|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 9:12:24 GMT -5
Another thing that caught my attention as I re-read these different gospel accounts of the crucifixion was where the women close to Jesus were standing during his last hour. For instance, in John 19:25-27, it says that they were standing nearby and in Luke 23:49, it says that they were standing at a distance. In fact, in John's gospel we read that Jesus told John to care for his mother, so they must have been close enough to hear his words, considering his faint and dying state of being towards the end of his life?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 13, 2014 11:10:13 GMT -5
But if the Bible isn't an inerrant message from God and only opinions of man based on what they considered to be faith based experiences, then why would we think it a good book to follow? Why wouldn't we just see it as a bunch of stories of men who thought they were seeing something, but might have been mistaken in their interpretation of what they were seeing? Why don't people read the bible for what it is, a propaganda machine for the various beliefs they had in those days? We know the bible has been tampered with. We know that not all the gospels that were written made it into the bible. We know it's not historically accurate. We know there are things that have to be symbolic because they can't actually have happened without breaking the laws of nature. These things we know. In order to believe the bible and have it mean anything at all at this late a date, we need to have faith that there is 1. there is a god. 2. this god wants us to do things certain ways. 3. if we don't, this god will get mad and punish us in hell forever, and 4. This god is loving and merciful he just can't do anything about what we do because we have free will, which of course exonerates him from any wrong doing when he punishes us in a horrible place forever and ever.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 11:11:41 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? Bob ~ Wally suggested it as a possibility. However, I have also read that Jesus had a massage heart attack in which his heart exploded in reviews after the movie, "The Passion of Christ." I guess that remains a mystery, too?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 13, 2014 11:12:49 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... Wally ~ I believe I read in one account that his heart exploded; or rather, he had a massage heart attack. I believe the reviews from the movie, "The Passion of Christ," gave this impression a few years back? However, suffocation would have been another possibility, too, I would guess from the procedure used in crucifixion by the Romans? suffocation usually happened after they broke their knees. He died and was taken down a lot faster than most who were crucified. This has led some to believe he wasn't really dead when he was taken down. Not that anyone will ever know for sure what happened, or for that matter, if it even happened.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 11:18:20 GMT -5
But if the Bible isn't an inerrant message from God and only opinions of man based on what they considered to be faith based experiences, then why would we think it a good book to follow? Why wouldn't we just see it as a bunch of stories of men who thought they were seeing something, but might have been mistaken in their interpretation of what they were seeing? Why don't people read the bible for what it is, a propaganda machine for the various beliefs they had in those days? We know the bible has been tampered with. We know that not all the gospels that were written made it into the bible. We know it's not historically accurate. We know there are things that have to be symbolic because they can't actually have happened without breaking the laws of nature. These things we know. In order to believe the bible and have it mean anything at all at this late a date, we need to have faith that there is 1. there is a god. 2. this god wants us to do things certain ways. 3. if we don't, this god will get mad and punish us in hell forever, and 4. This god is loving and merciful he just can't do anything about what we do because we have free will, which of course exonerates him from any wrong doing when he punishes us in a horrible place forever and ever. Snow ~ There you go again with supplying us with a bunch of facts to confuse Christian minds! However, jesting aside, I feel you make a lot of valid points in your argument, IMHO. For anybody who accepts these Bible stories as historically accurate, I feel they must recognize that not everything within the Bible should be taken literally?
This would only produce considerable cognitive dissonance as a result from Genesis to Revelation? However, when you take different passages, like the Sermon on the Mount, as a guide for your life, it's not a bad book to have around. However, when you insist upon the Bible as being "inerrant" and totally God inspired without any errors, you are missing the boat and deceiving yourself, IMHO? There's just too many discrepancies and "edits" within its pages to hold to this opinion from what I can see? But, that still doesn't disqualify it as a sacred book worthy of our attention and a guide in moral living regarding some of the wisdom shared in the O.T. and N.T. books. I may not consider the Bible to be inerrant, but I still find it a fascinating book to study for its content and appreciate the wisdom found within its pages on how to enjoy a more fulfilled life.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 11:22:50 GMT -5
Wally ~ I believe I read in one account that his heart exploded; or rather, he had a massage heart attack. I believe the reviews from the movie, "The Passion of Christ," gave this impression a few years back? However, suffocation would have been another possibility, too, I would guess from the procedure used in crucifixion by the Romans? Suffocation usually happened after they broke their knees. He died and was taken down a lot faster than most who were crucified. This has led some to believe he wasn't really dead when he was taken down. Not that anyone will ever know for sure what happened, or for that matter, if it even happened. Snow ~ I tend to disagree with this conclusion of the "swoon theory" for reasons I shared previously. Considering the terrible beating most of these offenders awaiting crucifixion received, some never made it to the Hill of Golgotha in the first place, but died along the way. That's one reason why they got Simeon to bear his cross (bar) part of the way, due to the weakness from blood loss from the severe scourging (39 lashes) to his back. Flesh and bone would have been torn out of his back in this process with the hooked instruments they used for this process. The whole trial and preparation for crucifixion was a gruesome event, IMHO? I personally believe that Jesus probably had a massage heart attack, since they never broke his legs, because they probably noticed he was dead already? Breaking the legs was a final step, in case the person was still alive, from what the gospel accounts relate themselves. Since Roman soldiers could lose their own lives for not doing their job properly, I truly doubt they would have messed up on Jesus' account, considering how adamant the Jewish leaders were about having Jesus killed in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 11:28:24 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 ~ I agree with your above statement about crucifixion at this time was only reserved for certain crimes against the state, such as proclaiming oneself to be "the King of the Jews." Perhaps this is why Pilate had the inscription of "Jesus of Nazareth ~ King of the Jews" written in three languages and attached to the top of the cross for all to see according to John 19:19-20? This saying was written in Hebrew (Aramaic), Latin, and Greek.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 12:05:23 GMT -5
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. Bob ~ Can you supply us with some background material to support all these thousands of edits in the Bible already? Also, are you speaking here of copying errors from scribes or Catholic monks "copying copies" down through the centuries or differences in interpretations that came later with different versions of the Bible? P.S. ~ I believe I have found my answer from a simple Google of your statement. This article relates to the thousands of edits found within the New Testament alone.
www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 12:22:12 GMT -5
I believe this article should be displayed in its full content due to the insights it provides here! This is something I look forward to in the future, as I love to study the Bible inductively, which takes into consideration an understanding of words and phrases used in context during Jesus' time here on earth. I believe this is the only way to get a clear understanding of what was spoken back in time against the backdrop of history in the first century or before when considering the Old Testament in this equation.
www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2014 17:27:03 GMT -5
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. Bob ~ Can you supply us with some background material to support all these thousands of edits in the Bible already? Also, are you speaking here of copying errors from scribes or Catholic monks "copying copies" down through the centuries or differences in interpretations that came later with different versions of the Bible? P.S. ~ I believe I have found my answer from a simple Google of your statement. This article relates to the thousands of edits found within the New Testament alone.
www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html
I could find the source of the "thousands" statement, but it's in one of about ten volumes here that I have read and not made notes on, so I'm going to not promise to find it. My recollection of reading that was "10,000" edits -- but my reputation already as a fact stretcher by the doubters prompted me to just say "thousands". Every time I read a book now I do it with a highlighter and index the book for things I might want to find in the future, so I am getting better. It is true that some changes were errors made in copying. Some were made through poor translations -- Greek to Latin for centuries was a challenge because Latin was far less sophisticated than Greek. But the majority appears to scholars to be corrections made to documents that were being copied, and those would be intentional changes. The most notorious one was where Job's wife told him to praise God and die. Originally it was "curse God and die", but the copier admitted that he thought it was a blasphemous statement and he changed it. And to my knowledge no one seems to have suggested it be changed back.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2014 17:38:07 GMT -5
I believe this article should be displayed in its full content due to the insights it provides here! This is something I look forward to in the future, as I love to study the Bible inductively, which takes into consideration an understanding of words and phrases used in context during Jesus' time here on earth. I believe this is the only way to get a clear understanding of what was spoken back in time against the backdrop of history in the first century or before when considering the Old Testament in this equation.
www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html
I have only one concern with this project -- it sounds very much like the Baptist project that was launched a few years ago for the purpose of proving the works of such people as Ehrman to be fraudulent. Millions of dollars were put into it, and I haven't heard about it since. I wonder what they will do with changes that they cannot reconcile with Baptist theology.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 17:40:31 GMT -5
I could find the source of the "thousands" statement, but it's in one of about ten volumes here that I have read and not made notes on, so I'm going to not promise to find it. My recollection of reading that was "10,000" edits -- but my reputation already as a fact stretcher by the doubters prompted me to just say "thousands". Every time I read a book now I do it with a highlighter and index the book for things I might want to find in the future, so I am getting better. It is true that some changes were errors made in copying. Some were made through poor translations -- Greek to Latin for centuries was a challenge because Latin was far less sophisticated than Greek. But the majority appears to scholars to be corrections made to documents that were being copied, and those would be intentional changes. The most notorious one was where Job's wife told him to praise God and die. Originally it was "curse God and die", but the copier admitted that he thought it was a blasphemous statement and he changed it. And to my knowledge no one seems to have suggested it be changed back. Bob ~ I do take your word for it. In fact, I found the article above that attest to this fact just in the New Testament alone and the researchers are still at work on this project after 20 years. Honestly, there must be a lot of room for error, when you think of the time consumed to give an accurate accounting of these edits over the centuries. However, I never heard that one about Job's wife telling him to "praise God and die." She must have been one Pollyanna to make such a statement? I agree with the copier back then, it would seem more realistic under the circumstances to say, "curse God and die" after all your kids were killed in a disaster and your were totally wiped out financially and made the laughing stock and recipient of scorn within your home area. That would be enough to do in anybody's faith, IMHO? Job was one patient and righteous man ~ no doubt about it!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 13, 2014 17:46:17 GMT -5
I believe this article should be displayed in its full content due to the insights it provides here! This is something I look forward to in the future, as I love to study the Bible inductively, which takes into consideration an understanding of words and phrases used in context during Jesus' time here on earth. I believe this is the only way to get a clear understanding of what was spoken back in time against the backdrop of history in the first century or before when considering the Old Testament in this equation.
www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html
I have only one concern with this project -- it sounds very much like the Baptist project that was launched a few years ago for the purpose of proving the works of such people as Ehrman to be fraudulent. Millions of dollars were put into it, and I haven't heard about it since. I wonder what they will do with changes that they cannot reconcile with Baptist theology. Bob ~ This one has been on-going for 20 years, so I suspect you may be thinking about another group of Baptists here? I wasn't aware of a project to prove the works of Bart Ehrman to be fraudulent. It sounds more like something out of the Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell's group in the past. That was definitely their M.O. in the past! Or, it could be something connected to the Tea Party agenda and the Far Right within America? That's probably more like it, IMHO? They are always at work discrediting somebody from President Obama and down the ladder ~ especially if you're Democrat or liberal in your opinions and don't share the fundamentalist's viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2014 17:46:57 GMT -5
Bob ~ I agree with your above statement about crucifixion at this time was only reserved for certain crimes against the state, such as proclaiming oneself to be "the King of the Jews." Perhaps this is why Pilate had the inscription of "Jesus of Nazareth ~ King of the Jews" written in three languages and attached to the top of the cross for all to see according to John 19:19-20? This saying was written in Hebrew (Aramaic), Latin, and Greek.
The realization that Jesus was crucified by Romans for a Roman crime just makes the purpose of the sign on his cross more pertinent. Jesus had indeed, according to the scriptures even, acknowledged that he was called a "king" (or messiah as they would have called him) of the Jews, so it would have made him look like the very leader of the Jewish insurrection. They not only had to get rid of him, they had to make sure everyone knew what waited for anyone else who thought they could lead an insurrection.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2014 17:53:04 GMT -5
I could find the source of the "thousands" statement, but it's in one of about ten volumes here that I have read and not made notes on, so I'm going to not promise to find it. My recollection of reading that was "10,000" edits -- but my reputation already as a fact stretcher by the doubters prompted me to just say "thousands". Every time I read a book now I do it with a highlighter and index the book for things I might want to find in the future, so I am getting better. It is true that some changes were errors made in copying. Some were made through poor translations -- Greek to Latin for centuries was a challenge because Latin was far less sophisticated than Greek. But the majority appears to scholars to be corrections made to documents that were being copied, and those would be intentional changes. The most notorious one was where Job's wife told him to praise God and die. Originally it was "curse God and die", but the copier admitted that he thought it was a blasphemous statement and he changed it. And to my knowledge no one seems to have suggested it be changed back. Bob ~ I do take your word for it. In fact, I found the article above that attest to this fact just in the New Testament alone and the researchers are still at work on this project after 20 years. Honestly, there must be a lot of room for error, when you think of the time consumed to give an accurate accounting of these edits over the centuries. However, I never heard that one about Job's wife telling him to "praise God and die." She must have been one Pollyanna to make such a statement? I agree with the copier back then, it would seem more realistic under the circumstances to say, "curse God and die" after all your kids were killed in a disaster and your were totally wiped out financially and made the laughing stock and recipient of scorn within your home area. That would be enough to do in anybody's faith, IMHO? Job was one patient and righteous man ~ no doubt about it! Ooops. By the "original" I meant that was what Job's wife actually said -- "curse God". The monk thought that was blasphemous, so he made her say "praise God". Remember, for Christians the Bible is a guide for living -- for Jews it (the OT) was law, history, and literature -- no need for anyone to have modern morals, just do whatever, no one's perfect, even Job's wife.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2014 17:54:16 GMT -5
I have only one concern with this project -- it sounds very much like the Baptist project that was launched a few years ago for the purpose of proving the works of such people as Ehrman to be fraudulent. Millions of dollars were put into it, and I haven't heard about it since. I wonder what they will do with changes that they cannot reconcile with Baptist theology. Bob ~ This one has been on-going for 20 years, so I suspect you may be thinking about another group of Baptists here? I wasn't aware of a project to prove the works of Bart Ehrman to be fraudulent. It sounds more like something out of the Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell's group in the past. That was definitely their M.O. in the past! Or, it could be something connected to the Tea Party agenda and the Far Right within America? That's probably more like it, IMHO? They are always at work discrediting somebody from President Obama and down the ladder ~ especially if you're Democrat or liberal in your opinions and don't share the fundamentalist's viewpoint. According to the article the whole project is to last 20 years, but they have only accomplished the first stage so far.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2014 7:41:14 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... Do you have a reference for this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 11:40:13 GMT -5
the name evades me but it was in a psychology book i had in college...
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 14, 2014 13:22:53 GMT -5
the name evades me but it was in a psychology book i had in college... Google Elizabeth Loftus as a starting point.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2014 15:17:00 GMT -5
the name evades me but it was in a psychology book i had in college... Maybe it will come to you.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2014 15:19:46 GMT -5
the name evades me but it was in a psychology book i had in college... Google Elizabeth Loftus as a starting point. Perhaps I misunderstood what Wally meant.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 14, 2014 16:08:39 GMT -5
Google Elizabeth Loftus as a starting point. Perhaps I misunderstood what Wally meant. Or maybe I did. (?) But, I've been there, done that, where I didn't quite get what was said in class, because I was too worried about meeting up with my friends afterwards.
|
|