Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Modern day Christians try to carry their faith on the backs government policies and armed soldiers.

Which government policies? Abortion? Prayer in schools?

Which armed soldiers are going around forcing people to convert to Christianity?

Pffft.

The US Armed Forces has to provide facilities for it's followers that are Satan worshipers or any other religion out there.

Does that sound like something a Christian theocracy would allow?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: In the four well-known Gospels, there are three versions of "And Jesus said 'blank', and then He died".

All I can do is encourge anyone who is interested to look in the Bible and see if there are really "three version" of this or not, for themselves.

:wink:

[Snarf]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: In the four well-known Gospels, there are three versions of "And Jesus said 'blank', and then He died".

All I can do is encourge anyone who is interested to look in the Bible and see if there are really "three version" of this or not, for themselves.

:wink:
When the Cap'n gets back from his (7, 15, 30?) days with his nose in the naughty corner, he can tell us all what the real last words of Jesus were...

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

{Here's the death part:
47 Some of them who stood there, when they heard it, said, "This man is calling Elijah."

48 Immediately one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him a drink.

49 The rest said, "Let him be. Let's see whether Elijah comes to save him."

50 Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit.
http://bible.cc/matthew/27-47.htm}

Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."
Luke 23:46
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

It is finished.
John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/lastwords.html

And just for the hell of it, Mark's version:
34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is, being interpreted, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
35 Some of those who stood by, when they heard it, said, "Behold, he is calling Elijah."

36 One ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Let him be. Let's see whether Elijah comes to take him down."

37 Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and gave up the spirit.
http://bible.cc/mark/15-37.htm

[Snarf]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Modern day Christians try to carry their faith on the backs government policies and armed soldiers.

Which government policies? Abortion? Prayer in schools?

Which armed soldiers are going around forcing people to convert to Christianity?

Pffft.

The US Armed Forces has to provide facilities for it's followers that are Satan worshipers or any other religion out there.

Does that sound like something a Christian theocracy would allow?
He cherrypicked it but two questions should do the trick, for most of you that is.

1. Which Father did Bush consult before going to war in Iraq?

2. Which picture seems more accurate to what we know about the life of Jesus?



This is not a question of forcing people to convert. It is a question of using a secular government force, containing many different and tolerated faiths, to enforce a policy driven, in very large part, by two specific faiths. As far as Christian Soldiers go, there is no such thing, as that is a major contradiction in terms, as least in all cases where the ‘soldiers’ are armed with anything more than their faith and the Word of God.

Peter cut off the ear of an enemy. Jesus stopped him and healed the wounded man’s ear…
http://bibleview.org/en/Bible/Easter/PeterSword/

[toddytodd]

cap'n queasy wrote: There's no real evidence that shows they are not accurate.


But is there any evidence that shows them to be accurate? It seems to me that when four different accounts try to tell the same story, but tell it in four different ways, there might be an issue. Further, when one story has an event that another story might be missing altogether, that is even more reason to question their authenticity. Does that mean they are incorrect or inaccurate? No. Inconsistent? Yes, very. Is this inconsistency concerning? It should be.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There's no real evidence that shows they are not accurate.


But is there any evidence that shows them to be accurate? It seems to me that when four different accounts try to tell the same story, but tell it in four different ways, there might be an issue. Further, when one story has an event that another story might be missing altogether, that is even more reason to question their authenticity. Does that mean they are incorrect or inaccurate? No. Inconsistent? Yes, very. Is this inconsistency concerning? It should be.

Why should it be concerning? If all but one were not present at an event or did not have knowledge of the event why would they write about it?

Do you concede that if all 4 were identical this would raise MORE questions of authenticity not less???

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There's no real evidence that shows they are not accurate.


But is there any evidence that shows them to be accurate? It seems to me that when four different accounts try to tell the same story, but tell it in four different ways, there might be an issue. Further, when one story has an event that another story might be missing altogether, that is even more reason to question their authenticity. Does that mean they are incorrect or inaccurate? No. Inconsistent? Yes, very. Is this inconsistency concerning? It should be.

Why should it be concerning? If all but one were not present at an event or did not have knowledge of the event why would they write about it?

Do you concede that if all 4 were identical this would raise MORE questions of authenticity not less???

I hope you are joking by asking why, but I will answer anyway, since I was asked.
Because they don't record the same events. If these things were so wonderful and powerful, how could one writer 'forget' something that is suppose to be so grand? If these were truly God inspired, and I would assume important, why would God allow a writer to 'forget' or 'leave out' an important part? DOesn't the bible itself say if one adds to or detracts from, they will 'be in a world of hurt'? Sometimes an event is missing from book to book, other times one has it happening one way on another way. One book tells of eating the last supper before palm sunday (if I remember right), another tells of after palm sunday. Granted some could see these as 'just details', but this leads me (and others) to question a couple of things: 1) some things didn't happen at all and are totally made up, 2) some things did happen, but the author didn't think it was necessary to write about them (what else would they have taken upon themselves not to mention?), 3) the events did happen, but the writer misinterpreted them (what else did they misinterpret or misrepresent?), to name a few.
Quote: If all but one were not present at an event or did not have knowledge of the event why would they write about it? Do I understand this to mean you believe these were written immediately after the crucifixion? Even so, see above comment to address this concern.
Quote: Do you concede that if all 4 were identical this would raise MORE questions of authenticity not less??? So you surmise that if all four were identical, it would raise less questions? No offense, but what kind of logic is that? I look at ten math books. Out of the ten, they all say the square root of 13 is 3.6055512. Do you doubt them all because they all agree? Or five science books says limestone has properties of XYZ. Do you doubt all five books because they agree? I would hope not. I don't believe it would raise questions about the authenticity of these books at all. But it still wouldn't address those who doubt because they don't believe, period.

[connermt]

toddytodd wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There's no real evidence that shows they are not accurate.


But is there any evidence that shows them to be accurate? It seems to me that when four different accounts try to tell the same story, but tell it in four different ways, there might be an issue. Further, when one story has an event that another story might be missing altogether, that is even more reason to question their authenticity. Does that mean they are incorrect or inaccurate? No. Inconsistent? Yes, very. Is this inconsistency concerning? It should be.

People who can't honestly see why, one story told four different ways, as written down over the course of several years, is concerning is walking blindly and has had the church accurately cover their eyes so they will believe anything the church says.
Basically no one knows when they were written by whom 100%. I am sure political bisaness, word of mouth and author POVs played much more into the bible story in the gospels than most hard core believers would like to admit.