Interesting how your objections rely more on the words in the Bible as set in stone, completely self-evident and inhuman than even the worst fundamentalist
Bizarre thing to say....
If a book says someone hit a rock, the evidence suggests that person hit a rock. Just because some guy 800 pages later used the word 'rock' does not = that man
was the rock that was hit. That's the difference.. This is just an example, dont start busting my balls stating i "base my whole faith, or lack thereof, on a rock".
You stated mark/matthew and luke were not at the cross when jesus got crucifed. In saying this, they would have got their information via word of mouth or prior written information. If john told them what was said, (because he was the only one there), then the accounts would match up, unless john purposefully kept the information to himself and told them all different versions. Do you have any justification to suggest why john told them all something different? Did he have a master plan to spread a final sentence into 4 different chapters? Again, if they were going by written account- they would have written what they read- or changed it to suit themselves, but in doing so, making an inaccurate account of events.
I have no fear of hell - and Christ is the cause of that fear never having to be present. I do, however, fear God who is the judge of what I do.
Ah but you do fear god... who is the judge... And if he judges you badly where do you end up? I'm sure thats not what you want. Either way you are confined to one simple line of thought.... anything that goes against that is blasphemy/going against god and would leave you in the shit.
Whatever explanation makes sense to you is fine.
Not without evidence it isn't.
As long as you don't have to twist what has been written. If you have point A and point Z, you can connect them any way that makes sense to you,
No you can't. Your answer is already set in concrete. You see, you cannot divert from your fact that god/jesus and the bible is complete truth. By that, you are unable to consider it anything other than absolute truth. As such you will run off on your point a,b,x and z in some silly attempt at covering up an obvious problem.
It's like a 'slot machine'.. To your eyes the reels only consist of cherries. You will always hit jackpot, even if you don't, because all you can see are cherries. There are other fruits, you just can't see them. That's not even through choice... you're under eternal threat if you don't hit jackpot.
If you want to base your faith on Judas' death, you have seriously misread the Bible.
This is the second time you've brushed it all aside in this manner with me on this thread. I will help you out a little: It was called an example. NOWHERE in it did i state it's the basis for my faith, (or lack thereof), or that i would want to base my faith on it. Again it's your mind jumping off into the realm of fantasy and claiming i've misread the bible because i felt like using a judas example. If i wanted to spend my time talking to a clown, i'd go to the circus.
I only respond to what I have read, understood and thought about. But I'm not your research assistant.
god must like me.
At least some of the gospel writers had to rely on accounts from those present. The accounts might not be exhaustive, but that does not mean they are not reliable.
You have no proof that they added anything, or even omitted anything.
Based on what they reported, this is the most likely explanation. Not everybody understood Hebrew (as is clear from the Eli lama Sabachtani confusion). Paul and Luke were Roman (Greek), Matthew was Jewish, Jesus spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Thousands of people were gathered. Not everybody heard the same things.
Ummmm Ok. "Some" of the gospels had to rely on those who were present. They either weren't told the complete story, decided to ammend the complete story, or didn't understand the complete story. The simple fact that the versions are not identical Shows beyond reasonable doubt that all 4 versions have either added or ommitted something- through lack of knowledge of events, (although you state they would have been told by those present- who would know the complete story i assume? If not, it can't be considered an accurate account of events), or desire to change the complete story.
Furthermore whether they understood hebrew or not is irrelevant. One of them, i assume, must have done in order to make note of jesus last words. He would have written down what jesus actually said, in full, instead of hoping his buddies who couldn't even speak the language would somehow manage to get it right. If he then decided to translate it for them: see paragraph above.
You're falling apart.... You claim: "You have no proof that they added anything, or even omitted anything" and yet..... unless all accounts were identical it can only be stated that they all added/or omitted something, (whether by choice or not). If nothing had have been added, or taken away, the accounts would be the same.... work it out.
And how can you even make that statement to me? You're the one claiming they split it up between them, which shows the FACT that each one of them left out a particular bit.
Furthermore, your claim that language conflicts are the "most likely" explanation is flawed. I wonder if the non hebrew speaking people ran around with translators when jesus spoke to them his entire life? Or "maybe" they just guessed at what jesus was saying all along?
Well, whatever you think.
I you chopped your finger off, it would not know anything but what you told it if it does not carry a brain.
If i chopped my finger off it wouldn't know anything regardless of what i told it.
Jesus obviously was not the "exact, identical god sitting somewhere else"
So, he was a different god?
Here's an example:
You make a clone of yourself. That clone is identical. You then wipe his memory of all life's events. He is now no longer you. He might look the same, but he is a different person.
He was there and then, in a physical body, using a human brain.
So he was just a human being? So how did this human being, considering he's the one and only god, give himself back his godly powers? If his other half was sitting somewhere else, waiting to give him back some powers- then they are two completely separate entities and you should be believing in multiple gods. (first seen on page 1 of the bible).
Of all the irrational beliefs on the planet- an idea of the trinity is the most obscene.
The essence of God is not physical and definitely not human.
Which god are we referring to?
Anything valid to corroborate that? I guess so, as you use the word definitely.
Jesus was "everywhere" in Spirit
Supporting evidence?
but physically and mentally He was separate from God - otherwise He would have had no need to pray.
Separate..... that's all you needed to say.
Unlike all other trees, the fig has this unique feature about it, that its fruit appears before its leaves. It also bears a symbolic association with Israel itself throughout the Old TestamentFig trees in Israel. Symbolism and typology are perfectly valid means of expression.
That's..... fascinating, thank you. But what has it got to do with my post? I was stating how people like to use one word on page 678 to somehow offer validity to a sentence on page 3.
No thnx, i prefer looking at evidence instead of making it up as i go along.
None of them had the guts to write anything they couldn't attest to
I wish you'd make up your mind. One minute it's because they cant speak hebrew, the next they weren't there, then it's because they did but felt like making a puzzle book out of it, and now it's because they didn't have the guts..... *yawn* wake me up when you're finished.
If the Bible was as utterly corrupted as you and others claim, surely if people could warp the major events to suit themselves, they could fix these little bothersome quotes.
For fun i'll do the quick Jenyar style assumption:
The most likely reason is they couldn't understand each other, didnt have the guts to fix bothersome quotes, weren't even there to do so, etc etc etc.
