac was a type, in carrying the wood on his shoulders for the burnt offering; and this showed that Christ was made sin, and a curse for us, and that our sins, and the punishment which belonged to us, were laid on him, and bore by him; and in this he has left us an example to go forth without the camp, bearing his reproach: ... biblehub.com/john/19-17.htm Now if we had another gospel with another version, we would need to speculate on how three reports could be reconciled.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 19:13:43 GMT -5
you know its been proven that during accidents and crimes that multiple witnesses see different things which then can lead to a single truth... So much for the validity of the eyewitness reliability of the gospels.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 19:15:28 GMT -5
[Mark 15:20,21, Matt 27:32, Luke 23:26] versus [John 19:17] Mar 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. Tools specific to Mar 15:21 Mar 15:21 ¶And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross. Mat 27:32 ¶And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross. Luk 23:26 ¶And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus. Jhn 19:17 ¶ And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:+ Bob what is your point? ken I was thinking how people read the Bible and only get what they already believe -- without noticing the differences in versions.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 19:16:46 GMT -5
By the way, those being crucified did not carry their "cross" to the crucifixion site -- it was only the bar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 19:39:53 GMT -5
you know its been proven that during accidents and crimes that multiple witnesses see different things which then can lead to a single truth... So much for the validity of the eyewitness reliability of the gospels. i think a consensus can be built with different witnesses seeing different things, we do it now in a court of law all the time...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 12, 2014 19:53:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 20:00:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 12, 2014 20:09:13 GMT -5
Wally ~ Thanks for that Catholic site you just provided. I also provided one a few posts back on the crucifixion history. It appears that both correlate together? How appropriate to reflect on this subject, especially with Easter celebration coming up this weekend!
www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0027.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 20:14:36 GMT -5
sorry for the duplicate post i just read what you pasted and did not click on your link... if i am understanding it right he basically suffocated to death...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 20:42:50 GMT -5
So much for the validity of the eyewitness reliability of the gospels. i think a consensus can be built with different witnesses seeing different things, we do it now in a court of law all the time... I know. That's why I accept that religious truth is in fact a "consensus of the jury consulted". Appropriately, some of their unanimous decisions have been dead wrong.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 20:58:18 GMT -5
Interesting reading. I find it interesting that these articles neglect to specify the crime(s) that crucifixion was reserved for -- it's not really a secret. But then, it does permit the reader to "understand" that it was for blasphemy, even though the Roman Empire maintained strict freedom of religion.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 21:04:35 GMT -5
He's good. An apologist's delight. I heard most of that in gospel meetings when I was about 10 or 11, except for the medical terminology.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 21:07:48 GMT -5
sorry for the duplicate post i just read what you pasted and did not click on your link... if i am understanding it right he basically suffocated to death... He may have. For some reason he died long before he was expected to die -- in fact, before they broke his legs to compress his lungs into suffocation. Maybe he had a heart attack. Has someone been saying we know Jesus died of suffocation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 21:54:37 GMT -5
If someone in later centuries went through and redacted the scripture so there were no discrepancies, then some might believe the whole bible was a conspiracy.
I am glad there are discrepancies in the bible, it shows they weren't tampered with later.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 22:02:01 GMT -5
If someone in later centuries went through and redacted the scripture so there were no discrepancies, then some might believe the whole bible was a conspiracy. I am glad there are discrepancies in the bible, it shows they weren't tampered with later. Wow. Have you ever served on a jury?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 12, 2014 22:47:45 GMT -5
sorry for the duplicate post i just read what you pasted and did not click on your link... if i am understanding it right he basically suffocated to death... He may have. For some reason he died long before he was expected to die -- in fact, before they broke his legs to compress his lungs into suffocation. Maybe he had a heart attack. Has someone been saying we know Jesus died of suffocation? He was given something while on the cross and it was after that that he appeared to have died. There has been speculation of what he was given and that it possibly was something to have him appear dead so that they didn't break his legs and then he would suffocate. Then they would take him down and if it was something that was reverseable, then he would have a chance of living. In that scenario he would not have died, but just appeared to.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 12, 2014 22:49:10 GMT -5
If someone in later centuries went through and redacted the scripture so there were no discrepancies, then some might believe the whole bible was a conspiracy. I am glad there are discrepancies in the bible, it shows they weren't tampered with later. lol, now that's an interesting argument.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 23:12:49 GMT -5
If someone in later centuries went through and redacted the scripture so there were no discrepancies, then some might believe the whole bible was a conspiracy. I am glad there are discrepancies in the bible, it shows they weren't tampered with later. lol, now that's an interesting argument. Sounds a bit like the warning I got about bringing flowers home to the wife "just because". If that's all they're for, then she will suspect I'm cheating on her and this will make everything look right. Funny thing is, they've already caught thousands of "edits" in the Bible already.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 7:47:32 GMT -5
He may have. For some reason he died long before he was expected to die -- in fact, before they broke his legs to compress his lungs into suffocation. Maybe he had a heart attack. Has someone been saying we know Jesus died of suffocation? He was given something while on the cross and it was after that that he appeared to have died. There has been speculation of what he was given and that it possibly was something to have him appear dead so that they didn't break his legs and then he would suffocate. Then they would take him down and if it was something that was reversible, then he would have a chance of living. In that scenario he would not have died, but just appeared to. Snow ~ Are you suggesting the "swoon theory" here? Also, the gospel story said that Jesus was given "vinegar mixed with water to drink on a sponge when he said he was thirsty, but he refused it. This "vinegar was considered cheap Roman vinegar wine of that day.
ferlans.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/ahhh-the-swoon-theory-so-jesus-didnt-really-die-on-the-cross/ (The Swoon Theory)
www.housetohouse.com/BibleQuestions.aspx?Letter=all&Question=4197 (Drink of cheap wine mingled with gall)
biblehub.com/matthew/27-34.htm (Jesus' offered a drink & refusal after tasting ~ Matthew 27:34)
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 13, 2014 8:07:50 GMT -5
If someone in later centuries went through and redacted the scripture so there were no discrepancies, then some might believe the whole bible was a conspiracy. I am glad there are discrepancies in the bible, it shows they weren't tampered with later. Then there's the theory that the discrepancies were added just so Bert wouldn't think it was tampered with later.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 8:18:05 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 8:30:01 GMT -5
If someone in later centuries went through and redacted the scripture so there were no discrepancies, then some might believe the whole bible was a conspiracy. I am glad there are discrepancies in the bible, it shows they weren't tampered with later. lol, now that's an interesting argument. It is definitely logical that discrepancies like this do add to a sense of authenticity to the records. Real eyewitnesses rarely remember the story identically to each other. Where the discrepancies get gnarly is when this is placed in front of the premise that the bible was written by God. If this premise was sound, why would God allow errors.....even inconsequential errors like the one in the OP? God doesn't make mistakes according to the faith of most people, yet the God-written bible has plenty of mistakes. There is only one of two possible conclusions: either God is a bungler, or the bible was written by fallible people giving their best record of events and their faith experiences. It can't go both ways: a perfect God and an error-riddled bible written by God are incompatible ideas.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 8:37:53 GMT -5
Interesting reading. I find it interesting that these articles neglect to specify the crime(s) that crucifixion was reserved for -- it's not really a secret. But then, it does permit the reader to "understand" that it was for blasphemy, even though the Roman Empire maintained strict freedom of religion. Bob ~ Thanks for you side note above regarding the reason that the crime of crucifixion was reserved for in Roman times, especially considering the Roman Empire did maintain strict freedom of religion. That's another strange occurrence that they would listen to the Jewish leaders along with the posted sign ordered by Pilate entitled, "JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS," when it was not a customary practice to display any signs in Roman crucifixions. The shape of the cross is another issue here, too, where a "T-shaped" cross was more customary than the one that Jesus was nailed to in his crucifixion. I believe this sign was also written in three different languages, too?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 8:44:20 GMT -5
lol, now that's an interesting argument. It is definitely logical that discrepancies like this do add to a sense of authenticity to the records. Real eyewitnesses rarely remember the story identically to each other. Where the discrepancies get gnarly is when this is placed in front of the premise that the bible was written by God. If this premise was sound, why would God allow errors.....even inconsequential errors like the one in the OP? God doesn't make mistakes according to the faith of most people, yet the God-written bible has plenty of mistakes. There is only one of two possible conclusions: either God is a bungler, or the bible was written by fallible people giving their best record of events and their faith experiences. It can't go both ways: a perfect God and an error-riddled bible written by God are incompatible ideas. Clearday ~ Ditto! You express my own sentiments exactly, which is why I do not consider the Bible to be inerrant in the first place! What we seem to have are human beings, who were supposedly followers of Jesus, accounting what they remember of his life afterwards. Since most of the stories were oral accounts or traditions passed down through the centuries before the Bible was actually assembled, it's no wonder there are numerous discrepancies found within the gospels. However, this would make the Bible appear more authentic, as Bert remarked earlier, just not inerrant (without error) due to these numerous discrepancies.
|
|