Posted on 06/16/2006 6:26:23 PM PDT by restornu
Both incidents happened. One apostle remembered the order differently than the other...hardly a contradiction. More like a glitch in the reporter's memory. These were eyewitnesses, who remember WHAT they saw, not necessarily when. As if the NYT, Wall Street Journal and The Jerusalem Post always get the order correct.
Besides the fig tree/money changers is a BIG, IMPORTANT occurance in Biblical history. /sarc
With all due respect, you should investigate the Roman Catholic Church, which is simultaneously the most hard-headedly realistic AND the most mystical of the Christian Churches. I did, converted, and don't regret it for a second.
I have, and it doesn't work for me. But for the hundreds of millions who are happy with it, more power to them.
I don't view the various denominations of Christianity as competing teams where only one is the true Church. Finding one that is personally helpful to you in your search for truth is the important thing. That might be Catholic or it might be evangelical.
The various flavors of Christianity differ on the details.
In other words, it really isn't important whether Mark is right concerning the chronological order, or whether Matthew is.
I would have to agree.
The thing is, there seem to be quite a few people out there who believe, and insist, that the Bible is literally true, and every word came from God, and it's 100% consistent, and 100% inerrant.
And if it isn't so, then the Bible is a lie.
And if you don't believe things their way, then obviously you're "deceived."
These particular passages could cause some major indigestion for the Bibilical literalist point of view.
The History Channel's unending attempt to try and discredit Christianity and the Bible. They are up to it all the time. I learned long ago that if the History Channel is about to do a program on God, the Bible or Christianity..turn the idiot box off and go pray. You're better off. While they do show the positive side, they always play devil's advocate and try to cast doubt in each program.
If anyone doubts the Bible so much that they give credit to the mythical stories of the Gnostic "gospels" then they don't belong in traditional Christianity, IMO. Go join some New Age church.
Who would believe that Jesus would kill a boy by throwing him off a roof? Who would believe that the souls of Isaiah and Abraham were in Hell and that Jesus had to battle Satan over their souls? The men that canonized the Bible knew which books belonged in Scripture because the previoius fathers of the Church had handed it down to them.
There wasn't some big conspiracy to hide these gnostic books. Read the early Church Fathers and their reasons for abolishing them.
GENESIS
GOD: Write this down.
MAN: OK.
GOD: On the first epoch, God created ...
MAN: (interrupting) Pardon, sir; what's an epoch?
GOD: Hmm, do you know what a day is?
MAN: Sure.
GOD: Just put down "day." They'll figure it out later.
"You think because you make a blanket statement as being all gnostic that is the end of it! "
My, my touchy touchy or is it a confused and guilty conscience?
My statement is basically the end of it, these manuscripts have been throughly and competently debunked starting with the early Christian church fathers. Get over it.
These types of programs are done for one reason and one reason only, to discredit Christianity any way they can.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
There is nothing touchy here nor is this about discrediting Christianity.
if you had read my post #2 this is about learning. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1650870/posts?page=2#2
I am so grounded in my Lord I have no fear of sorting out things that are of the Lord and not!
The more one seeks, ponder and prays the closer one is to the Lord because you know the Lord better and form a deeper bond!
Learning what? That men from ages ago were as good at making things up then as they are now? No thanks.
INTREP
Actually, with the exception of the Infancy Narrative of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, most of these books were thought highly of by Early Christians. (I am quite unfamiliar with the Book of Adam and Eve.) Some, such as the Book of Jubilees (also called the Revelations of Moses) and the [First] Book of Enoch are quoted by Jesus in the New Testament!
By the fourth century, however, they are largely ignored or rejected. It is these books which St. Jerome refers to when he slams the "apocrypha." The books which the Protestants call "apocrypha," Jerome defends bitterly, saying he separated them only because he had no Hebrew to work from, quite understandable, since his bible was a translation from Hebrew. Those who say he did not accept their authenticity, he calls "fools and slanderers."
It is hard to tell whether certain apocrypha are sources of Catholic tradition or not. They certainly include stories found in Catholic and Orthodox tradition, but they seem to represent each tradition separately a little too clearly to be sources, and not mimics, or tradition.
>> A committee decided that and if they had made different decisions the Bible would be different. <<
Yes, but if zebras flew...
The "committee," guaranteed within the gospels not to disseminate false doctrine, looked to very sound criteria. The "tough calls" (Apocalypse of St. Peter, the oddly omitted Didache, etc.) were also those which contained no false teaching. "The Gospel of Mary [Magdeline]," and the "Gospel of Thomas" (not the Infancy Narrative, which is merely wierd) are such outrageous howlers that it is disgusting and preposterous to mention them in the same context as biblical books.
>> I mean, honest to goodness, if the "gospel" proclaimed by Dan Brown is really the gospel, then who cares? "Sex is good." Wow, Newsflash! "It's nice to be nice to the nice." <<
Actually, the irony is that the gospel Brown quotes declares that all sex is evil, that YHWH is an evil demigod, and that creation itself was an evil act. Gnosticism is so patently Satanic that it is scarecely unrecognizable from the Vampires' view of the universe from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." And yes, some gnostics even worshipped those they believed to be vampires, such as Cain.
If you were to study ancient beliefs of Satan, and then create a "religion" from his point of view, it would be damned close to gnosticism.
>> There's no way to know objectively. I think they may have gotten most of it right. I have serious doubts about Revelation. It's goofy and it's caused major heartache among believers who think they've somehow unraveled veiled prophecies. <<
No, actually it IS possible to know objectively. The early Christians DID leave records as to believed what, why they left books out, etc. There were some cases where there was some confusion among the early Christians about what was authentic, true, or spirit-filled, and these ambiguities are also clearly recorded in history. But these "hard cases" would not have changed Catholicism that much. (Not sure what they would have done to Protestantism, given the Sola Scriptura doctrine... When you consider the weak grasps at straws which underlie modern, invented doctrines such as are found in Left Behind, zionks! What would they have done with "The Shepherd of Hermes"?!)
Song of Solomon is fantastically inspired! Perhaps you are reading it in a different light; it's almost pure metaphor. "He" is Christ; "She" is the Church.
>> The Bible is work of inspired men, but fallible men. If God wanted to shoot us a copy of His actual manual, I don't think that would be a problem for him. He hasn't done that. <<
Which means:
1. God is a failure, not onmipotent, not all-knowing, not and all-loving.
2. God gave us enough when he gave us the Church and the bible.
Actually, many chronological inconsistencies are the result simply of bad translation. Some passages which read, in English, as "Later," actually should be translated, "Another time." The ordering of events of the gospels was not based on chronological sequence, but a systematic explanation of themes.
I don't really want to argue, but if different books had been chosen for inclusion into the Bible, different "truths" would be Biblical.
I fail to see to see why only those in third and fourth centuries had the ability to decide what would be included in the Bible. And why their decisions can never be second-guessed.
Why can't more books be added to Bible today?
It's this weird reverence to history that is somewhat puzzling to me.
We agree it wasn't dictated by God. We agree that it was compiled by men.
We agree that there are translation errors.
Many people will argue that every single word is inspired and infallible. Their belief is okay with me, but I don't subscribe to it.
"I fail to see to see why only those in third and fourth centuries had the ability to decide what would be included in the Bible. And why their decisions can never be second-guessed.
Why can't more books be added to Bible today?
It's this weird reverence to history that is somewhat puzzling to me.
We agree it wasn't dictated by God. We agree that it was compiled by men.
We agree that there are translation errors.
Many people will argue that every single word is inspired and infallible. Their belief is okay with me, but I don't subscribe to it."
***
I think our common sence will help to see if what those other works are saying is it contrary to good, or is because it might be contrary to a set doctrine of men.
God had always reminded us His ways are not our ways nor our understanding!
Because we have a tendency to evaluate from Earth limintations the laws of physics etec. I believe many times the Lord trys to elevate our thougths, but it could be contrary to traditional religion of men?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.