They Are At It Again!! FFS! make your minds up guys.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 51
#31
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
In constantly trying to concentrate on "John",  you are attempting to distract from the real issue.

The contention as you are  well aware is not in "Johns" version of events...But the obvious contradictions between separate versions of events.

Separate contradictory versions that come together to therefore make a flawed whole....A flawed whole that you put so much faith and belief into.


For my part, the flawed whole is simply indicative of, various versions of folktales rendered to a mythical status and purely of historical and social interest.


Stephen for his part is perhaps a tad more zealous, but nonetheless his observations of the literal presentation of the bible are correct.
Of course I am concentrating on John's account.  Why would I not? I think that the representation that Stephen provided about the Mark Gospel was apt. Yet, then he suggested that John's account was inconsistent.   All I have requested is that he prove it.  And so far, he has not.  He went back to Mark - and AVOIDED my question.  It seems you want him to run away from the question as well.  

I cannot see the contradiction and I obviously cannot assert a negative.  Stephen has asserted - he must be prove.  John does not provide us with a date on Jesus' baptism. All my point is that removes any so called inconsistency that Stephen is suggesting.  I don't know of any Christian who would suggest there are different versions of the same folk tales.  You too are asserting - without providing evidence.  

Is that just part of the typical MO for the atheist these days? 

Once more I note you did not even address any of my points. I will take that as a concession.  At least it is nice that Stephen prepared to support him.  
Topic's author
#32
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

We all know what Mark said. That is not the issue.

That is exactly the issue. One gospel is telling us that he immediately went into the wilderness and stayed for 40 days.  While another say he was wandering around just days after and yet another says he was making sure wedding guests got themselves drunk .

Its your dilemma reverend, not mine. Do your research. 


Well actually Stephen, I have no dilemma. It is you who had inserted stuff into the John passage which is not there. 


Oh you do have a massive dilemma. You just do want to address it. 


Again, let me repeat - Mark states that Jesus went immediately into the desert. John does not tell us when Jesus' baptism was.

John's gospel tell us how long AFTER his baptism it was, though doesn't he.   " the next day after " AND he also tell us where Jesus was on the THIRD DAY too:  "And the third day ".   



Stop making stuff up.

Are those biblical verses wrong then?  That is a yes or no question. 
The verses you quote from Mark  are not incorrect. Your addition of brackets with the insertion of baptism in John is incorrect. It is not there. 

 Square brackets. Learn your English.


#33
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I'm merely addressing the contention between you and Stephen.

Stephen is correct in his observations, and in this instance you cling to "John", because that is all you have to cling to in this instance.

Your observations of "John" are correct...But that is not the issue.

So why is it so hard to admit that another persons observations are also correct?

Given the sequence of events and time frame involved it would be foolish to expect that the modern bible would be a perfect record of something.

Hence all the contentious squabbling.
#34
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
LOL @ you are desperate. 

Come on produce the verse - quote it and don't add your brackets.  LOL @ you. 

You know I am right - and you hate it. Squirm, squirm, squirm.  LOL@ you. 

Even Zed man admits my observation of John is correct. And that means you are wrong even from his point of view in relation to John. LOL when even your friends cut you lose. 

Topic's author
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
you are desperate. 
Nope. That will be you Reverend.  Your just a little shy of the facts here . 


Come on produce the verse - quote it and don't add your brackets.  

 Can you explain  "after" in those verses?  Can you put context to them considering that you believe that I am wrong. 

You know I am right -

 I know you are wrong. 

 They are contradictory and you simply cannot explain them away . 

#36
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

You should take some time and read it.  

It refers to "after" the conversation between the official visit from Jerusalem by Jewish authorities with John the Baptist.  Not after the baptism.  They were wanting to know whether he was the messiah or not. And he denies it.  That Stephen is big news.  And worthy of a visit from the Religious leaders. And certainly worthy of note by the writer of this gospel.  

John does not set out for us the baptism of Jesus.  The most that occurs is a testimony of John the Baptist of Jesus' baptism in the past.  And given the evidence of the other gospels - this seems to have take place at least 40 days before this delegation arrives from Jerusalem.  

There is NOTHING in John's gospel which would hinder this from the case.  In fact everything points towards it.  

You are grasping at straws.  Trying to find contradictions where there are none.  Now if John the apostle actually wrote in his gospel here in these verses - that the next day after Jesus' baptism that he went to a wedding then that would, I concede, bear further investigation because I can see how that might be inconsistent with the other gospels.  Yet, John does not say that.  In fact, in your original post - you ADD words - and put them in brackets.  Why? Because you so desperately want to believe that its true - you must be finding it difficult to find any inconsistencies in the bible.  Your faith must be wearing thin.  You had better be careful dear Stephen. History is full of people who try and prove the bible wrong - only to become convinced of its truth - and then fall to their knees in repentance before the holy and gracious God of mercy. 
#37
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm merely addressing the contention between you and Stephen.

Stephen is correct in his observations, and in this instance you cling to "John", because that is all you have to cling to in this instance.

I am puzzled as to what you are suggesting here? 

I am not clinging to John.  Although I in my previous posted suggested that correct.  In view of what I said - I meant to say - that I don't disagree with Stephen's position in relation to the gospel of Mark.  In that gospel Jesus clearly and immediately is driven into the desert. I totally agree with that point.  So it is NOT like I am avoiding what Stephen is saying about Mark.  In fact I am on board with that position - because not only is that my position - it is the Christian position and historical position. 

What Stephen is attempting to do is suggest that John contradicts that point of view.  And this is why I constantly bring Stephen back to John because Stephen is misreading John on purpose and deliberately despite the evidence against his position.  He runs away to Mark and says - is this true? OF course it is true. But then avoids the questions I have for him on the gospel of John.  

After all if Stephen cannot demonstrate from the book of John exactly when Jesus was baptized - his entire argument falls over and he knows this.  This is why he keeps trying to lead me away from John - and why I keep going back there.  It is not me clinging onto John - it is my focusing our attention there - to see if what Stephen is saying here is correct.  And so far - he avoids answering the question.  The basis of his argument is "the next day".  That is it in a nutshell. John uses the term the next day and so Stephen - thinks to himself - not based on the text by the way but to himself - "what is this the next day after"? And he comes up with Jesus' baptism. Why? There is no reason to do so from the text.  

The text as I explained above tells us what happened the previous day.  A pretty big event occurred - The Jewish Leaders had sent an official delegate to go and talk with John the Baptist.  There is not even a mention of Jesus' baptism. then the writer of the gospel - after this meeting - says - on the next day in v 29, John sees Jesus.  Now - what is this first "next day' talking about? Firstly, it is the next day after the meeting with the Jewish leaders.  Then from v 29 John the Baptist proclaims - that this Jesus is the messiah and he then talks about a past event.  The past event being Jesus' baptism. But does he say when it was? No. Only in the past. 

The previous day was a conversation. no baptism is mentioned at all.  The next day - John is talking about a past event. Stephen then jumps to a conclusion - not based on the text - but from himself.   There is no church tradition that says Jesus was there the day after his baptism or went to a wedding within a couple of days.  So where does Stephen come up with the idea? He just made it up.  He either read it from his little favourite book or he misread the text.  Why do I keep going back to John, because Stephen is wrong and he is totally avoiding the fact that he is wrong.  He knows it. He just cannot admit it - especially to me - who he sees as a complete idiot and fraud. Imagine Stephen being able to acknowedge that? Not possible.  For me - it just demonstrates his intellectual dishonesty.  And not for the first time. 
#38
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
My continued position is that any interpretation of the bible is valid, given the uncertain nature of it's compilation and  contents.

Nonetheless a literal acceptance of the bible, throws up obvious contradictions, which Stephen is keen to point out.

So you and Stephen come to  differing conclusions, for differing reasons and neither of you is right and neither of you is wrong.


Better to agree to disagree and then move on to the next challenge....As this issue is clearly unresolvable.



#39
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
LOLL@ Zed. 

What part of it is clearly unresolvable? 

Please explain it to me. 
#40
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Quite obviously, the contention that you and Stephen cannot resolve.

You might be certain that you can resolve it, but Stephen is certain that you cannot.

Because the text allows for more than one interpretation and therefore more than one outcome.


Short of you burning Stephen at the stake for heresy, I would suggest that agreed disagreement is the better option, as neither is going to convert the other.


Topic's author
#41
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
You should take some time and read it.  

 I did, Reverend ethang.  

Now let me tell you this ,  your pointless word salad doesn't go anywhere in explaining away Jesus's appearances  elsewhere,  when he is suppose to be in "the wilderness arguing with Satan for 40 days"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now let me educate you further.  Jesus' ministry didn't start until -   after -  his baptism and receiving of the "holy spirit" by John the baptist "the greatest prophet that ever lived".

That^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Reverend, is a clue to where YOU are well of the mark..   Now get you thinking mitre on, Ethang.
 


These scriptures are a classical mess , you just have to admit it .



#42
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I see you are going to continue on in your nonsense.  

I notice again that you have AVOIDED completely my question to you.  What are you so afraid of? 

Just answer the question. Where in John's gospel is Jesus' baptism given? Come on.  

So far, we see according to the gospels, Jesus was baptised by John.  He went into the wilderness for 40 days.  He arrives back from the wilderness. after 40 days.  He sees John the B - who declares that he is the lamb of God. The next day - Andrew and another disciple hear the Lord and then go and talk to Peter.  Jesus then decides he will go to Galilee.  And then sometime thereafter there is a wedding. 

That is totally consistent with everything we have read in both John and in Mark.  Nothing you have shown in the Scriptures provide any other narrative. 

LOL @ your desperation. Until you can show in John where the baptism is of Jesus, then you have nothing.  LLOL LOLL 
Topic's author
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I see you are going to continue on in your nonsense. 

 Highlighting biblical discrepancies, contradictions, anomalies and biblical facts is not nonsense .  You are simply struggling to explain them away.  And  YOU!!  a qualified Pastor and Chaplain, trained and tutored under some of the great  biblical minds of Orthodox Church. #91.... according to you?


I notice again that you have AVOIDED completely my question to you.  What are you so afraid of? 

 I have answered your question, you just don't want to see it,  OR -  going by your track record of blinding biblical ignorance,  -  you cannot see it. 


When did Jesus's ministry actually start Reverend?  Was it before or after his baptism and receiving of the "holy spirit"?  You don't know do you?  And you don't want to know either, do you. 

LOL   LLOL LOLL 

LOL-ing like an little school girl won't ever make you right Reverend. 



#44
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen

I notice again that you have AVOIDED completely my question to you.  What are you so afraid of? 

 I have answered your question, you just don't want to see it,  OR -  going by your track record of blinding biblical ignorance,  -  you cannot see it. 
Well if you have answered the question, I missed it. Please do so again so there can be no doubt.  


When did Jesus's ministry actually start Reverend?  Was it before or after his baptism and receiving of the "holy spirit"?  You don't know do you?  And you don't want to know either, do you. 


I tend to take the view that Jesus' ministry began in Galilee - probably on an occasion when he read from the Isaiah Scroll. I don't take it that he begun it with his ordination.  Nor in the wedding of Cana - or in the wilderness - or at his birth.  Mark 1:14 indicates that it was after  John the B was put into prison that Jesus began to preach about the kingdom of God.  Matthew 4 puts both of these events closely together.  Luke 3:20 reveals John was locked up. And that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he began his ministry.  

All this seems consistent to me.  I don't take the gospels as necessarily putting a chronologic picture either.  Their point was never about chronology. It was about Jesus.  This is obvious from Luke where John is said to be imprisoned and then Jesus is baptized. Jesus was not baptised by John while in prison.  And then after this Jesus is led into the desert. 

It seems natural to think that Jesus was baptized by John. He went into the desert. Jesus returned from the desert. He saw John again - and then went back to Galilee where he attended a wedding - John had not yet been put into prison - since Jesus time had not yet come, yet he had disciples - and then he heard John was in prison - his ministry commenced formally. 




#45
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I tend to take the view.......All this seems consistent to me.....It all seems natural.

There's certainty for you.
Topic's author
#46
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
When did Jesus's ministry actually start Reverend?  Was it before or after his baptism and receiving of the "holy spirit"?  You don't know do you?  And you don't want to know either, do you. 


I tend to take the view that Jesus' ministry began in Galilee - probably on an occasion when he read from the Isaiah Scroll. I don't take it that he begun it with his ordination.  Nor in the wedding of Cana - or in the wilderness - or at his birth.  Mark 1:14 indicates that it was after  John the B was put into prison that Jesus began to preach about the kingdom of God.  Matthew 4 puts both of these events closely together.  Luke 3:20 reveals John was locked up. And that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he began his ministry.  

  I don't take the gospels as necessarily putting a chronologic picture either.  Their point was never about chronology. It was about Jesus.  This is obvious from Luke where John is said to be imprisoned and then Jesus is baptized. Jesus was not baptised by John while in prison.  And then after this Jesus is led into the desert. 

It seems natural to think that Jesus was baptized by John. He went into the desert. Jesus returned from the desert. He saw John again - and then went back to Galilee where he attended a wedding - John had not yet been put into prison - since Jesus time had not yet come, yet he had disciples - and then he heard John was in prison - his ministry commenced formally. 

Well now you just can't make your mind up can you?   


  I don't take the gospels as necessarily putting a chronologic picture either. 
 But those three Gospels   certainly indicate that Jesus had been baptised i.e.  dove, holy spirt, voice of god etc etc. ...if John was in prison, don't they?  And it matters not that Johns gospel leaves out the baptism .   The other three gospels don't even mention the seven miracles that John's gospel tell us of, do they ? Not even the raising of Lazarus from the dead, why did all three of them leave out this miracle of miracles? .  Going by your yard stick does this mean that none of the seven "miracles" didn't actually happen? 
And it goes without saying doesn't it that Jesus couldn't have performed any "miracles" before receiving the "holy spirit"? 


John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:30 “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’
John 1:31 “I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.”
John 1:32  John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.

Well now even if you say that  "you don't take the gospels as being necessarily in a chronological order"  your answer then is you do not know where Jesus actually was at anytime after his baptism. Do you? 

 BUT John above it appears is giving his testimony i.e. after the fact, isn't he?  The next day after the fact. and three days later ........>>>>>>>


I tend to take the view that Jesus' ministry began in Galilee
Well the gospels agree with you .

2-1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
John 2:1-11 King James Version (KJV)





Topic's author
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
@Tradesecret wrote I tend to take the view.......All this seems consistent to me.....It all seems natural.
@zedvictor4 wrote: There's certainty for you.

This is not forgetting that he now is admitting , :>  


 @Tradesecret wrote:   I don't take the gospels as necessarily putting a chronologic picture either. #44
So although he is arguing about all this, in truth he cannot explain it away and doesn't necessarily agree that there is  any "chronology" to it all.  Well talk about leaving it open to interpretation!!!!!

I actually believe  that there is a reasonable explanation for all of this. 


#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Me too.

#49
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
A dilemna for one is a dilemna for all! 

Don't believe that to be the case.

If it was the case that these were a problems for us, we would not have included these books in the New Testament canon. The men who determined the canon were educated men alive in the largest and one of the most, if not the most, advanced and well educated civilizations of the era. This was a scientific civilization, that had the engineering and technology to show this. A land of great thinkers, whose philosophies underly the worldviews even of some living today.

The orthodox use of scripture is inerrent. Scripture doesn't stand by itself. Outside of the church's use of scripture, scripture is removed from its proper context.. Sola scriptura is not the position of the church. Scripture is a part of our Holy Tradition, it isn't the tradition itself.


#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen old chap, 

are you ever going to answer the question -that I have now asked you on several occasions to answer. When specifically in John is Jesus baptized? Chapter and verse please. 

Waiting for such a long time for your answer.  Is there a reason you keep avoiding it.  Don't be cryptic. Just tell us where it takes place. 

I don't think the gospels were written to provide a chronological history. This does not mean that we cannot work out what the chronology is using all of the gospels.  

Nor does it mean that what I tend to think is not certain from my point of view.  

The gospels tell the stories that are working towards the points that they making.  They were never meant to be identical.  There would be no point in having identical books.  

Luke does not mention the Egyptian Escapade. Why? Because each of the different gospels were presenting different aspects of the Saviour. Some point out his fulfillment of prophecy more - like Matthew. Others point out the families position on the law like Luke. John mentions 7 specific miracles.  Mark emphasises his kingly servant nature. All of them leave out stuff or put stuff in that the others do not mention. 

This does not mean that the stuff left out in some books were unimportant or did not occur - it just means that the author electing to leave it out or put it - was making a different point.  The Gospels were not meant to be identical.  This I think highlights or at least gives weight to the veracity of their testimony. 
#51
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
What you are saying, is that they all tell the story differently.

So you are actually agreeing with Stephen and I.

Arguing the toss over inconsistent details, just emphasises the point.