You know Kathy, we’ve been fairly blunt with you today. Flippant, too. And it’s tough when people talk to/about you that way. I’m sorry for that.
If we could cut through all the rhetoric for a second, I’d like to commiserate with you. A little over 4 years ago, I was a very dedicated Christian. I had some doubts, but they weren’t about the Christian faith, just my understanding of it.
I felt like there were problems in my beliefs about the gospel. I believed in a literal Hell, and I believed a lot of people would be going there. But I had a very hard time squaring that with a loving God. I had matured enough to realize that most people were pretty decent. Not perfect, certainly, but good people who cared about others and typically wanted to do the right thing. I didn’t think such people deserved Hell. In fact, like Paul, I often thought that if God would accept it, I’d gladly go to Hell myself, if it would save my friends and family. And if everyone else could be added into that deal too, even better.
So if I felt that way, could I be more compassionate than God? Of course not. But I had a very hard time finding anything in the Bible that backed up an idea that most people, regardless of creed or belief would be saved.
I didn’t give up though. I knew about Universalists, so I decided to read up on their reasons for thinking everyone went to Heaven. It sounded good, but I just wasn’t convinced by their arguments. I just didn’t see the Bible teaching such a doctrine, and I still believed the Bible was the inerrant word of God.
I was in a state of flux.
And that’s the position I was in when I first ran across articles that pointed out flaws in the Bible. I was shocked by what the articles said, but since I didn’t have any answers against them at the moment, I got busy with research. I didn’t even comment on the articles — I just went to work. It wasn’t about winning any arguments; it was simply a search for answers.
I think that frame of mind I was in made all the difference for me. Deep down, I was already struggling. The doctrines I had long believed in, and even taught to others, didn’t fit together in my mind as well as they once had.
That’s probably the difference between you and me. I get the feeling that you question nothing about your faith. Not trying to put you down about that; just making an observation.
For me, discovering that the Bible was not the perfect book I had always thought it to be, and finding out that some of these church leaders I had always admired knew of these problems but never spoke of them, helped me make sense of a lot of things. It took time, and it wasn’t easy to come to the realizations, but everything finally fell into place for me when I realized Christianity was just another religion. For the first time, I finally understood the sentiment of that line from “Amazing Grace,” I once was blind, but now I see…
I don’t know if that’s helpful to you at all. Maybe one day it will be. Maybe one day, something will make you ask a few questions, and you’ll think back to those non- believers who were so insistent that Christianity was certainly not the only way. If that day comes, I hope you’ll find this exchange helpful and realize you’re not alone.
Finding Truth 
“The temptation of those who disagree with me to start responding to this before reading it through may ne high, so I ask that you read the entire post before commenting.”
I did and I won’t be wasting time again since it was a collossal waste of time. You obviously have not read up very much of what i Have said since all of your weak points have been addressed and some of them MULTIPLE TIMES.
This is what I hate about discussing things with you. Theres no progression. Its like ground hog day. its like you say – “then there is this man standing in the street” and I say “it wasn’t a man in the street that was a mannequin. look see?”
then two days later it will be like “then theres this man in the street” as if the issue hadn’t been addressed. tedious and boring. SO this will be my LAST TIME
John 13 is dead as an issue.the conjunction “and” in the text indicates the meal was an additional statement so jesus loved them to the end coming up to the passover AND at the supper there was…….
The conjunction makes it clear that there are TWO thoughts one was that Jesus coming to the end of his life loved those who he had loved o the end AND the super is the other. its pretty drop down dead clear that the supper is the first of the passover meals. Or else you have John just happening to talk about a meal on the same day that the other synoptics have him eating a similar meal. The Gopsels nowhere else get into details of any meal. So to me its just stupid to say John invented a different meal but it just happened to be on the same day the synoptics had as the passover.
Its also just STUPID to say that a feast which has meals is referenced as just about to start and then say that the next meal would not be a meal of that feast. You are probably suffering from not knowing that the day for a Jew STARTED at evening (when there was a meal) so 13:1 is talking about the 13th and the passover would start at supper time the 14th.
Next….
the word for preparation IS DEFINED IN Mark specifically as the day before a passover. there nothing you can do about it. I’ve said before its one of the RARE examples of a definition actually being given in an ancient text. Beyond a dictionary meaning Mark defines exactly how it was used in the culture.
A similar example would be the brit’s boxing day. If a brit told you the boxing day of the christmas season you would have to be a nit not knowng their culture to claim that it would be a day that people actually boxed. the dictionary’s various usages would be specified by the usage of Brit’s making it no doubt whatsoever that it means the day after Christmas.
Since the word “Paraskeue” in the greek is used everywhere else in John and the gospels and defined specifically as the day before a passover in Mark the the usage is clear and it reads a day before a sabbath of the passover feast. The end
despite all the clap trap by you and nate the Gospels are all in perfect accord with the next day being a sabbath, and there being a meal to start the day as would happen at the seder. You and other skeptics are merely begging that there is a necessary disagreement.
Finally the eat the passover issue has been debunked. the term passover all throughout John is conflated to be a reference to the entire feast. This is not an invention by John but a conflation backed up by Josephus as well. To eat the passover feast would refer to all or any of the meals of the passover. Again what you, skeptics and Nate have to do here is beg that the term conflated everywhere else as referring to the entire passover feast and its meals (TWO very important ones not one as Nate insinuated) cannot be conflated here.
If the defilement the priests were afraid of was coming into contact with a dead body inside the building (zero proof that that is the case) then it would render them unclean for the entire feast. If it was any other kind of defilement (which there is plenty evidence given the gentile practices and entering a gentiles palace) then the only meal/sacrifice it would effect was one before the evening which would not be the passover meal but the one after it that was eaten before sundown. All such defilements only lasted to the evening.
either way its still a begging for a non conflation where eveywhere else in john there is a conflation of the entire feast being the passover.
Its a desperate argument and as such shows yet another failure to prove a contradiction.
Now please go ahead and repeat the same nonsense and pretend like ti hasn’t been addressed. i’m done on that issue. come up with another contradiction …You failed yet again.
LikeLike
Why am I not surprised? 😈
LikeLike
“Send in the clowns – Don’t bother, they’re here –</em."
LikeLike
Scholars are divided on whether or not John is in disagreement with the synoptics about the day Jesus was crucified. It’s not a simple matter. A straight reading of the texts leaves one to think that John says Jesus was crucified the day before Passover — that much is true.
As Mike has shown, there are various ways of trying to resolve this. John 13:1:
This is a strange and awkward way to phrase a sentence if it’s only introducing two points: that Jesus knew his time had come, and that he loved his disciples. Putting “before the Passover” in front of that is bizarre — unless it’s meant to introduce everything that subsequently follows in his conversation with the disciples over supper. That’s how I see it, but the wording here gives people something to hold onto if they’re trying to maintain the notion of biblical inerrancy.
John 18:28:
This again gives a strong indication that Passover itself had not yet happened. While Passover and FOUB were conflated, everyone still knows that the Passover seder is the most important aspect of it. Just like when we have Christmas holidays, which include days leading up to Christmas, and even New Year’s, Christmas day is still the focus of the holiday. If John had meant some other meal rather than the Passover seder, he could have easily specified it.
As to the Jews not being clean, it seems to be in reference to the Rabbinical teaching that being in a Gentile’s house would make one unclean. Acts 10:28 references this too:
Even though they would have been considered clean at sundown, they still would have needed to prepare for the Passover, which they couldn’t have done while unclean.
John 19:14:
If you look at this verse at Biblehub, you can see a crazy number of translations. All of them translate this in a way that gives the idea that the day in question was a day of preparation FOR the Passover. In other words, the day that they killed the lambs and prepared the meal.
Furthermore, I just don’t buy the idea that a Greek word that means “preparation” was only used in reference to the Sabbath. Maybe it’s used that way a lot in the NT, but that’s no surprise. After all, the NT talks about the Sabbath in a number of places, and if it needs to talk about the day before the Sabbath — the day that one prepares for the Sabbath — why wouldn’t it use that word? But preparations also needed to be made for the Passover, and what better way to refer to that than say “the day of preparation for the Passover?”
Incidentally, this same idea is given in Mark 14:12, when no one contends that it’s talking about the day before Passover:
If someone is motivated enough, there are always ways of trying to resolve a contradiction. I’m sure Mike is firmly convinced that John is in complete agreement with the synoptics. I’m just not convinced. And that’s okay — no one ever said we all had to agree on everything.
Thanks William and Mike for researching this so deeply.
LikeLike
“no one ever said we all had to agree on everything.”
Or, anything 🙂
LikeLike
@Nate: I’m curious where the dividing line is regarding the scholars. It may be skewed more toward those that affirm a strict inerrancy (and make efforts to back that up). I find it interesting that Mike Licona actually believes that John probably altered the date of the crucifixion in order to make a theological point. You can see him say that at 1:47:30 of the youtube video on this blog post: http://ehrmanblog.org/video-ehrman-vs-licona-2009-debate/
Licona is no liberal, but of course people like Norman Geisler want to paint him out to be one. Licona has spoken elsewhere that there are certain passages that do look like contradictions in the bible (and he in fact says he thinks he still falls within the Chicago inerrancy statement). Strict inerrancy is in the beginning phases of becoming relegated to a small very conservative group within Christianity. It’s nowhere near like young earth creationism but might be headed there. Licona is not the only evangelical voicing these kind of statements.
LikeLike
@Josh
Indeed! 😀
@Howie
That’s interesting about Mike Licona. Reminds me of how Peter Enns views the OT.
I agree. It does seem to be heading that direction, and I find that Christians who don’t hold as tightly to inerrancy tend to be more moderate in their other positions as well. They seem much more open to “sharing the road” with everyone else.
LikeLike
“taking prayer out of schools” Copied this from Kathy and “The BIRD’s” conversation earlier.
You know I like prayer in schools I just think every religion should get some time so we can treat is as a chance to educate. If we remove the mystery of what other people believe it becomes less scary. Schools? to educate? I’m a wild man!
Which I see is what “The BiRD” stated next, but with a lot more snarky in it.
@Arkenaten, “The one who deserves to have his screen name unmolested by Hayden.”
Hate may have been to strong a word, it wasn’t, but my statement was meant more as a “Yes I know Ark!” Predictable bastard.
You said, “Offer a single piece of verifiable evidence to back your god-claims/Jesus of Nazareth- claims and I am willing to reconsider my standpoint unreservedly.
You have my word.”
THAT REMINDS ME! I wanted to ask the Atheists here what they think of Bible Codes. I believe in God so I view them as his stamp of approval on the Bible, which does not mean it is infallible. But what do you guys say when a Christian brings this up as some kind of evidence for the Lords existence? Reference, “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code”
@Zoe “When it comes to what God told you to preach, do you think God is telling “the mainstream” the same thing but they are not listening?”
I have to assume he is but they worship the Bible so it wold really take a lot for them to notice. Plus they been so inundated with fear themselves that anything that sounds different from their dogma would be viewed as being form the devil. I am not being funny when I say you really do have to feel sorry for them. They have themselves stuck to a path of fear and death and do not realize it.
“What would “healthier” look and sound like?”
Well I am soo happy you asked. Kind of like this, “God loves you very much Zoe. He wants you to have a blessed life. He wants you to make healthy decisions because that is what is best for you. And if you cannot find it in your heart or mind to believe in him then that is alright. He will continue to do good things for you anyway because you are his baby girl and he loves you…” Hows that sound?
@”The BIRD”
{RE: “we have unhealthy desires” – who makes that decision, as to what is, is not, “healthy”? Old men who have been dead for three thousand years?} Actually I think psychology does support that we as a species tend to desire things that are self destructive. Correct me if I’m wrong on this though.
@Ron, “I consider this the emotional manipulation of young children.”
I disagree. I see it as parents showing their children how to worship their God. I would be happier if the people who originally posted the video on FB had included more of the earlier parts. It would make for less of a debate now.
@”The BIRD” “Martyrdom is not evidence of what IS, but of what is BELIEVED to be.
(DAMN that was profound! Sometimes I amaze myself!)” —– You stole that.
LikeLike
“Snarky”? Moi?
“You stole that!” – No Sir, I did not – it came directly from my pointed little head, but you may, if you like – feel free —
LikeLike
Ruth, you said:
“I could keep going and post more of what you’ve said, but let’s leave it at this. People/non-Christians are not under any obligation to follow your Bible’s teaching. Yet you want to keep and make laws that are religious in nature.”
And you/ liberals want to keep laws that are not religious, that are ANTI God.. AND harmful to society… a society we ALL live in.. we EACH have a right to vote/ support the laws for what ever personal reasons we choose. There’s no law against this.
But another thing you fail to realize is that my main arguments for all of these social issues is NOT based on my faith.. it’s based on what is best for society.. it doesn’t have to have ANYTHNG to do with God. The reason people vote is because they are concerned about their society and country and how the laws will affect them. I strongly believe that liberal policies are DESTRUCTIVE to society. And I have a right to vote accordingly and speak out accordingly as to what I believe. And this doesn’t mean I am claiming that everyone is under some “obligation” to follow Christianity.. that’s NO WHERE in my points/ comments.
You and Nan and Arch and others here are not comprehending my comments very well at all, you instead insert your bias.. into MY words and points. This, again, is proof of a lack of objectivity.
“And you say you don’t want a theocracy? You want to make laws that adhere to your religious text’s teachings and rules.”
Again, wrong.. it just so happens that the laws I support that are for the GOOD of society, ALSO agree with God’s will. You/ liberals can’t tell me which laws I can and can’t support.. any more than I can tell you. And nothing that I support is supporting a theocracy.. this is just more liberal confusion.
” YOU are a Christian and are free to follow those teachings. People who are not Christians are not under it’s authority.”
And nothing that I’ve stated says otherwise, Ruth.
LikeLike
““Religion: It’s given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.” ~Jon Stewart”
Jon Stewart?? That’s funny.
Liberals who think this is “wisdom” fail to realize that “religion” encompasses multiple faiths.. one of which is true, while the rest are not. MAJOR difference. And many are non violent. Conflating all of them into “religion” is typical liberal ignorance and lack of objectivity. aka liberal “wisdom”.
LikeLike
And THERE’S the other one —
“we EACH have a right to vote/ support the laws for what ever personal reasons we choose. There’s no law against this.” – Yes, you do, Kathy – as long as those laws don’t violate the Separation of Church and State clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution – what this country was founded on, remember?
LikeLike
Ron said:
“Kathy say: “Not ‘homophobic’ Ron.. just choosing to obey God over pleasing you.”
That’s right, Kathy—you CHOOSE to follow the rules ascribed to some ancient tribal god worshiped by the Jews. And that’s certainly your prerogative. But lest you’ve forgotten:
– you live in the United States of America, not ancient Judea
– the U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a theocratic monarchy
– not everyone subscribes to your religious beliefs.
Which means that ancient Jewish laws have zero application for anyone residing outside of Israel.” ”
And you fail to understand that each person has a right to support or vote against what ever laws they choose… for WHATEVER reasons they choose. We ALL live in this society, Christians have every right to vote according to how they want THEIR society to be.
And once again, I have to point out that this is NOT support for a “theocracy”.. supporting or not supporting specific issues is NOT voting to take away a democracy.. this is just MORE liberal confusion. You fail to understand the very democracy you are supposedly promoting.
Democracy.. is democracy for EVERYONE… not just liberals.
LikeLike
““we EACH have a right to vote/ support the laws for what ever personal reasons we choose. There’s no law against this.” – Yes, you do, Kathy – as long as those laws don’t violate the Separation of Church and State clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution – what this country was founded on, remember?”
And show where I’m doing this Arch.. I’ve explained clearly that my reasons are for the good of society.. for the good of human unborn lives, for the good of the human species.. where did I mention God in those reasons?
But it really doesn’t matter WHAT my reasons are.. I have a right to vote however I choose.. that’s what a DEMOCRACY is. Sorry liberals but you can’t tell people HOW to vote.. that would be something OTHER than a democracy.
LikeLike
LikeLike
And I have a right to vote accordingly and speak out accordingly as to what I believe. And this doesn’t mean I am claiming that everyone is under some “obligation” to follow Christianity.. that’s NO WHERE in my points/ comments.
Yes, ma’am, you most certainly do. You are absolutely right about that. You have every right to speak out and to vote the way you feel is best. But you’re only kidding yourself when you claim that the way you feel about any of this isn’t a direct result of your faith.
You / liberals won’t be celebrating in this country when God turns His back on us for turning our backs on Him. With the number of unborn that are killed every day.. especially for “profit”.. and supporting same sex marriage, and taking prayer out of schools and any mention of God in relation to this country, God will punish this country. He made the US the greatest country in history because we were founded by people who loved and worshiped Him and continued to do so until just recently.
These are your words, Kathy. Yours and yours alone. What you think is GOOD for this country is a direct outflow of your faith. I’m not saying that you are wrong to have your beliefs, but at least acknowledge the truth about that. You seem to have trouble looking at yourself objectively.
LikeLike
But it really doesn’t matter WHAT my reasons are.. I have a right to vote however I choose.. that’s what a DEMOCRACY is. Sorry liberals but you can’t tell people HOW to vote.. that would be something OTHER than a democracy.
That would be great if we lived in a democracy. But we live in a republic, which is precisely set up to keep the majority from running roughshod over the minority. There may come a day when you are happy that it is this way as Christianity may become that.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
LikeLike
“And show where I’m doing this Arch.. I’ve explained clearly that my reasons are for the good of society..” – I never said you did, Kathy, I’m simply reminding you that there’s a limit to your ability to vote laws into existence, and that limit is the Constitution.
I am a bit curious though, as to who set you up as one to decide what is, or is not good for society —
LikeLike
“The United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.”
– John Adams –
From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
(founding Father and second President of the United States)
Yeah but Adams was a di%k.
“The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
– Abraham Lincoln –
You know he fired the first general of the Union army because The man freed the slaves in Missouri after he invaded?
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb in a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
– Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams
How DARE you claim he said that! My hero! “sobs” I am ashamed of you Tommy.
LikeLike
Take THIS!
Here, these may make you feel better:
LikeLike
Take THIS!
Here, these may make you feel better:
LikeLike
I hate to break it to you, “W,” but that was Cheney —
LikeLike
Why’d you have to say it twice?
LikeLike
“Why’d you have to say it twice?” – I DIDN’T! Stupid WordPress did! I just chew my tobaccy onc’t and then I spit it out!
LikeLike
“The United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.”
– John Adams –
From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
(founding Father and second President of the United States)
“The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
– Abraham Lincoln –
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb in a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
– Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams
“And show where I’m doing this Arch.. I’ve explained clearly that my reasons are for the good of society..” – I never said you did, Kathy, I’m simply reminding you that there’s a limit to your ability to vote laws into existence, and that limit is the Constitution.”
No one is forcing you to follow Christianity… I KNEW you wouldn’t get it.
It’s called DEMOCRACY.. Arch.. look it up.
LikeLike