9 replies to this topic

[Mercia2]

I cannot post on the Ex Christadelphian thread but really want to repond to Corky about the two cleansing issue

Quote

Yet, none of the gospels mention two cleansings. John's cleansing is at the beginning of Jesus' ministry and no mention of another cleansing later on toward the end. The other gospels have the cleansing at the end of Jesus' ministry and no mention of an earlier cleansing. Call it what it is.

Corky, why would you think Jesus would have only have thrown out the money changers and capitalists once at the end of His ministry? That would suggest either this practice never happened before (when He would have witnessed it all the time) and therefore He ignored it on previous occassions. In truth I would be surprised if He only did it twice during the course of His ministry. It is possible He had a local reputation for it. Why would you need to have the obvious stated for you? It is like saying on Thursday Mercia2 mentioned his belief in the availability of the Holy Spirit today, but I have previously mentioned it many times. Skeptics always find contradictions in the Gospels only because of the linear way they compare events. Are we so naïve as to think that the temple could not have been corrupted at two different times during the three years of Jesus’ ministry? Jesus likely visited the temple several times during the last few years of His life on Earth (especially when celebrating the Passover—cf. John 2:13,23; 6:4; 11:55), likely finding inappropriate things going on there more than once.

What evidence does a person possess, which would lead him to conclude that Jesus cleansed the temple only once? There is none. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded a temple cleansing late in Jesus’ ministry, much evidence exists to indicate that John recorded an earlier clearing of the temple. Only John mentioned (1) the oxen and sheep, (2) the whip of cords, (3) the scattering of the money, (4) Jesus’ command, “Take these things away,” and (5) the disciples’ remembrance of Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up” (2:17). Furthermore, John did not include Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 56:7, which is found in all three of the other accounts, and stands as a prominent part of their accounts of the temple cleansing.

In view of the major differences in wording, in setting, and in time, as well as the fact that, apart from the work of John the baptizer, nothing in the first five chapters of John’s gospel account is found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke, “we will require more evidence than a facile assumption that the two similar narratives must refer to the same event” (Morris page 167). There is no chronological contradiction here.

[Mercia2]

Quote

Also Paul did not convert for some years after Jesus' death and his ministry did not begin until three years after that (maybe 5-6 years altogether). So, how is it that Paul is escaping Aretas in AD42/43 when Aretas died in AD40?

Most people put that event at AD37, it is a bit of a jump on your part to 5/6 years later.

Corky, consider the evidence...

1. BROKEN ROMAN SEAL: the first obvious fact. As previously stated, the penalties for breaking this seal were very severe--death by torture!

2. THE EMPTY TOMB: the disciples of Christ did not go far away to preach a risen Christ. They went right back into the city of Jerusalem where their message easily could have been disproved had it been false. The Resurrection could not have been maintained for a moment in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty! The official explanation for it--that the disciples had stolen the body--was an admission that the tomb was indeed vacant. This admission is the strongest kind of historical evidence. If a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then the fact is genuine!

3. THE POSITION OF THE 1 1/2 - 2 TON STONE. It had been lodged in front of the doorway to the tomb and was "rolled away from the tomb." This was probably the evidence that saved the Roman Guards from being executed by their own superiors for laxness of duty for allowing Jesus' body to be "stolen."

4. THE ROMAN GUARD FLED: With all their rigid discipline and the penalty of death hanging over their heads they left their post and reported to the priests instead of their military leaders--something must have really scared them!

5. GRAVE-CLOTHES TELL A TALE: This was the foremost thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples--the empty grave-clothes undisturbed in their form and position. That was enough to make a believer of anyone!

6. CHRIST'S APPEARANCE CONFIRMED: Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people at one time, who were alive at the time of the New Testament writings, and could be questioned about the facts. He also appeared to those who were hostile, or unconvinced. Saul of Tarsus despised Christ and persecuted His followers mercilessly until Christ appeared to him. He then became one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the Resurrection.

7. THE WOMEN SAW HIM FIRST: This must have been an embarrassment to the apostles. According to Jewish principles of legal evidences, women were invalid witnesses. They did not have a right to give testimony in a court of law. The initial reaction of the disciples was understandably one of suspicion and disbelief. If the Resurrection accounts had been manufactured, women never would have been included in the story as the first witnesses.

SOME QUESTIONS:

1. How could anyone have moved the extremely large stone up and away from the whole tomb without waking the entire Roman Guard unit? And, why not just open the tomb enough to get in and get the body out?

2. If the Roman Guard had fallen asleep (as claimed), how could they have known it was "the disciples" who had stolen His body?

3. Is this lie not contrary to everything written about the high moral standards and honor of the disciples' lives?

4. Would the disciples of Christ have died martyrs' deaths for a lie?

Edited by Mercia2, 17 June 2009 - 08:01 PM.

[Mercia2]

Ev said and Corky replied*

Quote

Where do you get the idea that Jesus' ministry didn't begin until John the Baptist was put in prison? Jesus' ministry began on the day he was baptised by John.

*Mark 1:14. Matt. 4:12-17.

The account in Mark does not indicate that this was the first time Jesus went into Galilee. It is quite possible that Jesus did earlier visit Galilee to baptize and mingle, and Mark alludes to a subsequent visit (after John's imprisonment) when He began to preach the nearness of the kingdom.

1. John 3:22 says that Jesus did some baptizing
but John 4:2 says Jesus baptized not.

2. Mark 16:16 & John 3:18, 36 says that Salvation is by faith alone,
but Matthew 16:27 & John 5:29 says that Salvation is not by faith alone but by works.

Explanation and example of how the Gospels are written with your example...

1. In John 3:22, "Jesus and His disciples [came] into the land of Judea; and there tarried with them, and baptized." John 4:! explains, "The Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John [the Baptist]." This is the context for v.2: "(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples [did it]." So, Jesus physically didn't do the baptizing, but His disciples, Jesus being credited for it.

2. The above references are not quotes. Mark 16:16 indicates that the one who believes the Gospel (verse 15), will be saved (from sin's penalty). John 3:18 indicates that the one , who believes on Christ will not be condemned (to Hell), and verse 36 says "He that believeth on the Son [Jesus] hath everlasting life." Matthew 16:27 is not talking directly about salvation, but about judgment and rewards after having eternal life or the depth of loss because of worldly pursuits. John 5:29 is speaking about a believer's life which is changed will do good works (as Ephesians 2:8-10 explains) and those who don't believe are not changed from doing evil. "Men loved darknes rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:19.

Edited by Mercia2, 17 June 2009 - 08:23 PM.

[Mercia2]

Quote

Why four gospels? Why not one, like Paul says. Because of the four winds, the four directions of the compass? Well, that's what the Catholics decided, wasn't it? How do we know that they didn't destroy the "one" gospel of Paul? After all, they did destroy dozens of "spurious" gospels (what they considered spurious anyway). I don't think we can actually ever know - even if a copy of it was actually found, I doubt that anyone would accept it.

That is starting with the assumption of an atheist. If you believe their is a God then you believe the one thing He will have preserved and even helped formulate would be what He gave us, His Word.

[Mercia2]

Corky said

Quote

But, the basis I'm starting from is historical facts - the Bible cannot overrule historical facts and still be true at the same time. "Assumptions" is what I'm trying not to go by in establishing the truth of the matter. Historical facts are not assumptions and right now they aren't working together with our past understanding of the course of events.

http://www.newadvent...then/08486b.htm

This problem with dating has long been recognised by Christian writers. The 1902 Catholic Encyclopedia has this explanation for the discrepancy:

"...it should be remembered that [Josephus]... is woefully erratic in his dates, mistaken in proper names, and seems to arrange facts according to his own political views; however, his judgment of John, also what he tells us regarding the Precursor's popularity, together with a few details of minor importance, are worthy of the historian's attention."

The Gospel according to Luke is specific about the date of John the Baptist's teaching:

"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins..." [Luke 3:1-3]

Historical records are available for all of the rulers mentioned:

* Tiberius Caesar was joint ruler of Rome from 12 CE, and came into power in his own right in 14 CE. Therefore the fifteen year of his reign must have been between 26-29 CE.
* Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea between 26-36 CE.
* Herod Anitpas and his brother Philip ruled until their deaths in 39 CE and 34 CE respectively.
* Annas was high-priest between 6-15 CE, and was apparently still influential during the tenure of his son-in-law Caiaphas in 18-37 CE.

According to Luke, therefore, John The Baptist's ministry must have began around 26-29 CE. Further, Luke 3:23 states that Jesus Christ was about thirty years old at this time.

It is commonly calculated that Jesus was crucified on 7 April 30 CE or 3 April 33 CE. (Sir Isaac Newton preferred a date of 23 April 34 CE).

Quote

1. Josephus places John's execution in 35 AD -- way too late for what the Gospels report. Take this objection with a grain of salt: It contains an assumption, namely, that because Joe reports the war with Aretas right after he records the execution of John, that this means that he is reporting that the war took place soon after the execution. But this assumption is gratuitous, and as Hoehner points out [126n], "The Jews felt that God's revenge did not always occur immediately at the time of the misdeed..." The death of Antiochus was regarded as a judgment for his profanation of the Temple, though he died three years after the event; Pompey died in 48 BC, 15 years after he profaned the Holy of Holies, but it was still regarded as a judgment for that act (Jos. Ant. 14.71-2; Ps. Sol. 2:30-5), and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was thought by some to be a judgment for the execution of a high priest who lived in the 50s (Jos. Ant. 20.160-7).

2. Mark 6:14 refers to Herod Antipas as a "king." This is an incorrect title. Technically the title may be incorrect -- it may reflect popular rather than technical usage. This has a precedent: Hyrcanus II was called an ethnarch by Rome, but a "king" by the Jews. [Hoehner, 150]

It is also possible that this is not an error, or popular usage, but choice sarcasm. Witherington in his Markan commentary [213] notes that Herod Antipas "had pretensions to be a king, [and] it was precisely the request to be called king by Rome and everyone else, the request for the title, that eventually got him sent into exile in 39 [AD] by a paranoid Caligula." Mark, and we may suggest those who shared this story, are having an ironic laugh at Herod Antipas' expense.

3. Mark 6:17 says that Antipas married the wife of his brother Philip. Josephus (Antiquities. 18.5.4) says she was the wife of a different brother. Actually, all that Josephus says is that Antipas' wife Herodias was stolen from a "Herod." All of the Herod dynasts had second names (Herod Antipas, Herod Archaeleus, Herod Agrippa, Herod Jones, etc.) but Josephus doesn't say what the second name of this Herod was. Critics simply assume that Mark has confused this Herod with a different Herod named Philip. But in fact there is no evidence that Mark has done this, and no reason to suppose that there was not more than one Herod Philip in the mix that Mark is referring to. Indeed, if this were anything but the NT at issue, Mark's story would be taken as evidence that there was a second H. Philip, and be grounds for speculation that one was named after the other! (The two Herod Philips would have been born to different mothers, of course; Hoehner notes [134] that the Herod family already had one such situation with Antipater and Antipas [the latter is a diminutive of Antipater], and adds the such dual naming was "not infrequent in Hellenistic times" [135].)

4. Josephus places the party at Macharerus, while Mark places it in Tiberias. Be careful if you hear this one, too: Mark does not say that the party was at Tiberias -- he doesn't say anything about where it is at all. What is at work here is an assumption by the critics that, because Mark lists all these folks who came to Herod's party, and there must only have been room for all these folks at Herod's palace in Tiberias, that therefore, Mark thinks that the party was at Tiberias! From here critics will ask questions like, "Did Mark not know how far it was from Tiberias to John's prison?"

By itself it may be responded that even such a suggestion collapses history down to too few dimensions. What of it if the party was at Tiberias, and John 100 miles away? How about supposing that Herod had John's head brought where the party was, by a fast horse? Or maybe all that Herod needed to do was make the pledge in front of his party? (Where does it say that John's head was brought to the party, anyway, and not just to Herodias after the fact?) But in fact, the best solution is simply that the party was at Macharerus -- and the archaeological evidence lends credence to this idea. Gundry notes in his Markan commentary [313ff] that while Macharerus was a prison, it was also a palace, which had two dining rooms -- one large, the other small. This fits rather interestingly with Mark's story which would indicate that Herod and his wife were in different rooms throughout the episode -- and also rather interestingly, none of Herod's other palaces (as at Tiberias) share this feature. (Lest anyone object that a prison is still an odd place to have a party -- well, the dining rooms are there, and Herod once held a party on a bridge over the Euphrates River. This was not a man who necessarily cared about the comfort and convenience of his guests!)

And finally:
5. Josephus ascribes John's execution to political motives; Mark makes it part of a love triangle. Historical data shows us, though, how these motives actually dovetail cleanly into each other. Guelich, in his commentary on Mark 1-8:26 [331], notes that "[i]n order to make room for Herodias, Herod had sent his first wife, the daughter of Aretas IV, king of neighboring Nabatea, home. Aretas, taking this act as a personal slight, made war with Herod..." Now add to this a little matter of John's preaching about a coming Messiah (a rival to the Herods!) at a locale along the Jordan -- the border with Nabatea. John sets himself up to offend Herodias and Herod in one stroke: By preaching against Herod's marriage (a violation of Lev. 18:13, and also considered an honor challenge to the family of the former wife -- Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science commentary, 121), and previous sending away of the Nabatean princess, John is essentially taking the side of Aretas and committing sedition! What Mark and Josephus tell us is complimentary, not contradictory.

Finally, we can address two objections extraneous of Josephus:

1. There is no way Herod would have his stepdaughter do a lusty dance before all those men. Such a judgment would be incautious at best -- Brooks notes in his Markan commentary [106] that the depravity of the Herodian family was well-documented. Add to that that Herod was likely drunk as a skunk, and the machinations of Herodias, and you have a fine recipe for moral depravity on a high scale! On the other hand, it could just be that the critics have a dirty mind -- there is nothing in Mark to suggest a dance with sexual overtones, and Hoehner notes [157] that "Jewish literature reveal sthat there were several kinds of dancing, and that it could be a perfectly respectable exercise in which eminently respectable people took part."

2. How could Herod pledge half his kingdom? That's obviously ridiculous, and it wasn't really his kingdom to give away -- it was Rome's. From here some suggest a copycatting (read: fictionalizing) of Esther. Practically speaking, the critics complaineth too much: the "extravagant offer of an Oriental potentate excited by wine" [Hoehner, 150] would not likely be meant to be taken seriously anyway; certainly the girl didn't take it seriously, and nor for that matter did Esther. In fact, both statements are likely reflective of a proverbial pledge: "to offer a half of one's possessions was a favorite expression." (1 Kings 13:8, Luke 19:8) It simply meant that the person was exceedingly grateful and wished to bestow a generous reward.

http://www.tektonics...smarkjbapt.html

Edited by Mercia2, 17 June 2009 - 09:15 PM.

[Corky]

Mercia2, on Jun 17 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

Quote

Why four gospels? Why not one, like Paul says. Because of the four winds, the four directions of the compass? Well, that's what the Catholics decided, wasn't it? How do we know that they didn't destroy the "one" gospel of Paul? After all, they did destroy dozens of "spurious" gospels (what they considered spurious anyway). I don't think we can actually ever know - even if a copy of it was actually found, I doubt that anyone would accept it.

That is starting with the assumption of an atheist. If you believe their is a God then you believe the one thing He will have preserved and even helped formulate would be what He gave us, His Word.

There is no reason to believe that God would preserve any of the NT canon, much less the books that the Catholic Church has chosen to include in it to the exclusion of no telling how many that were destroyed. The only thing mentioned as being "inspired of God" is the Jewish Scriptures which is what Jesus and all the apostles and even the earliest church fathers preached the gospel from.

The fact is that only the known 7 authentic letters of Paul can even be said to be of any authority. Everything else was written too late, post 70AD is too late, because the spirit gifts were removed by then. The spirit gifts were removed when Paul had completed the "great commission", as he said, "For he will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth" - Rom. 9:28. It was meant for only that one generation as a witness and that's all.

I hope you don't mind if I don't answer your other long messages. It's nothing against you personally but I just don't bother with long copy/paste articles from apologist websites.

[Mercia2]

Corky, on Jun 17 2009, 09:42 PM, said:

Mercia2, on Jun 17 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

Quote

Why four gospels? Why not one, like Paul says. Because of the four winds, the four directions of the compass? Well, that's what the Catholics decided, wasn't it? How do we know that they didn't destroy the "one" gospel of Paul? After all, they did destroy dozens of "spurious" gospels (what they considered spurious anyway). I don't think we can actually ever know - even if a copy of it was actually found, I doubt that anyone would accept it.

That is starting with the assumption of an atheist. If you believe their is a God then you believe the one thing He will have preserved and even helped formulate would be what He gave us, His Word.

There is no reason to believe that God would preserve any of the NT canon, much less the books that the Catholic Church has chosen to include in it to the exclusion of no telling how many that were destroyed. The only thing mentioned as being "inspired of God" is the Jewish Scriptures which is what Jesus and all the apostles and even the earliest church fathers preached the gospel from.

The fact is that only the known 7 authentic letters of Paul can even be said to be of any authority. Everything else was written too late, post 70AD is too late, because the spirit gifts were removed by then. The spirit gifts were removed when Paul had completed the "great commission", as he said, "For he will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth" - Rom. 9:28. It was meant for only that one generation as a witness and that's all.

I hope you don't mind if I don't answer your other long messages. It's nothing against you personally but I just don't bother with long copy/paste articles from apologist websites.

Witnessing Spirit gifts may have ceased then? But that is just part of many aspects and manifestations of the Holy Spirit *(i.e witnessing gifts), we are told. You are saying the equivalent of saying that because Mercia2 never smiles as from today therefore Mercia2 no longer exists or functions in another way? That is confusing (an effect) of the Spirit as negation of the Holy Spirit, period.

Christadelphians believe, (as I understand it), that the Holy Spirit is Gods active influencing force in the world and as I understand the symbolism in the Old Testement the Holy Spirit is called "the hand of God". So you are making a couple of logic leaps to first assume the idea they ceased in 70AD is correct and secondly and most importantly to equate an EFFECT only of the Holy Spirit (witnessing gifts ceasing) with the negation of the Holy Spirit in its entirety i.e to influence (at times) men involved in the formation of the Bible as we know it today. This is what I believe is meant by that which is made perfect (the formation of the Bible) then inspiration in that sense will cease (apart from when we pray for it ofcourse), I agree with the Christadelphians that Holy Spirit (witnessing) gifts and prophecy has long ceased, but not the Holy Spirit (as to enlighten us, as and when God believes it beneficial) as we study His Word (represented by the bridgegrooms with oil in their lamps at the second coming), when we ask, or how else do we believe prayers are answered?


Whereas the miraculous gifts were to fail, cease, and vanish away (1 Cor. 13:8)
God's Word will not pass away (Matt. 24:35).

They were for a time of partial knowledge (1 Cor. 13:9)
but by the Word we have complete knowledge (2 Tim. 3:6-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).

They pertained to a time of childish speaking and thinking which were to be put away (1 Cor. 13:11),
whereas the Word of God provides maturity (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Heb. 5: 12-6:5).

The gifts were for a time when Christians saw darkly and knew in part (1 Cor. 13: 12),
but by the Word we may see clearly and know fully (Eph. 3:3-5; Rom. 16:25 26; Heb. 4: 12).

The miraculous spiritual gifts were not to abide (1 Cor. 13: 13),
but the Word of God abides forever (1 Pet. 1:23).


So the Spirit (witnessing gifts) ceased when God decided the Bible was perfect, or as near to it as necessary allowing for free will in doubters, but that does not mean the Holy Spirit (Gods active infuencing power) in the world ever ceased or prayers could not be answered and the Word says we need the same Spirit that raised Christ (the supernatural power of God) if we are also to be saved and Luke 11:13 offers it as a gift to those who "ask" - but that does not mean we will see authentic witnessing gifts again.

Edited by Mercia2, 17 June 2009 - 10:32 PM.

[Mark Taunton]

Corky, on Jun 17 2009, 10:42 PM, said:

The fact is that only the known 7 authentic letters of Paul can even be said to be of any authority. Everything else was written too late, post 70AD is too late, because the spirit gifts were removed by then.

No. Scripture provides multiple lines of evidence against your view:

- The letter to the Hebrews was clearly written before AD70 - it mentions the priests still performing sacrifices under the Law, which was impossible after the temple was destroyed.

- Peter mentions Paul's letters, and describes them as scriptures.

- Paul quotes Luke's gospel (1 Tim 5:18 is from Luke 10:7), so the first letter to Timothy was written after Luke's record was. Moreover, Paul calls Luke's account "scripture", using the same word as in 2 Tim 3.

- Luke mentions other records about Jesus being compiled, at the start of his account, so at least two of Mark, Matthew and John were written even earlier.

You need to take these items of evidence into account. You recently used scriptures such as Matthew and Mark as if they supported your view in some matters. Choosing now to denigrate them and deny their authority is wholly inconsistent - you are just picking and choosing to suit your whim. Be consistent, Corky!

[Mercia2]

Thankyou Mark.